Obama's Movement
Home | Articles | Proposals

Obama's Movement

Proposals for Post-election Activities

Recommendations to the National Office

In my previous recommendations, I’ve touched on both strategic and tactical issues. In this piece, I elaborate on these concerns.

The difference between strategies and tactics is often confused. As James Fallows pointed out, John McCain got it backwards when in one of the debates, “I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.” Fallows pointed out that McCain’s campaign emphasized short-term tactics, while Obama stuck consistently to a coherent long-term strategy.

Seth Godin clarifies the difference with a skiing analogy: “Carving your turns better is a tactic. Choosing the right ski area in the first place is a strategy.”

So I define “strategy” as a longer-term plan to achieve a goal, such as having a fun day skiing or winning an election, and “tactic” as an immediate action to help achieve that goal.

Because both strategies and tactics should be geared toward the same goal, they require clarity concerning the ultimate goal. With regard to the Obama-inspired movement and its yet-to-be-determined organizational structure, agreement on our goal is critical. Shorter-term and immediate goals need to serve as means to that goal.

As I argued in “Our Mission,” I believe that when Barack has called for us to “to transform the nation,” he has articulated an inspiring long-term goal. The other elements of the proposed mission statement, “reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, mobilizing millions of voices to call for meaningful change, and restoring our sense of common purpose,” serve as means to that end.

But what does “transform the nation” mean? Various dictionaries offer the following definitions for transform:

• Metamorphose, like a person into a bug.
• Change the form or nature of.
• Change into a wholly different form or appearance.
• Change completely the nature or appearance of.

So what would it mean to change the United States of America into a wholly different form? Is that achievable? I believe so.

On the campaign trail, Barack and Joe sometimes spoke about “changing the system in Washington,” and “changing the health care system.” The next logical step, as implied by Barack’s affirming the transformation of our entire nation, is to talk about fundamentally changing our entire social system, including all of our major institutions such as our families, schools, media, and corporations. We live in a self-perpetuating social system that includes our major institutions as well as our culture and ourselves as individuals, for we reinforce the system with our decisions and actions.

How can we change our entire social system? Barack pointed the way when he called for “restoring our sense of common purpose.” Systems have a particular function and social systems, since humans are purposeful creatures, have a purpose.

We don’t have to start from scratch. The Preamble to our Constitution offers a great starting point. We only have to restore that statement as our nation’s mission, even if we update the language. It declares (emphasis added):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To my mind, the single phrase “promote the general welfare,” sums it up.

We must “restore our sense of common purpose” because we’ve lost it. We need to bring it back because another sense of purpose prevails in our society today. One can deduce that purpose from the dynamic that drives our society, as one can deduce the purpose of a tree by its fruit. Our society is currently geared first of all toward perpetuating the wealth and power of those who are already wealthy and powerful.

Greed and the lust for power are thoroughly interwoven. Other goals become secondary. The result is a process of modernization that produces ever more egoism, individualism, fragmentation, competition, hardship, and suffering. Without abolishing the profit motive or the drive for empowerment, we need to switch our priorities and establish as primary goals that have been relegated to inferior status. As Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy tried to do, we need to clearly, firmly, and finally establish “promote the general welfare” as our primary purpose.

Then we need to reform all of our institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that purpose. We can, for example, as other countries like Germany do, require corporations to serve the public interest and empower their workers as well as earn a profit, even if means changing corporate charters, which are issued by the government. And as Barack has addressed with his comments on self-development, we need to change ourselves to become more caring and less selfish.

So it seems to me that to talk about “transforming the nation” implies “changing The System.” How else could we metamorphose the nation, or change it into a wholly different form? A nation is more than the government. It is “a people” who share common customs, origins, and history. To transform the nation we must change everything, including ourselves.

While affirming the long-term goal of transformation, our movement will need to adopt a “majoritarian” strategy by mobilizing support tactically for specific progressive demands that are already supported by a majority of people nationwide. A vital form of leadership, well demonstrated by Barack, is helping an organization (or a society) to articulate and act on a consensus.

At the same time, we can avoid cutting off relations with folks who adopt a more radical stance. Different people exercise different kinds of leadership. Vanguards persuade people to do what they would otherwise not be inclined to do. Guides lead people on a path after they choose to take it. Teachers open minds to new possibilities. Mentors give occasional advice on request. Innovators lead by example. Writers and other cultural workers expand awareness and inspire action. Gadflies provoke and goad others into action. Prophets and witnesses challenge communities to be consistent with their professed ideals. All of these roles are helpful.

As I see it, however, our Obama-inspired movement needs to be based on bringing together people who want to focus on winning objectives that already have majority support, even if it involves compromise. When we can do so, we can form alliances with individuals and organizations that are based on a different approach. As Barack says, “Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Or, as Michael Moore recently said, "I'd rather put my lot down with the majority of Americans who know that something is wrong and want things to change.”

This approach can bridge the gap between liberals and radicals. Through a series of gradual reforms, we can eventually alter the basic structure of our society, create a qualitatively new world, and empower all people – like adding heat to water can eventually transform it into steam.

