Following up this recent BMG thread, here is a BuzzFlash commentary on a new Rolling Stone piece about Obama’s (and by extension, Patrick’s) stewardship, or lack thereof, of supporters in the off years:
While Tea Partiers were in the streets shouting no to healthcare reform, OFAers were receiving email from the DNC requesting their signatures on a bland “statement of support.”
They didn’t keep the organization alive. They thought it was out there to use whenever they wanted to use it.
Please share widely!
That seems more like it from up in Gloucester. Sydney Asbury and Clare Kelly, who are now Campaign Manager (but who used to work for Sec. of Education Paul Reville) and Field Coordinator for the Patrick campaign, came to Gloucester in the early days of the administration to talk to community leaders about working with them on education issues. I remember because I spent time vouching for them and getting people to come meet with them.
<
p>They talked, went home, and then Secretary Reville, for whom Sydney Asbury worked through the end of 2008, decided he could dump a charter school that had received a bad evaluation from the Charter School Office in Gloucester.
<
p>Almost the entire leadership of the Gloucester field organization, from precinct captains to senate district coordinator, ended up in the Governor’s office last summer to voice their unhappiness at how the charter had been granted – and this was before Secretary Reville’s oft cited “that leaves Gloucester” email was uncovered.
<
p>Specific suggestions? Don’t ignore the people who were with you from the start, be behind the scenes triangulating amateur chess players, toss a school district under the bus because you hope it will further your agenda and allow you to “remain viable”, and then come around asking for more of our time and money.
<
p>
This was the suggestion I offered 13 months ago. At that time, I felt the timing was right to do it. Now, politically, not so much.
From where I sit now, the call to action that had every concerned Democrat excited and holding hearings for the platform feels like mere window dressing.
<
p>The bland, nonspecific document that was issued does not appear to have “listened” to the passionate grassroots who held hundreds of hearings and spent thousands of hours.
<
p>Don’t pretend to listen and then ignore us again, please.
<
p>And for those who try and tell me that the Platform as issued “did too listen” – PLEASE. I can read. I do appellate legal work for a living.
<
p>I could not find a single indicia of ‘listening’ or inclusion in that document. It was the unitary draft of a single writer, not a compendium.
<
p>No specifics is not inclusive – it is bland.
<
p>There are no specifics to call anyone to action in that Platform, or the speeches I am hearing from Governor Patrick.
<
p>Where is the courage and passion to be specific and address the real problems of ordinary people on the ground?
<
p>A fine example that could be talked more about is moving the student loan money that is available away from profits for banks, leaving more available for students. OK! But more specifics.
<
p>What do I mean by “specifics” – well, the format is:
<
p>First, identify a problem, then call for a specific solution.
Another successful, but incomplete*, example:
<
p>Problem: Kids aging out of foster care with no where to go.
<
p>Solution: Fix local law to comply with federal law to get more money.
<
p>Gap in the Governor’s response: Failure to announce any concrete, local initiative or program.
<
p>For example, a low cost program could be a subsidy to families whose children have grown up and left, who could provide housing to children in state care who turn 18 in a very economical manner. However, while qualifying for more federal money is good, withut concrete local programs, no call to action or to the better nature of citizens to actually do something there is no engagement, or certainty that the added federal money won’t just melt away into the general fund. No grassroots engagement where there could have been. So far, a missed opportunity to actually do something and call on supporters to do something [lots of retirement power in the boomer generation looking for causes and real places to make concrete contributions].
<
p>Hint: What keeps grassroots actively engaged is having real work to do, that is appreciated, and concrete, and a call to action to make life better for other citizens in believable, specific, functional ways.
*In my opinion, this problem/solution was incomplete because there was no local program, no call to action for supporters to grasp, and no actual beds created for these kids.
All the precinct coordinators, etc. could have been on the front lines of efforts to contact legislators to support the executive’s proposals and recruit others in the district to do the same. MassEquality, for example often sends emails which have a generic message, but for me specifically list MY rep’s and senator’s contact info along with information about their currently stated positions on the matter. Messages would need to indicate bill number and talking points, possibly including how it will specifically help my district.
When will the office in Worcester (which had a packed opening BTW) be fulling operational? I want to be on the phones all summer while im out of school!
Considering the convention is June 5th and that starts the public primary season, I’m sure a campaign like the Governor’s will be up and running by then.
