A couple of days ago, Patrick advisor Doug Rubin, Baker advisor Rob Gray, and political reporters Frank Phillips and Joe Battenfeld did an hour-long panel discussion about the just-concluded campaign. The whole thing is quite interesting and worth watching, if you have some time.
Here is an excerpt on a topic near and dear to my own heart, namely, keeping the grassroots active and engaged. If you had a few minutes to bend Doug Rubin’s ear on this topic, what would you tell him?
Please share widely!
I would suggest to Doug the same thing I suggested in the earlier lengthy discussion we had on BMG, namely that you can’t expect to “hold onto” a substantial politically active grassroots for four years because such a segment doesn’t exist. Only a small proportion of the populace is interested in electoral politics or the minutiae of governing most of the time. In the run-up to, and during, election season is when much a much broader swath of the electorate does get excited and motivated. It’s all here in this BMG diary from January 5, 2009 titled “Patrick to Obama: don’t repeat our mistakes vis-a-vis the grassroots”.
<
p>So what to do? My idea is for the Governor to encourage civic engagement (writ large, the broad definition, which includes all kinds of community civic activity and volunteering) via his community outreach or civic engagement office or whatever it is called these days. I would set up a program named something like Massachusetts Residents Linking Up & Getting Involved in Local Neighborhoods & Communities in which a template and support is provided for organizing residents to identify and prioritize local needs and form project working groups. This meets multiple needs, including the need to build social capital, meet and rely on neighbors in tough times like these and accomplish some tangible, good things for the community. These local residents will remember who it was that helped them get together and accomplish good stuff. Voila! – the Guv gets the credit.
<
p>With the administration flush with a strong re-election victory and new energy (JFK might call it vim and vigor), the timing may be right.
I really like the idea of going hyper-local. You can be extremely effective with just a few very engaged. I think it’s important for people to get involved in their communities and neighborhoods and to do the hard work of meeting these needs.
<
p>But that will engage, realistically, only the local folks, the people who are already engaged (DTC members, those already hooked up with OFA or DFA or their community boards, or the young guns looking to join these ranks). You’ll get some new people — mostly friends of friends — but not a critical mass. Speaking electorally for a moment, these are your “high frequency voters.”
<
p>The folks that Patrick and Obama engaged with for the first time, the people that made their campaigns so special in ’06 and ’08, were the “low frequency voters.” Your African-American community members engaged for the first time, or your students who don’t always show up to vote, or your progressive folks disenchanted with the process, or your more moderate Reagan Democrats who had had it with Republican extremism, etc.
<
p>These “lower frequency voters” are the folks I really want to figure out how to engage. They’re the people who just tuned in 06/08 that now vote. They’re the people who just heard about knocking on doors. How, then, do we engage them in the process of governing?
<
p>I think you have to do that with sexy, bold, state-wide initiatives that’ll make headlines. It has to be policy that is sexy enough for people to want to get involved in the process, big enough that it will be relevant to their lives across the state (rural, suburban or urban), and simplified enough so that people can talk about it at barber shops or at dinner in the suburbs. It also has to be something that fits in with the messaging from the 2010 campaign. Announce big plans soon, work out the policy differences with the legislature, and when there inevitably is a sticking point, make that your campaign to engage.
<
p>There are a lot of worthy campaigns or policy areas it could be. For just one, I’d suggest that the governor turn the next phase of healthcare reform — cost and quality control — into part of his effort to engage the grassroots. Here’s why:
<
p>It’s big: everybody feels the pain of high costs; from the national debate people have a pretty clear idea of what many of the problems are. It’s bold: it’d be first in the nation again, and the Senate President is on board with the idea, but it will still take monumental political effort to accomplish. You can keep it simple: while it’s an extremely thorny, complex policy issue, there are ways to simplify the language of health reform. I think we can all understand the need to improve quality and reduce costs — for our families, small businesses, and communities. And, of course, health insurance reform of a few years ago was just the first step. Now it’s time to “finish what we started.”
<
p>Just my $.02.
…but I think we need more civics education to impress upon students that EVERYONE has a role to play, even if for some people it is simply to vote, preferably educating themselves on the candidates and issues first.
<
p>I always have a hard time with these discussions because I can’t relate. I’ve been registered since just before I was 18 and don’t need a specific reason or incentive. To me its just as much an obligation of me as a citizen as for an elected representative to answer roll calls. I vote because my calendar tells me its election day. Like other days, Election Day has its rituals. On Halloween you trick-or-treat; on Thanksgiving you have a turkey dinner; on Christmas you open presents; on Election Day YOU VOTE – it’s that simple!
