Community Organizers Press Obama for Real Change
This just in: Valerie Jarrett, recently appointed White House senior adviser, and Melody Barnes, the next director of the Domestic Policy Council, will meet with 2,000 community organizing leaders at "Realizing the Promise: A Forum on Community, Faith and Democracy" on Thursday, December 4.
Why is that big news? Because these community organizers are working for a kind of change that's radically different from what the Wall Street veterans on Obama's economic team have in mind. Consider what the organizers are telling the administration they want, according to the websites of the Gamaliel Foundation and the Center for Community Change, co-sponsors of the Forum:
- All policies should favor cooperative ventures over individual ownership
- Universal access to affordable, quality health care for all residents of the United States. ... expose the harmful role of the private market in our health care system
- Public funding for families and individuals to access decent affordable homes....all communities within a metropolitan area shall include their fair share of the region's low income and affordable housing
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform ... legalization of the current undocumented population ... work permits and a path to citizenship for those here
- Two million living wage construction jobs for low-income people, minorities, women and ex-offenders
- Working people should be encouraged and educated about their right to organize, so as to engage in collective action or bargaining
That's a rather radical agenda, by the standards of Obama's economic team. They aren't likely to give community organizers the time of day, much less any time out of their precious days working to rescue the capitalist elite.
Yet here is Valerie Jarrett, an intimate friend and mentor to both Barack and Michelle for two decades, spending an afternoon with this bunch of organizers. There is no one Barack trusts more than Jarrett. Everyone in Washington wants a piece of her time now, because she's a direct link to "the man" himself.
Obama could have made the organizers happy enough just by sending Barnes, though it's not clear whether her Domestic Policy Council will have much power at all. Jarrett is the woman who really has power in the Oval Office. The fact that she will be at the organizers' forum says something.
Exactly what does it say? Is Obama just a sentimental guy who wants to do something nice for old friends in the Gamaliel Foundation, where he got his start as an organizer? No one who has watched this shrewd, hard-nosed politician rise to power is not going to believe that for a minute.
It's far more likely that Obama and Jarrett see some advantage in sending her to talk with 2,000 grassroots leaders. They know the first lesson that community organizing teaches: Political change comes from power. The second lesson is that there are two kinds of power: Organized money and organized people. Obama has paid his dues to organized money by putting all those proteges of Robert Rubin at the top of his economic team. He knows they'll be pushing him forcefully to the right.
If he wants to be free to move in whatever direction he chooses -- and that freedom is what smart presidents value above all -- he's got to create some countervailing force pushing powerfully to the left. So it's in his interest to build up the forces of community organizing. That's one reason Valerie Jarrett will meet with the community leaders and tell them how much she and the president-elect agree with their vision of genuine change we can believe in.
Of course the audience will know as well as Jarrett that there's a huge gulf between saying nice words and enacting actual policies. No one expects many of Jarrett's words to get translated into action. No one can predict whether any of them will. If you just read the mass media headlines, you would think that the people don't have any power at all right now, that it's all with the big money. All too many progressives seem to feel that way too.
But Obama and Jarrett spent too many years in Chicago, seeing the power of organized people at work, to take that for granted. They saw the power of organized people most recently in their own successful campaign to win the White House, one that even George W. Bush admits was "a well-organized ... textbook campaign." And the textbook was written by Saul Alinsky and the other great community organizers who have inspired outfits like Gamaliel and the Center for Community Change.
Now Obama's people are trying to use the same techniques to build a grassroots organization of their own, one that will serve whatever policies the new administration cooks up. But it's a dangerous game. Like Dr. Frankenstein, they could easily find their creature turning against them -- especially if the local neighborhood meetings are controlled by people with an agenda as progressive as the "Realizing the Promise" Forum.
Once a passionate vision is coupled with the power tactics of community organizing, it can be hard to stop the vision from turning into reality. That's exactly why Obama is taking the risk of creating an organized network of his own. But suppose that network's vision is as progressive as it is passionate? And why shouldn't we make sure it is? We are all invited to participate.
Obama has already seen that disorganized progressive power can have an impact on his newly forming administration. The mass media unanimously blamed pressure from "liberal bloggers" for blocking the appointment of John Brennan as CIA director. Whether the media got the cause right or not, there's now a perception abroad that pressure from the left can make a difference if it's strong enough.