I don’t have any money to contribute. It’s gone. All of it. No, not $50, not $10, not even $5. My wife and are, literally, struggling to figure out whether we can even continue to live in the United States, never mind Boston.
<
p>I gave generously to the Democratic Party during the 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 campaigns. With the notable exception of President Barrack Obama, I feel as though I would have gotten more satisfaction from the rest of those contributions by piling them up in the front yard, squirting lighter fluid on them, and roasting hot dogs on the (little) bonfire.
<
p>I don’t even read most of the Democratic Party missives any longer, especially those with senders like “Howard Dean”, “Bill Clinton”, “James Carville”, etc. I don’t read them because ALL they contain is yet another fund-raising solicitation. Our “official” organizations are, as nearly as I can tell, worse than NPR during pledge season.
<
p>I don’t know what the answer is. What the DSCC, DCCC, moveon.org, and all the rest is doing is NOT the answer.
<
p>I’ll tell you one thing. Even if and when I do get on my financial feet again, I’m not giving a penny more to any organization that funds the campaign of “Democrats” like Ben Nelson. I understand all about the tactics, and the challenges of running Democrats in red-leaning states, and all that. That’s not what my feeling is about. I don’t do business with or support people who betray my trust. If bozos like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are crucial to the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party has much bigger problems than their participation in the party is going to solve.
<
p>I like blogs like this because I have the feeling that decision makers read them, follow the exchanges, and pay attention to the discussion. I don’t demand agreement. Barney Frank has come down on the opposite of an issue from me more than once. He does, however, listen to me. He argues with me. I feel as though I have a voice, and I feel as though my voice matters. The most insulting thing, to me, about the recent special election campaign was the way that Martha Coakley popped in here, posted a press release, and moved along. MAJOR FAIL. Her behavior here and in public during the campaign confirmed all the negative stereotypes that I heard about her. She won’t get my vote again for any office in any election.
<
p>Here’s my suggestion: when you tell me you want to work on my behalf, address my issues, respond to my priorities, hear my hope, frustration, and pain, then don’t you dare turn around and use my candor and vulnerability to advance your agenda (especially at the expense of mine) and feather your nest. I’m really really tired of the bait-and-switch.
<
p>That’s my issue with the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and that’s my issue with the Deval Patrick administration. I’ve met him several times, I like him. I respect him. I think he may well be the best candidate on the ballot. It doesn’t change the reality that my party is working to advance a different and competing agenda and value system than mine (and perhaps different from his), and they typically don’t even have the courage to say so.
<
p>That’s my two cents. You get what you pay for.
At least according to my cousin. He and his wife could not afford to retire where they had lived and worked. Got it.
I’ve taken myself off all the progressive email lists and I won’t give to anyone this year. Not only can I not afford it, I’m tired of giving money with no results. We get progressives elected and then they are incompetent about changing anything.
if we fail to support these progressives, then what is the alternative? Are we giving the keys to the kingdom back to the Republicans, by default? Just how acceptable an alternative is that? At least ineffectual progressive legislators are making proposals we can, for the most part, support. Think back a couple of years to remember what Republican control brought. It beat me how to get what I want, what we should have.
I know, I know… this is the like the Third Rail of Naderian Inanity to hard-boiled activists, not to be touched by anybody with half a political brain. But if the Democrats keep neglecting to support core Democratic issues (or keep doing so ineffectively), there could be a split-off to the Green and other parties. I’m talking nationally and locally. Change may be coming in ways we didn’t plan on.
Don’t give to the DTrip or DSCC. Find candidates who inspire you, who care about what you care about, candidates in whom you believe.
<
p>Then, give them money, time, and energy.
I think this is true, in part:
<
p>
<
p>But I think the danger is too much diffusion. Part of the attraction of the Patrick (and Obama) campaigns is that the Thousands, as hubspoke put it were just that: they/we were all doing something, a clear thing, together. You weren’t just alone out there in your issue silo, or your community group, feeling like you were on your own, or that you were working with only a few fellow travelers. It’s more fun, and I think people (including me) feel way more useful (and more potentially successful) doing stuff that lots of other people are also doing. So I think if there were one or two civic engagement initiatives that the Thousands could have plugged into, that might have worked for many. Otherwise, not so much I think.
