EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Prioritizing the Movement Over the Party
In my book, The Uprising, I wrote an entire chapter about the state of the antiwar movement, and the chapter included a look at Moveon.org. The chapter examined an organization that had - at the time - become a reflexive appendage of the Democratic Party (as opposed to a more movement-based organization focused on progressivism). I experienced a bit of backlash from Moveon partisans for the book, but that was to be expected. Talk about a taboo subject - in this case, the problem of movement-branded organizations becoming megaphones for anyone with a D behind their name - and you are bound to get people pissed.
I consider a lot of the Moveon.org leadership friends, I think they are solid progressives, and my book's chapter was meant as an honest look at both the success and failure of the organization. And I didn't enjoy writing the part about the book that explored Moveon's behavior in early 2007 - specifically, when the organization backed off pressuring congressional Democrats to take a strong position on ending the war. That's why I was thrilled to read this dispatch in the Huffington Post today - it suggests a positive shift:
"A group of progressive operatives from MoveOn and labor circles have teamed with a prominent Internet pioneer to try to give [progressive congressional candidates] the final push they need...The organization will be the first of its kind exclusively to focus on electing progressive Democrats in congressional elections...The group's first forays are likely to be in the Illinois district vacated by Rahm Emanuel, who left to become Obama's chief of staff. Green says the group is in talks with a progressive labor lawyer, Tom Geoghegan, in that district. Another potential target: the California district emptied by Hilda Solis, who's been tapped to be labor secretary...
The organization will be dedicated to finding progressive candidates who might have an outside shot at winning and "take them under our wing," in Green's words. The group's name -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, or the P-triple-C -- is a reference to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which financially backs Democratic candidates it thinks have a shot to win but does not prioritize progressive Democrats over conservative Democrats. The DCCC has had a patchy relationship with the liberal blogosphere, which charges it with relying too heavily on old-school expensive Democratic consultants and not being willing to take chances on progressive candidates.
This is terrific news, and the news about PCCC's talks with Tom Geoghegan (the newest Better Democrats candidate) is fantastic. As I wrote earlier today, Geoghegan is one of the greatest living movement progressives in America and has a terrific shot at winning the March 3 special election in Illinois to replace Rahm Emanuel (donate to Tom's campaign here).
Moveon's Adam Green, a cofounder of PCCC, says the new organization "won't focus its energy on unseating conservative Democrats" and "instead, it will prioritize competitive open-seat primaries and help general election candidates." That's probably smart strategy at the outset - especially the part about competitive open-seat primaries. Those are largely unexploited but fertile grounds for progressive politics.
Find out more about PCCC here. As I said, I'm thrilled about this announcement - it suggests that Moveon.org and other movement-branded organizations are getting out of the business of simply shilling for any and all Democrats - a business that may help strengthen a party, but can weaken the chance for progressive policy results (and after all, that's what we're all in this for, right?).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying movement and partisan goals aren't often the same. They are. But in recently attacking "the left" and in backing all sorts of conservative policies (the Iraq War, financial deregulation, free trade, etc.) Democratic Party leaders have themselves explained why movement and party are not 100% synonymous. That means we need as many grassroots organizations taking this post-election moment to get (back) into the business of reshaping the Democratic Party and building a principles-based progressive movement. The news about PCCC shows that is happening.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


15 Comments so far
Show AllGood advice and welcome news.
The Dems need to overthrow their corporate watchdogs.
But I could be wrong !
No, you're not wrong.
Conservatism can be defined for any civilization as those who take the official cosmology (or ideology) for fact. Progressivism takes the opposite tack and considers that outcomes should justify ideology. Conservatism is a monolithic movement that embraces both political parties; its divisions are philosophically superficial and often reflect merely the interests of the highest bidder for a particular sub-grouping. Like it or not, progressivism must become monolithic if it is to achieve any goals in opposition to monolithic conservatism.
I agree that progressivism must be "monolithic" to overcome the elite's rightwing gutter regressivism. To that end we choose the clearest of frames that organizes the interests of the people on the far left, the interests of elites on the far right, and the idea of balance between the two as nonsensical. We view as perfectly reasonable the idea that elite interests should be totally suppressed. We're simply upholding enlightenment principles such as the US Constitution's "limited times" for copyright protection. Such "limited times" are in the people's interest, not the elite's interest. We're simply upholding Kant's Categorical Imperative, that if everyone embraces elite interests, our total doom is assured, and that if everyone embraces the people's interests the vast majority will be happy for it. We're simply upholding the policies of the earlier progressive era when the anti-trust laws were in force. We're simply upholding the principles of Ghandi and M.L. King, echoed by Einstein, and many others. It's easy to unite under the banner of progressivism by wholly embracing the dispersion of economic/political power to all the people. So-called progressives fail to unite only because they as individuals fail to wholly embrace the idea and instead embrace individualistic partial positions to justify their own pursuits of zero-sum power.