I’m wired the same way, and I also think that we should do better at teaching civics in our schools. That’s a longer term solution. I think the question this thread is trying to address right now has a little bit more to do with how to wield grassroots power and increase civic participation while promoting the Governor’s shorter term agenda.
First, David, thanks for posting our video. Hope folks can check out the whole video at http://www.prfinishline.com and comment there (or here).
<
p>Doug was very honest and made a great point, as the Governor did in the Globe last Sunday, that they let the grassroots wither last time. Much of that, of course, was because legislative leaders hammered the Governor privately and publicly when he brought the grassroots to the State House to advocate for the Municipal Partnership bill.
<
p>Doug is exactly right to say that they can bring the Governor around the state and get him to engage with people as he governs. And that, I think, will have a tremendous impact on this Governor’s ability to govern. He is clearly energized by real people and brings their real life challenges to life every time he gets outside the building.
<
p>But as Doug rightly acknowledged, whether that means they can get 300 people in Nurse’s Hall for a rally on a state budget item or health care payment reform is an entirely different beast. And, more to the point, whether the Governor being out and about will have any impact on legislative leaders or the House/Senate rank-and-file who will decide whether the Governor’s second-term agenda advances remains to be seen.
<
p>What people need to know, though, is clear: This Governor is going to change how things are done in the second term. And Doug’s language at our forum and the Governor’s to the Globe in that Sunday piece (the ‘get over it’ line in particular) show he’s talking like a man who won’t be cowed by the Speaker and Senate President a second time. My guess, the legislative leaders won’t be as reactionary in response and, with an eye on their own reelections in two years when Democrats will be focused on turning out huge numbers of support President Obama, will look to find ways themselves to show that they, too, are engaged with real people rather than focusing on the inside-the-building power struggle.
<
p>That dynamic will be the one to watch come January, for sure.
<
p>Thanks again, David, great topic.
and thank you again for posting the video of the whole hour! Great job on moderating as well – it was a really interesting discussion.
<
p>Here again is the link for the entire video.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>How about starting out by responding to letters, returning phone calls, and involving long time issue activists who are not employed by vendors?
Could you hum a few more bars? Thanks.
For example, if your company runs group homes, and gets contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so, or provides foster homes, and gets contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so – then you are on the committees, or have your requests for appointments honored.
<
p>If you are merely a family member, or a court appointed attorney for indigent children, during the past four years anyway, you don’t get appointments, your letters don’t get replies, and your phone calls didn’t get answered.
<
p>The reality is, however, that it actually costs less to provide services like assistance with housing, or outreach therapy than it does to place kids in foster care, and there are folks in group homes who could be at home with respite and other services that cost less.
<
p>There are parents, and solo practitioners such as myself who testify at hearings, spend our own time and money without payment, recompense, or any “contract” to research and draft white papers – what I call “issue activists” or “citizen activists” and to the best of my knowledge, folks like me were left out in the cold – I know I was.
<
p>When I provided information in Novemeber of 2008 about the elimination of the role of Guardian Ad Litem for Education – research, copies of source documents, etc. and requested a response, I never got a written response at all. I admit I played phone tag very briefly with a junior staffer who ultimately stopped returning my calls and never met with me. In frustration, I posted about this here, as an open letter, see my open letter to Gov. Patrick
<
p>This problem remains – as does the reality that without enough treatment beds, outreach therapy teams, parent aides (etc) families that could have been saved for under $4000 a year become foster care beds that cost $23,000 a year.
<
p>The “school to prison” pipeline is similar. Prisons are an industry with tremendous power. Massachusetts spends more on incarceration then education – if vocational/technical education were required and folks could earn a living a huge drop in recidivism would result. Why not try it? Each prison bed costs us taxpayers $43,000 a year – and inmates are released to destitution and welfare and make more fatherless kids.
<
p>What we ARE doing is NOT working and those of us in the trenches know why, and have ideas that the CEOs and stakeholders will never know about or talk about – nor will those in power since those in power (like the Governor) seem to prefer to dialog only with others in power, not those who are warriors in the field, as it were.
<
p>Hester, did I answer your question?
Yes, thanks.
<
p>Similar issues arise in my neck of the woods, legal services. It seems to me that these issues can largely be traced back to the privatization of social services (thanks again, Charlie Baker). Without some pretty rigorous state oversight (which costs money), vendors paid to care for vulnerable people too often also speak for them about the quality of the care being provided.