Liberals and radicals need not waste time arguing with each other. While dealing with immediate needs, we can move toward structural changes that will prevent problems and reduce the need for stopgap measures. We can support short-term reforms that improve people’s lives as one step toward fundamental transformation. While doing so, we need to talk about both our long-term and short-term goals.

Advocating a short-term reform without at the same time advocating longer-term transformation promotes the impression that only the particular short-term demand at hand matters. This approach leads people to being satisfied when they win that demand (or discouraged when they lose).

Instead, we can make it clear to everyone and constantly remind ourselves that we will never be satisfied (or disheartened) and continue to push for more improvements. Even after the transition to a fundamentally transformed global society, we’ll still need to make further progress and work to protect our gains.

We see what is on the horizon only vaguely. By the time we get to where we’re headed, what we see has changed. Only ideologues claim to know precisely what will work best down the road. As conditions change, our proposals for reforms in public policy may need to change. So flexibility is essential. Transformation is a never-ending process.

The pendulum of history is swinging. We need to get in synch with it and push that pendulum so hard that it breaks the historical pattern and keeps moving in a progressive direction without swinging back.

If we build a mass movement that generates real momentum by winning major victories one after the other, we can expand what seems possible and open the door to reforms that are now minority positions. Exactly which minority positions will garner majority support in the future remains to be seen.

External progress and internal unity have an uncomfortable relationship to each other. By concentrating on advancing progressive positions that have majority support, we can resolve that tension. The science of public-opinion polling can help in that regard.

There is no necessity to support any position that has majority support. We can be selective by choosing only those positions that are progressive and consistent with Barack’s campaign promises, as articulated in the Democratic Party platform. By adopting a majoritarian strategy, however, we can adopt the visionary stance of affirming “systemic change” without losing our credibility with the mainstream, because we will illustrate what we mean by backing positions that have majority support.

Toward that end, we'll need a grand new coalition that could on occasion pull together everyone: the Democratic Party, labor, women, civil rights, environment, MoveOn, ACORN, faith-based groups, others, and, if it forms, the new independent organization that emerges out of the Chicago planning session. Hopefully, the new body that emerges from the Obama campaign, whether it is a transformed Democratic Party or a new org, will be strong enough to lead this coalition. Regardless, we’ll need all hands on deck. I present one way to craft this kind of coalition in my proposal for a Million Member Monthly Mobilization.

To my mind, the foundation of our efforts should be building precinct-based networks year-round. Even just a few people can get to know their neighbors and conduct outreach, voter registration, education, social events, block parties, organizing, community service, and political action each month. No one person need break her or his back. A few hours a week could make a big difference toward cultivating the kind of relationships that pay off come Election Day or, perhaps a Week of Action. One tactic would be to knock on doors and invite neighbors to watch one of Barack’s weekly addresses and discuss it afterwards, while collecting phone numbers in order to call people next time. And if two or three people worked at it consistently, they could soon have a handful of people in their core group and proceed to do a superlative job with their precinct.

Each of these precinct teams could gather monthly with others in their neighborhood (or perhaps town in rural areas) to share a meal, develop supportive friendships, and decide together on their joint political action, while also engaging in community service, whether individually, in small groups, or in the large group. During these gatherings, members could report on their precinct work, compare notes, and share ideas.

This kind of low-cost, person-to-person contact, grounded in active listening, is extremely valuable. Perhaps after months of knocking doors and leaving invitations when no one is home in some Republican areas a precinct worker may have found only a few neighbors to come to an event. But that would be a beginning. And to simply reach out and convincingly tell someone, “I want to want to hear what you think,” without saying much about what you think (unless asked) can plant seeds. It can communicate to the other, “Hey, that Obama guy ain’t so crazy after all. She seems to be a good person.” Then maybe next year, they do come to an event.

Paying attention to when people move in nearby, welcoming them, offering to assist them, and registering them to vote at their new address can be another part of a precinct worker’s regular routine. And when people move out, the worker can try to get their contact information, pass that on to the central database, and keep in touch with their former neighbor.

Motivating folks to do these little tasks month-after-month is not easy. But if they were part of a nationwide movement, with tens of thousands of people doing the same thing and reporting on their efforts so that everyone would know they were not alone, we could motivate people to do this steady work and build a real grassroots coalition.

Some of the reporting on this precinct work could be posted publicly, perhaps on a Google Doc. In this way, various groups, like MoveOn, the Democratic Party, and labor groups, that often overlap in their precinct work could reduce the duplication. Central coordination is prohibited by law. But if one group sees on the public record that another group is working a particular precinct thoroughly, the first group might decide to concentrate on another precinct instead. Or workers from more than one organization might get in touch with one another and coordinate informally, without central direction, in a way that would not violate the law.

Mostly likely, transforming this nation will require this kind of consistent, face-to-face work. Together, we can.

Comments: To give feedback or make a suggestion concerning this page, click here.