<
p>My preference, and what I think should be done now, is: (1) pick (through a series of town halls? community forums?) one or two really big reforms that form the centerpiece of the next term and that address one of the key crises that people are facing these days (or maybe lots of little things that add up to one big thing or one Agenda for Renewal or some such), campaign on it/them explicitly, and plan to organize around the Agenda after the (hopefully successful) election. And by organize, I mean, engage people in the same types of campaign activities as they were doing – phone banking, canvassing, house partying, all with the aim of pressuring the legislature to enact the Agenda. Sure you cheese some (insecure) legislators off, but you can’t make (cheese?) omelettes without cracking some eggs!
<
p>And (2) for those not eager to keep politicking, but who still want to be involved, create a Citizen’s Campaign for . . . something, and organize around that.
Jim,
I endorse your idea. At this juncture, we progressives are certainly tired of non-performance on key issues on the national level and I think we could and would dig in on One or Two Big Things on the state level – arrived at by the Guv and his team via talking with people at town halls or forums and – this is important – responding to concerns that are expressed by or resonate with many people at those forums. I.e. issues with clear grassroots support. I’d like to see the Governor lead on this with a very clear, focused message and specific calls to action. And I’d like to this unfold soon.
Your approach to education reform is the train you’ve elected to ride, so you might just hope that that gets you elected. Continue to appeal to corporate foundations and the anti-government groups such as the Pioneer Institute, who love your charter program. (The idea also appeals to civically disengaged Democrats too so not to worry.)
<
p>Hold on tight to Sec. Reville and his empty platitudes about educational reform. He proves your pragmatic willingness to do what it takes to get elected whatever the immediate harm to a few communities or the long term harm to the Commonwealth. Or is it opportunism? Don’t sweat the difference–your Secretary doesn’t.
<
p>Use your pratical skills of talking out of both sides of your mouth. Remember in this regard your performance on the Gloucester charter, where you condemned the process and called for revocation while your Secretary countered that very position in statements before the Board of Education.
<
p>Remember the words of Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time. So, even if you’ve lost a number of other public school advocates who worked for your campaign four years ago, when you spoke convincingly about the need to reform chapter 70 and the charter funding system, you can potentially fool others long enough to get yourself re-elected. You can certainly hope that the your Republican adversary is bad enough to bring out your disillusioned supporters. (But you’ll be aware that for some, there’s no realistic prospect that anyone flying the flag of reactionary Republicanism could do so much damage as yourself, doing the same work under a false flag of “progressivism”.)
<
p>Seriously, though, why not do the honorable thing and withdraw? Leave the race to a Democrat who is willing to fight for the principles you espouse but are unable to act on.
Fear is where the anger came from. Anger feels powerful, and generally has fear underneath for motivation.
<
p>Cain killed able out of fear and jealousy in the biblical story.
<
p>Teabaggers are trying to kill healtcare reform because they are afraid that rather than making healthcare better, it will be worse and they will have even less control over the care they receive.
<
p>The courage to say yes, we are one another’s keepers, and that the purpose of government is for the strong to take care of the weak, and the courage to keep proposals simple, to avoid backroom deals and spurious compromises and to build a narrative of inclusion – where has that been?
<
p>The message needs to be “As Americans, we have always taken care of one another, and this is the way to do it” followed by specifics, not pablum.
I’m wondering if the idea of a post-election grassroots organization with a focus on the elected candidate is a problem in itself. The concept, at least as far as I got it, in both the Patrick case (which barely got off the ground) and the Obama case (in whatever state OFA exists at this time) was that the grassroots were to help the elected official push his agenda. But what happens when that elected official’s actions clash with the consensus of the grassroots (casinos, charter schools; financial bailouts, Afghanistan, health care)? It seems that to hold the “club” together, there needs to be a way to also put pressure on the former candidate when necessary.
<
p>I don’t know what such an organization would look like or how it would be formed, especially since it would no longer have the candidate as the figurehead. But the idea is that it would represent the (consensus of the) ideals of the people who got the person elected and not that person him/herself.
And I think there’s something fundamentally screwy in the idea that people in power need to “care” or “feed” the people in power. Enduring, successful political movements–unions, progressive era reformers, civil rights, anti-nuke, environmental–have not relied on the energy of determined politicians.
<
p>If a movement truly needs energy from the State House or the White House to remain viable, it’s not much of a movement.