Go bottom up, not top down.
<
p>The history of the Deval (and Obama) campaigns post-election has been an effort to keep the troops ready to mobilize. Once Deval/Obama decided what they wanted to do, the “grassroots” were ordered to sell it to the Legislature and/or electorate. That strikes me as rather condescending, expecting anyone who campaigned for a candidate to be so in their throes that they’ll believe whatever they are told. This is particularly the history of Deval Patrick vis-a-vis education, who was working to co-ordinate the sales job before the policy had even been decided.
<
p>Better to consult with people and — this is the tricky part for Massachusetts Democrats — listen to what they saw. Civic engagement where people offer their input, which is consequently thrown out for business as usual, is a waste of time. Deval and his people need to earn continued interest, nut just presume it. From 2006 to 2009, they failed miserably on that score. Let’s see if they learned anything.
Part of my frustration is that I DO want guidance from the Corner Office or the White House, for example:
<
p>Dear Supporter,
<
p>As you know one of the key issues I campaigned on in 2008 is universal access to health care. As such I strongly support the public option which will compete with the private market and help keep costs down. However, this will be tough to get through Congress and I need your help. Please help us reach our goal of one million calls or emails to members of Congress. More information and responses to common criticisms are included with message. Call or email your Representative or Senator today at the contact information below. Thank you very much for all that you do.
<
p>Sincerely,
Barack Obama
However, it seems that we get something more like this:
<
p>Dear supporter,
<
p>You were an energetic and passionate supporter of my candidacy, which led to a clear victory. Today I write asking you to donate money/endorse some half-assed policy with that same enthusiasm. Please ignore the fact that I didn’t even try to get the results I promise while I ran but instead chose some weak tea that is panned by the public but ignored by the 100-odd DC media personalities and consultants who somehow have more power here than you or I do. The fact that you voted for me makes me feel entitled to your work and support, which may even outstrip the effort I’m putting in to “fight for you”. So suck it up and help me ram whatever I come up with through with a smile. Besides, where else are you going to go?
<
p>Sincrely,
Generic Politician
<
p>(Note: works for conservative or progressive politicians)
I absolutely share your frustration.
not throwing their friends under the bus in a misguided and needless effort to pander to their corporate sponsors, and then we’ll see how it goes from there.
<
p>A big problem, as I see it, is that it takes longer to build trust than it does to lose it.
I think we can all agree that the administration screwed up the Gloucester thing pretty badly. Let’s take that as a given.
<
p>I trust we can also agree that every administration screws things up. It’s simply not possible to get everything right, and no administration in history has ever done so.
<
p>So, what could Deval 2.0 do to get you back? Or is the Gloucester situation a total deal-breaker for you?
David, First things first. I’m the lead plaintiff in the Dolan v. Chester lawsuit. While that continues, almost all the discretionary time I have for politics will be directed toward trying to address what we caught the Patrick administration trying to do with our city. What happens after that remains to be seen.
<
p>It is a serious question, and in light of all your hard work it deserves a serious answer.
<
p>Keeping campaign supporters engaged after the election is a problem I’ve spent a lot of time trying to address. I was one of the founders of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts in the wake of the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. I also watched the Patrick and Obama campaigns try to do things that at least on a surface level sounded similar.
<
p>I’m not going to have time to do this justice on my morning train ride, but I promise to think about it over the next few days(weeks?) and see if I can write a longer post on the subject.
<
p>My immediate thoughts for Doug (beyond the one I’ve already expressed):
– Develop a shared understanding between the campaign/administration and supporters who want to remain engaged of what “engaged” means and the purpose of engagement. I think the vagueness around this causes problems and mostly leads to disappointment on the part of people who fill in the gaps for themselves.
– Take some time to debrief people who have tried to do this before, and when you do, talk to people who had different experiences related to the same organizing effort. If he came to talk to me about PDM after the Reich campaign, I’d say fine, we can sit down for coffee and talk about ideas and my experiences, but you really should talk to x, y, and especially z who saw things differently.
– Take a good hard look at why this idea ran out of steam the last time. Initially there was outreach from the administration on decisions that were being made, but that stopped. It’s unfortunate that we’re now in litigation because whatever happened between leaders of the Readiness project coming to Gloucester and Reville and Chester’s secret plan might be instructive. There must be other, perhaps less extreme, examples of this kind of breakdown.
Will look forward to hearing more.
I would also add:
– Make sure the people charged with creating and implementing policy understand that “grassroots governing” or “Deval 2.0”, whatever it means, is a priority of the administration.