The Center for Community Change and Gamaliel are dedicated to the proposition that people are a lot stronger when they are highly organized and engaged in direct talks with their elected officials. They know perfectly well that the officials are out to use them as much as they are out to work the officials. Their job is to be strategically smart enough to get at least part of what they want. That's why they keep the lines of communication open -- both in public and in private.
As every community organizer knows, much of the work of politics goes on behind closed doors. All these organizers are not coming to DC just to watch a big public event. They will also be talking to as many officials as they can get a hold of. They may get to see some current Bush administration officials. But they'll probably find a lot more doors open among the Obama transition team, as will all activists for progressive causes.
Look what happened a couple of weeks ago, when leaders from another national organizing network, PICO, came to Washington. They got great coverage in the mass media for public events demanding a stop to preventable foreclosures. Meanwhile, out of the journalists' view, they were talking privately with officials at Treasury and the FDIC as well as the Obama transition team, including Melody Barnes.
Also out of view, PICO leaders from around the country were talking to Barnes and other Obama transition leaders about their ongoing drive to secure universal health care, starting with fully funding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All this, just two weeks after Election Day, when it's hard to imagine the transition team even had time to breathe, much less talk privately with an organization pushing a health care plan far more radical than what Obama is likely to approve.
Yet the doors were open. Again, no one thinks the community organizing groups will get everything or nearly everything they want. But the fact that they are banging on those administration doors and being let in means that there is organized pressure from the left to resist the tremendous pressure from the right.
That's one reason it really mattered who won this year's presidential election. A McCain administration would not be likely to open those doors even an inch to grassroots leaders. Now the doors will be opened. But people well trained in community organizing won't be there to supplicate. They will be there to play power politics.
As Obama learned on the streets of Chicago, elected officials, no matter what they say, inevitably bend to the winds of power. If the people don't like the direction that organized money is headed in, it's up to the people to organize, to be strong and effective enough to bend their elected officials to the people's will. Now that the administration doors are open, even a crack, it's up to the people to be as well-organized, as well-prepared, as persistent, and as smart as the officials on the other side of the desk. That's how we'll make change we can really believe in.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
26 Comments so far
Show AllThis article was a little confusing. Obama is apparently helping one particular community organization become a pressure group to help him resist Robert Rubin-type investment bankers and corporate lobbyists - if I understand it correctly.
I think that's what Chernus means when he writes as follows about Obama:
"If he [Obama] wants to be free to move in whatever direction he chooses -- and that freedom is what smart presidents value above all -- he's got to create some countervailing force pushing powerfully to the left."
And then Chernus continues, saying:
"That's one reason Valerie Jarrett will meet with the community leaders and tell them how much she and the president-elect agree with their vision of genuine change we can believe in."
Apparently this meeting is the "Realizing the Promise: A Forum on Community, Faith and Democracy" event, which was held today (Thursday, Dec. 4).
So Jarrett called a meeting to tell groups that haven't asked for anything that they and the President-elect are in agreement about something.
I'm trying to keep an open mind and not think that this seems a lot like a public relations stage-managed kind of event. I'm also trying to ignore the clear mixing of church and state implied by the event's title, which is contrary to the antidisestablishmentarianism founding principles of the United States.
I guess what doesn't make sense is that this whole scenario suggests that Obama has no autonomy over his own decisions.
Somehow Obama was compelled, by some hidden force, to pick right wingers and Clintonites as his cabinet members. Somehow, Obama was compelled to vote for the FISA bill, violating our Fourth Amendment rights, and violating his own promise not to let Bush's illegal domestic spying go unchecked. Somehow Obama was forced to fork over $850 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars to corrupt Wall Steet fraudsters even though letters of opposition poured in from the U.S. public telling him not to vote for the bailout.
Apparently, this little meeting of 2,000 people, hosted by conservative TV pundit Juan Williams, is supposed to get Obama doing the things he knows he should be doing in the first place?
I don't know about you, but no human being decides things this way. I've never seen it where U.S. Presidents feel they have to set up their own "intervention" group to keep themselves from deciding in favor of corporations and wealthy campaign donors.
The only way this makes sense is as some kind of religious revivalist meeting designed to cast out of evil spirits, with the faithful swooning with good intentions as Obama is compelled by their testimony to do the right thing.
Quite frankly, sane people don't make public policy decisions in this way. Good luck with the tent meeting. Write back soon when Obama is acting on behalf of the progressive movement.
-TIA
Nicely stated and one of the best analysis' I've read as a rebuttal to the apologetic wing of the Democratic Party. Well done!
