Organizing

Earlier in comments, I promised perhaps a theory of organization -- and for lots of younger folk, I realize that is something one might wish to skip over -- but if you want power, which is the objective of any sort of politics -- you have to pay attention. 

First time I met Paul Wellstone was in 1969 at a little conference in a cafe half way between Northfield and the Cities where some of us met to discuss Student Internships.  Paul was new on the scene -- I was director of a large Civil Rights organization founded in Churches, and with all the church schools in the cities, I could place a substantial number of internes.  But we talked -- we established that we both knew and admired Myles Horton who had founded Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, and perhaps more philosophically, I had studied at Horton's Danish school (Roskilde 1932) in 1959-60.  Now Roskilde is a Danish Labor Hojskole -- (a concept, not something to translate) based in the Grundvigian notion of Adult Education -- and sponsored by both the Social Democratic Party and the Trade Unions.  Paul knew well the Horton involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, of which he had been part -- I knew some of that or much of it -- but I also knew where Horton got his ideas and what part of them worked for the movement.  I don't think there were many efforts where Paul and I did not mesh -- though at times we had great disagrements. 

Essentially my point is that Party is always about winning elections, and that movememts are independent, and should remain so.  Too many movements such as Labor. Environment, and Women's Rights got too close to party and equated party dominance with success or victory --  when in fact victory in party circles is not a victory at all -- for Party elections are that. 

And that is why I recall Wellstone.  He always made it clear to groups he helped (Welfare Mom's, people trying to defeat a powerline, banks bankrupting family farmers, Union Packing House Workers on strike against Hormel), that they had to independently sustain themselves -- but that the DFL Party was a megaphone.  If you could engage the party, use it, and get it on your side you simply had a bigger megaphone, it was not at all a victory -- played right it was a way to victory.  (An Asset).  Don't expect it to do more than you bring to the table.  A party is not a place for idealism.  Ultimately Paul brought enough to the table to get elected a Senator.  But folk need to understand that his election was based on 20 years of organizing. 

To critique Progressive circles today is hard -- so much is based on the day to day -- to little on the kind of thing that Myles Horton did in Tennessee, which was to organize the only place black's and white's could meet iin the pre 64 South, in essentially a camping ground in equity, Style was at conferences where everyone sat in rocking chairs.  The style was the circle, derived from the Danish Folkhojskole student circle, which was in turn a revision of the Viking notion of the "Ting" -- also a circle of decision makers.  Horton Hosted many elites at Highlander -- Eleanor Roosevelt from the mid 30's and her many friends to be exact -- but they always were part of the circle.  And that was philosophical as well as real estate. 

Now Horton is someone Bill Moyers tried to make a little more well known without much success -- but he graduated from a small Presbyterian school in Tennessee about 1918, went to Chicago to work with Jane Addams at Hull House (and with the newly founded peace movement) -- he went on to do a Masters with Robert Park who was the lead Sociologist at U of Ch -- but then he was not satisfied, so he went to NYC and studied theology with Reinhold Niebuhr, and from there he went to Denmark to study Folkhojskoler, and then he retired to the Mountains of Tennessee to do it for the rest of his life.  Highlander was founded in 1933.  Till 1946 it was more or less about labor organization, but they it got clear that something had to be done about legal racism before one could deal with class matters and labor organization.  If you can ram race against labor matters, the emotions of race will always defeat economic interests.  So Highlander changed subject and course about 1946 and became a Civil Rights Center.  "We Shall Overcome" -- the tobacco worker's strike song, is copyrighted to Highlander.  The South still needs what Highlander used to be, a place that deals with education about class, economics literature and culture and much otherwise.  -- Just Informational, but Betty Friedan spent her first year out of college in the late 30's working at Highlander.  Of course we know it was where King and Rosa Parks studied in the 50's -- but there is so much more. 

Anyhow -- for those who want to be successful in 2006 -- please spend some time organizing, and learning about organization.  People join organizations for life -- not for a month or so around election time -- respect that.  A two month gig does not secure a pension.  Democrats need never forget that.  It is long run, long term -- read up on FDR. 

Our Democratic Problem is that we off shored the health care and the pension matter to the labor unions of the past, and they cannot do two things -- namely keep organizing the new working class -- and defending the perogatives of the past.  If Labor is a meaningful force they have to keep organizing the least advantaged -- but they cannot pay for the retirement of the old organized labor force.  We need to comprehend how that was totally underfunded, and why, and figure out how to do justice.  Bush is screwing us on this, because we are not looking at reality. 

   

Comments

[orionATL]

not signed

but this ocould only have been written by sara.

an interesting history which gives much to think about.

"it's a long run, long term..."

yes.

politics is a long distance run. discipline, steadiness, and persistence are key traits.

[whenwego]

Absolutely brilliant, this seperation of movement and party. Suddenly explains the dire straits of the liberal blogs to me. They try to toe the "party" line, but get very frustrated when party leaders like Hillary blow the movement line. With the realization that they are a movement and the Demo (end even the Repub) party can be the megaphones, perhaps there could be less frustration and more positive energy?