Liberal connotes diversity and monolithic, uniformity. If liberals (who have adopted the handle of progressive after giving in to conservative assaults) become monolithic, they become conservatives. By uniting around decentralized direct democracy, liberals would keep their democratic roots and enjoy a majority advantage with no dictatorial conservative leaders. http://ni4d.us/
Sirota is being way too optimistic about Moveon and its PCCC organization. Moveon has proven that it isn't a grass-roots organization, i.e. democratic, either in its decision making methods or in its goals. Instead, Moveon is trying to have it both ways, i.e. triangulate between progressive/regressive, in classic Demok fashion. Powerful organizations acting as such unfortunately lure a whole lot of unwary people into that triangulation trap. The idea is that a small amount of productive progressivism justifies a much greater amount of destructive regressivism. As clearly illustrated today after sixteen years of Demok triangulation the net effect is regressive.
Moveon's PCCC will very likely ask prospective candidates behind closed doors: Do you support AIPAC's "special interest" above all other priorities including the public interest? If "yes" then you have the PCCC's unconditional support!! Why? Because THAT is the definition of "electable"! God Bless the United States of America! And may the "triangulation vacuum" suck up ALL lefties on the PLANET to do the bidding of the EMPIRE!
Sirota banned people on his own blog site back during the primaries and election last year. He knows that Obama won't do jack shit. Move on !
You got that right ! I was banned from his site for bringing up Obama's controversial positions and flip flops. His site is now in dying mode since he probably banned everyone by now !
You guys were probably banned for TROLLING and violating decorum, not for criticizing Obama. Go ahead and take off the tin foil hats. There are no micro transmitters embedded in your teeth. Relax.
I agree, reform is necessary. But I think the only way to do it (and be successful), is to work within the system. If progressives start leaving the Democratic party then they will be to blame for giving the Republicans Palin/Bush 2012.
"But I think the only way to do it (and be successful), is to work within the system. If progressives start leaving the Democratic party then they will be to blame for giving the Republicans Palin/Bush 2012."
In other words, status quo is the "solution". Keep it up buddy and you'll get Palin/Bush in 2012 before you know it.
"Keep it up buddy and you'll get Palin/Bush in 2012 before you know it."
And would that be so bad?
Obama/Biden aren't going to get us out of Iraq - Biden voted for it.
They aren't going to rescind the Patriot Act - Biden voted for that.
They aren't going to really do anything about health care - Biden had his hands all over that bankruptcy bill which created huge problems for the working and middle classes.
Obama/Biden have filled their team with a whole slew of Clintonistas - the same thing that drove many of us to Nader/LaDuke in 2000.
As Ralph Nader has said, Bad Democrats are very good at electing very bad Republicans.
But the larger point is that it seems whenever we have a Republican in the White House, the Democrats at least TRY to fight the bad things. Maybe if the Republicans control the White House again, we can get the Dems to fight for the good stuff again. Because when they control everything, all they seem to do is give us the bad legislation brought on by their corporate friends. I want some change. I want progress. Who is going to give it to us? Clearly not Obama/Biden and clearly not the Democrats in the House and Senate.
And if Palin wins in 2012, there will finally be a woman in the White House.
extratime40:you're kidding,right?
johngary66 I think the best chance Liberals (Progressives) have to influence the future is to work hard to encourage Instant Run-Off voting at all levels of Government. It's the system where voters check their first and second choices for candidates. If no candidate attains 51%, the second choices come into play. This system gives a third party a far greater chance of success, since voters needn't worry about their vote being wasted. I think Liberals (Progressives) would do much better under this type of system.
.David Sirota makes the same mistakes as so many others in believing the Democratic Party the be all and end all for progressive hopes. It is,in my opinion, actually where progressivism goes to die. The real hope for American politics lies with third party and independant candidates pledged to avoid corporate money and its accompanying enslavement of the platform.
MoveOn was founded by bored internet billionares grown tired of the enuui of early retirement. In short order they found themselves enthralled by association with "movers and shakers" within the establishment and found they liked the superstar treatment. That single fact has distorted and made useless an entire organisation. It us also the common way radicals become centrists here in the land of luxury.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
How do you determine if an organization is truly grass-roots and independent or just an appendage of the Democratic Party?
For me, it's an important distinction.
And Sirota was a big help regarding Move-on. That's why I still read his blog.
Lately, I've been grappling with the same kind of question regarding promoting single-payer healthcare.
Like, how independent is PDA regarding that issue? And just recently, Health Care For All notified me the next meeting would be cosponsored by someone from the Obama transitions team--the email even suggesting to RSVP for the meeting via the Obama site!
How independent is that?