Read the article by Kurt Nimmo at Infowars: "CFR-Brookings to Dominate Obama 'Strategy'."
Obama was elected, as were the Dems in 06, on some premises of promises (sorry). Should he fail to follow through on those promises, he will foment a true revolution in this country. The thinking, wanting-to-work populace is sick and tired of the robber barons and corporatist/world bank/oligarchs stealing the world's wealth and promise. Obama has a year or less to prove himself or the US and the world will enter a most terrible time of chaos and destruction.
Can somebody please tell me why, after all that trouble I went through to vote for Obama, the guy is not hiring braveheart Texan progressives such as Chris Bell or even Jim Hightower ? What about Sheila Jackson Lee for Secretary of State or even Secretary of Defense ? Come on people. Not all of us Texans are rightwing Republicans ! Stop writing us off !
There will be no significant change in any major area of society that Obama has control over.
Haven't you been listening, paying attention, or watching tv?
All his appointments are either neoliberals or imperialists. That's what we have now. That's what Obama is.
And, that's not going to be any meaningful change.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Sheer Conarchy is loosed upon Democracy...
http://flickr.com/photos/habitforming/2638856678/
"Yet here is Valerie Jarrett, an intimate friend and mentor to both Barack and Michelle for two decades, spending an afternoon with this bunch of organizers."
After Gates, Clinton etc. it's nice to see a bit of good news for a change. Not November 5th good, but still something.
So when will Obama give us red state progressives a look for a CHANGE ? Picking the same old Clinton repeats isn't change except for the older.
What about Obama's choice of Republicans like Gen. Gates and Gen. Jones?
When was the last presidency to embrace true bi-partisanship?
That's change, isn't it?
"What about Obama's choice of Republicans like Gen. Gates and Gen. Jones?"
Status quo buddy.
"When was the last presidency to embrace true bi-partisanship?"
Um, Bill Clinton? He chose Republicans in his cabinet too you know. Of course even Republican presidents would choose a Democrat or two for cabinet positions. But party labels doesn't mean jack.
"That's change, isn't it?"
NO. Change means actually changing the ideological direction of this country, not electing more of the same and strengthening the already unpopular status quo.
Oh, and here's some chump change you'll "love":
http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/12/mandate_watch_obama_backs_off.html
On a brighter note
http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/12/nafta_critic_selected_for_us_t.html
More suggestions for Jarrett:
--Provide computers and free internet access to the underprivileged.
--End the WOD/prison industry complex and fight drug abuse and crime by legalizing drugs and providing treatment for people who want to get off drugs.
--Provide Family Planning assistance to everyone who wants it and keep religion out of it.
ezeflyer: I hate that word "underprivileged". Can't we call the poor, "poor"? I'd expand that to free computers to kids, just like text books and free whole cities internet access (and rural,too). Am too old to have fully grasped the modern jargon for universal access and most words tech.
Ira asserts Universal Health care on the table.
Well, here is another CD article that asserts otherwise:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/01-0
Brilliant Ira: ever the apologist until the end...
So what? Obama gives power to the extremists, and then sends a crony to listen to the people? No doubt his first project will be to undermine the ideology of those he put in charge by empowering them to enact a mind set light years outside of their own. That has as much chance of succeeding as world peace.
Instead of offering your rosy scenarios Ira, why not wait and see what kind of Bills emerge on behalf of truly progressive causes, and wait and see how Obama uses the military.
I am not interested in your spin, I am interested in acts that actually lead to planetary transformation and not more lip service.
Chris-
Can you explain how White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and Domestic Policy Council director Melody Barnes are "cronies"?
By the way Chris, what are you doing while waiting for "acts of planetary transformation" to further the progressive cause?
I hope you don't just offer up more "lip service".
Well said, highkarate.
Progressives are not believers in Intelligent Design, they believe in evolution. Which, of course, explains why they are willing to wait hundreds of millions of years for changes to "progressively" occur.
Obama supporters are more realistic. We are the intelligent designers. We are the grass-root-foot-soldiers here to create change. And we will create change by working alongside Obama, not against him, because we know he will listen to us.
Ira, I'm with you.
I stand beside you.
I have hope.
Together we will make the future a better place for everyone.
No thanks, Joey. I'm sure you will be a good little marching footsoldier in Obama's million-man National Domestic Security Force, but please confine yourself to marching. Stay away from my future. Do not listen to my phone conversations. Do not monitor my email. Stay away from my house.