[janinsanfran]

Bravo Sara. A photo of my partner's mother talking labor economics with garment workers in the circle at Highlander hangs near my desk.

Contemporary organizing runs right into the collapse of social capital that Robert Putnam has documented. People nowadays don't join organizations for life -- they don't join organizations at all. Oh sure, they can be mobilized for particular ends, but the costs, in energy and cash, are genuinely higher than at some past periods. Not that we can therefore avoid the necessity of trying to build organization.

We are forced to constantly look for new models of organizing. When I worked for the United Farm Workers, Cesar Chavez sent some of us over to try to interview the Jehovah's Witnesses -- he wanted to know how they got those patient, stolid folks to stand on street corners for days on end with their magazines. Similarly, in today's climate, I look constantly for new models of organization that could be turned into force. The Leukemia Society's program of training sedentary persons to do endurance athletic activities like marathons is an interesting example. They raise zoodles of money but don't seem to know or want to turn that base into lobbying clout. Churches that have members and quasi-democratic polities are also interesting -- just watched my Episcopal diocese elect a bishop with great fascination. And you'll understand that as an outsider, I was fascinated to observe DFL caucuses.

Interesting idea that what hangs up labor is the need to both defend and organize. I think my friends in Unite-HERE who work with restaurant/food service workers would agree. Will have to think about my labor experience through that lens. Off the bat I don't think I can explain the split as I see it locally on the ground that way, but it may be so on a larger stage.

[Mimikatz]

It's a question of who uses whom, and who realizes it. Sara is absolutely right, and that line says it all.

Essentially my point is that Party is always about winning elections, and that movememts are independent, and should remain so. Too many movements such as Labor. Environment, and Women's Rights got too close to party and equated party dominance with success or victory -- when in fact victory in party circles is not a victory at all -- for Party elections are that.

But we are at an existential crisis in our Republic now, in a way we weren't in the "30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, or '70s. We have people in power who are bent on destroying the 2 party system, destroying the possibility of dissent, and delegitimizing the kind of organizing Sara talks about. That is why for me, until after the 2008 elections, Party takes precedence, although I absolutely agree about understanding the more limited goals of the Dem Party as such. Again, it's a question of who uses whom, and who understands that.

[JohnLopresti]

Time to organize to oust Norm Coleman. No way the tradition of Mondale and Wellstone should be allowed to rest in the decisionmaking of a Coleman who, with a 50-47 victory for the remainder of Wellstone's term, went on to vote for a surprising number of reactionary laws, and sided with the most regressive Frist gambits in other rulemaking matters; which is to say, he is not a moderate Republican, though preserves a few Democrat instincts from youth (supports CDBG 'pork').

There is a kind of gentrification which occurs in politics when a figure remains in place a long time. While it was nice to see some visages and power centers evanesce, the sequels from the opposing party have been less than beneficial for the country. I could cite what happened with Rosty and Daschle, but those histories still are being written.

Labor when organized has numerous drawbacks. I have sent my dues off and received in return nice brochures of bland gatherings of the executives in the union in posh resorts discussing politics in obfuscatory terms. Glad I dissociated from that union shop. Tho now I am an eworker in right to work state, i.e., my virtual presence is; I continue to reside where unions are strong. There is a new sphere of right to workism in espace, kind of a domestic outsourcing. Commercial leadership was eager to pick up on the neat cost efficiencies of the internet in my profession. Same hours, half the rate of pay.

I will have to check the Danish skol history. Sounds very continental and 1930ish neointellectual. Maybe the online discussion group is the equivalent.

[orionATL]

politics, i think, is determined by

economics, demographics, and culture.

in this case, demographics has a lot to do with the change from 1935 to 2006.

and this is why sara's suggestion of using the internet is such a good choice, maybe the only practical choice, to reconstitute political organizing.

as a practical matter, we live further apart from each other. we live further from our community spaces (library, church, high school gym). we commute longer distances. we have rather rigid work/travel schedules.

all of this, it seems to me, mitigates against participating,

let alone organizing.

or at least, makes participation or organization much more difficult.

from one viewpoint, this is a problem similar to that of renewing driver's licenses.

when there are only 50,000 adults in the city, you can probably do the job by person-to-clerk.

when you have 500,000 adults, it becomes physically difficult to do that job in the person-to-clerk mode.

nowadays,

driver's licenses are mailed out at renewal time. we no longer go to the county tax office or the state dept of trans office and wait in a long line.

if we did, at least in the large cities, we would wait for hours at a time; scheduled over days at a time.

using the internet, in much the same way it is used for "collecting" or aggregating political and social opinion at the next hurrah and similar sites, offers a chance to participate without having to physically transport oneself an inconvenient distance.

the internet provides a person flexibility and efficiency in

deciding how and to what extent to participate.

and it's warmer than driving around in january snowstorms.

[MissLaura]

Lovely and thought-provoking. I'll be sending this link out to a few people and looking forward to the discussions that result.

[orionATL]

sara--

a comment below on your posting from a young man just thirty who has done some political work in southwest virginia.

there IS another generation interested and willing to organize.

your comments provide depth and continuity to their own relatively "new" experiences.

"I thought it was a good posting... What she showed is an understanding of power and the ways that power is created, gathered and tended - which is separate from the ways that power is used. As she mentions, the Party apparatus is a way to gather power - which is connected to but independent of social movements. The social movements do two things: first, they provide fuel to the parties (providing ideas, motivation, money, etc) and they provide direction for how power should be wielded. If you are a movement and you are able to help elect people who support you then you can have a say in how the elected person's power is used.

I am familiar with the Highlander center and its history. In fact, while I was a JMU I had the opportunity to attend a workshop at Highlander Center on Environmental Justice, which was an incredible experience.

I also think she is right in her analysis of the labor movement. In fact, you see evidence of the tension between the old-line unions and the new unions (service workers and others) in the split that recently took place where 1/3 of the member unions of the AFL-CIO withdrew from the organization over disputes on how the labor movement should be organized internally and how much resources should be focused on organizing versus resources given to political parties. I happen to believe that the splinter groups have the right approach, and that until labor reorients itself and begins actively organizing the new economy that is will continue to be more and more marginalized. Only by aggressively organizing new members and new industries will the labor movement be able to achieve its goals of improving the quality of life and protecting the previously won benefits (I don't see the two as mutually exclusive but I do recognize the tension that exists between these two goals).

Lastly, I do believe that organizational membership is "sticky" and that once people join an organization they are much more inclined to stay with that group. Related to this is the thought-action-thought reinforcing loop, whose premise is that most people think what they do - and if you can get people to act (even in minor ways) you can cement their thoughts, which makes them more likely to act, which reinforces the thoughts further, etc... Perhaps this is one of the ways that internet organizing can be valuable, is that even the act of sending out or forwarding an email pulls people further into a group or organization.

The concept of long term organizing that the posting mentions is one that I whole heartedly agree with and is the primary reason that I am a monthly donor to the DNC's sustaining donor program (not much - maybe $20 per month) which has as its goal to place long term organizers (on 4 year terms) in most if not all of the 50 states, whose purpose is to strengthen the party building efforts, which is related to but not always directly connected to winning the next election. I think that Dean is exactly right in taking a longer term approach in building the party strength in "red" areas, because this lays the foundation for a sustained transition to progressive control at multiple levels of government, it pulls people into the party apparatus (as donors, volunteers and candidates) and it can force the opposition to use resources to defend previously "safe" territory which can make competing in the battleground states easier. As I have seen in my own work, the atrophication of the party apparatus at the local and state levels can have dramatic consequences in election results. In rural "red" areas, those localities with a strong party apparatus often have Democratic representation, while those with a weak Democratic party are inevitably Republican. This difference has little to do with the number of progressives in a given community and everything to do with how organized the progressives are and how they utilize the Democratic party as a megaphone.

Thanks for sending the post my way and hope my thoughts made some sense - to paraphrase Hemingway, I would have written a shorter posting if I had more time..."

[Sara]

Sorry to have not returned to the blog for a day -- Sinus and Allergy you know.

Anyhow, I have a love for Wouthwest Virginia -- my Mom was born in Ivanhoe, The Shot Tower at Austinville was once owned and operated by my family, and I've got cousins all around the area. No reason at all it should not have movements and more choices.

(And Yes, Sara frequently forgets to sign her posts)

Organizing around the existant labor unions may not actually be what attracts contemporary (Potentially)Progressive Americans. Last week somewhere I came upon the statistic that 20 million single women did not vote last year in 2004. What would happen if a "Single Woman's" organization got started and tried to packege a set of interests? (Not all that different really from Welstone's Rice County Welfare Mom's effort.) And not all that different from really old organizations such as the Grange (agricultural issues) or even many local business organizations.

I certainly agree that in 2008 Norm Coleman has to be run out of the Welstone Senate Seat. It is doable, and at this juncture it looks as if Al Franken is running for the seat. Mondale who represents Centerist DFL'ers mostly, is onboard, and lots of wheels are in motion. But first, Amy Klobuchar has to win the open seat that Mark Dayton is leaving in the 2006 election. Franken has moved home to Minnesota, got a condo, registered to vote, and attended his DFL precinct caucus. He is also doing the local dinner fund raising circut, meaning we do have professional entertainment at these events. And he is also doing events for "movement" groups. He will need those connections in 2008. One of his latest gigs was a fancy dinner for Republicans who had become Democrats in Olmsted County Minnesota. Why the conversions, well it seems the professionals and staff at Mayo Clinic actually like their science straight, and are for stem cell research under proper ethical guidelines. We picked up two House Members there in 2004 -- and now we need more converts. Coleman voting for special Judicially sanctioned feeding tubes for Terri Schivo did not convince that audience.

Organization picks up on matters like this, and links it with like issues -- but it does not necessarily end up seeing the Party as the only meaningful organization.