Nicely stated. It is hilariously ironic that they all line up in a straight line. I guess their first reclamation project is to explain why nothing they asserted before the election about Obama is being measured against his neo-liberal, hawkish, and neo conservative choices to fill vacancies in his Administration. Since they cannot defend it, the only thing left for them is to serve up more obfuscation via their interminable and illusive hope agenda. The nice thing about hope is that it always springs eternal even as we draw closer to the precipice. Snap the whip, and their furry little tails pop to attention, waving back and forth in the breeze as they dutifully march off the edge. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You're pretty paranoid for a trained-monkey.
What have you got to hide?
I promise that no one will touch your secret stash of bananas.
You can take off the tin foil hat.
Karate,
Here is the meaning of the word crony via a standard dictionary:
Noun 1. crony crony - a close friend who accompanies his buddies in their activities
buddy, chum, pal, sidekick, brother
cobber - Australian term for a pal
friend - a person you know well and regard with affection and trust; "he was my best friend at the university"
Jarrett fits the definition.
I am going to tell you what I do because of the implied insult of the obfuscation people like you are known for while operating under an alias: first, unlike 99.9% of the people who post here, I give my real name. Second, unlike Ira, I've worked in the non-profit/environmental world for over twenty five years for sub-standard pay. On a personal note, I don't own a TV or a car. I use public transportation or my bike. Can you say the same?
Chris-
We all know the true modern definition of "crony". These two ladies are not just "friends" or "cronies" as you and your fellow wordsmiths refer to each other, they are going to hold very prominent positions in the Obama administration.
I don't know why you and others think it is cool and/or productive to just go about expressing your disappointment with Obama and the Dems.
We are all disappointed in politics in general. They are jackanapes and hoodwinkers to borrow from your lingo.
Seriously Chris, I applaud you for not driving and not having a tv but I and others wish that people on the left would put their money where their mouth is. Complaining is not a solution.
People who think we need to work with Dems are not the enemy of progressives.
By the way I think I have you beat in not driving and not having a TV. I have not had a car since 1992 but I do have a TV for watching moving pictures with my cronies.
As for not using my name, there are many reasons one could have for that and it is not a badge of honor in my opinion.
Cheer leading is not a solution either. I use my name to assert both responsibility along with accountability for what I say here. Apparently, two concepts foreign to you.
Furthermore, if you must engage your endless apologetic via preaching then save it for the rest of the herd. Prior to a career in non-profit, and fresh out of high school, I was drafted into the Marines where I did two tours in Vietnam. I think that I have earned the right to think for myself.
I neither need to "work with the Dems" get on their or your bandwagon, respect, or submit to their oppression that you apparently find so comforting. Any authentic realist understands this.
I am sad that you are so angry with me and other progressives who want to focus on doing things other than complaining about the Dems or politics in general.
I appreciate what you have been through but real change is not possible without overwhelming numbers and organization.
If progressives are to remain divided, for whatever reason, then we don't stand a chance.
Change is not going to come about through a minority of "authentic realists" who are not willing to put aside their anger and work for real change within and without the existing political structure.
I am trying to build a consensus that if this Democratic administration does not listen to it's constituents and push for a real progressive agenda in the next few years then let's start building a real third party movement.
We have to put aside our anger and differences and work for real change. Anything else would be hypocritical. All of us are suffering at the hands of imperialism but to not put aside our anger and fight for a better day while we still are here is diminishing our struggle and the struggle of those who are much less fortunate.
One aspect of this concept bothers me:I like separation of church and state. I don't like mixing it all together, as in the title/concept. There's a drift to relying on religious groups to do the work of government in terms of charity rather than rights:right of education, health care and attendant care at home (not nursing home imprisonment, without choice for seniors and disabled, and more expensive than living in our own homes), housing, food, safety (from war, domestic violence, police brutality). For me, it is important to notice that many churches and synagogues are not wheelchair accessible. As one comment person of intelligence pointed out just befofe Thanksgiving, Thomas More, the food pantry he volunteers at ran out of food. It's a government task that's too big for religious groups. And separation of church and state is not solid since Bush came into office. There are nonprofit community groups that are unaffiliated with religious groups, as well. Church organizations have always had a place, "on the side", not the core.
I am hoping that the community organizers' stories and priorities will lead to the inclusion of some human services jobs similar to what you describe in any jobs program.
Joe