Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Village Politics - Rebuilding Engaged Communities
How do we respond to a political landscape where Meg Whitman can spend $80 million on her primary candidacy alone? Or where, aided by the ghastly Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, right-wing groups are pledging over $200 million for the November elections. On-the-ground activism is key, ordinary citizens reaching out to knock on doors, make phone calls, talk to friends, neighbors and coworkers, spread the word through social media, and do everything possible to convince undecided voters and get reluctant supporters to the polls. That's what so many of us did during 2006 and 2008, helping tip the balance in race after race. If voters are dependent on campaign ads and sound bites to make their decisions, the most manipulative politics tends to prevail. If we can reach out broadly enough to talk about the real choices at and reach out beyond the core converted to those who may have vastly different perspectives and experience hand, we can overcome the electronic lies.
If we do this well enough, even with lowered expectations, we'll be in far better shape working to create a more just and sustainable world. If we do it badly, or fail to actually reach out, we'll go backwards. So the next hundred and something days matter immensely.
One way to do this outreach while simultaneously building a base for the future is to work toward engaging those face-to-face communities we're already part of in key issues like climate change or the challenges of creating a just and sustainable economy. This means churches and temples, PTA's, block associations and Rotary Clubs, soccer clubs and softball leagues, the places we work, and all the other ordinary institutions of daily life. Building on the community that they offer, and on our relationships with colleagues, co-workers, and neighbors who already know us, they can provide powerful venues to engage our fellow citizens in our country's most critical issues.
I first saw the power of this approach initiated by a Baptist preacher in Florence, South Carolina named Bill Cusak. Although Bill had never organized anything more controversial than a revival meeting, he became concerned that the Reagan-era nuclear arms race was risking his granddaughter's future. The issue challenged him "like a crowbar to my soul." Bill approached a community college biologist who'd written a letter to the local paper, and they began building an activist community from scratch. They spoke and showed a video on the arms race at every church, PTA, and garden club that would have them. They enlisted a key African American pastor and asked younger church members to enlist their friends.
One of the first groups Bill addressed was the local Rotary Club, where he was a longtime member. "They kind of treated me like I had the plague," he recalled later. But eventually some responded. "Basically," he said, "it takes like to reach like: youth to reach youth; blacks to reach blacks; Catholics to reach Catholics. I even think," he added with a sly smile, "it takes Baptists to reach Baptists." Moving from this issue to others like homelessness, Bill began to change his community.
Granted, some contexts are more intimate and approachable than others. And some have been supplanted by virtual communities, which I'll talk about in a separate essay. But even megacities such as Los Angeles, New York, or Denver are vast patchworks of smaller communities, or potential communities. Every neighborhood, business, fraternal organization, or church group represents a potentially fertile field for public discussion. When we use these networks to promote humane social visions, we can build on existing bonds of human conviviality and connection, and have the advantage of acting where people know us. As Karl Hess, a former Barry Goldwater speechwriter turned Vietnam War opponent, once wrote, "To carry the message of a cause in a community when you are a generally respected neighbor is far better than when you do it as virtually your sole activity in public."
I saw another example of this in a University of Michigan student group called Greeks for Peace, founded after scattered fraternity and sorority members got involved in peace and justice issues and realized that they weren't the only ones. They organized events that brought critical social issues into the traditionally disengaged domain of Michigan's Greek system. People who otherwise would never have taken an interest began to respond. While these students wouldn't have walked across the quad to hear the exact same speakers discussing these issues, they responded when peers invited them to events held in safe and familiar environments, like the lounge of a major sorority. "So much politics," said one of the founders "is geared for those already involved. We wanted a vehicle for people to be with their friends and learn to take a stand together."
Mobilizing these kinds of villages can give us both the confidence and means to address often overwhelming political and economic problems. The community they provide can also ease the inevitable frustrations of working for social change, helping us endure the endless phone calls, meetings, and other repetitive tasks needed to galvanize people to act.
Most of all, engaging these communities can broaden the stream of those who participate in social change, drawing on common bonds that already exist, and drawing in those previously disengaged. In the wake of the Louisana oil spill, I think of how surfer (and computer scientist) named Glenn Hening began worrying about the pollution and deterioration of the California beaches near his home. He'd just become a father and wondered whether his daughter would be able to enjoy the beaches when she was older. Glenn was also increasingly angry at the stereotype of surfers as dumb blond party animals "whose total vocabulary consists of 'hang ten,' 'cowabunga,' and 'far out.' He decided to counteract that image by persuading his fellow surfers to "use their skills to protect the marine environment for all of us."
Glenn first talked to surfer friends who were similarly concerned. Their inaugural effort addressed a Malibu lagoon where spillage of polluted water was damaging the shape of the waves on an adjacent beach. The group, now called the Surfrider Foundation, next challenged the dumping of contaminated waste into that same lagoon. Fellow surfers enlisted in droves.
Surfrider went on to win the second-largest Clean Water Act suit in American history, stopping pulp mills from polluting northern California's Humboldt Bay. Members testified at hearings, filed lawsuits, educated schoolchildren about marine ecology, challenged destructive developments, and monitored coastal water pollution levels nationwide. They enlisted swimmers, divers, beachcombers, windsurfers, and sympathetic environmental scientists. The organization now has 50,000 members in chapters throughout the United States, plus affiliates in eighteen other countries on five continents.
Glenn has helped change the culture of his community, in a way that offers lessons for other communities as well. The challenges we face to create a more just and sustainable world remain immense, but because of his efforts and those of his compatriots there's one more group of people ready to try and take them on. "Before we started, a beach full of surfers would end up being a beach full of trash. We let developers wreck some of the finest surfing areas on the planet. That doesn't happen anymore. By now, the issues we've raised have gained the attention of surfers everywhere. They think about water quality, the impact of development, the need for government agencies to protect the environment. We created a new thread in the weave of what it means to be a surfer."
So what does this mean for November and beyond? We need the kinds of immediate practical outreach that tip elections, but we also need to keep building engaged community, as a base that makes everything else far more possible. If we do enough of both we have a chance to prevail.
- Posted in



23 Comments so far
Show AllI have been beating this dead horse for years now.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0731-23.htm
You wouldn't know it from the hate talk on this site but communities are working on making progress. This article won't receive many comments. Chris Hedges doom-gloom shit will be receiving 200 comments by the end of the day instead. I was gonna leave this site but this article brought me back. Thanks and don't let the politically arrested infantile naysayers let you down again.
Hello Shawn and Dogface,
Paul Rogat Loeb is of course exactly and totally right. Only by joining, building, educating and activating local communities can we counteract the money.
Problem is, it is very hard and time consuming. I put in about 60 hours a week keeping our "Neighborhood Vegetables" group alive and growing in Berkeley and Oakland, so that we can come together in our "Garden Work Parties." I'm trying to decentralize into small neighborhood committees, but that too is very time consuming. We're not explicitly political, but we have some good discussions about capitalism while we're spreading manure, and we are becoming more interracial lately. Most of us know that in the accelerating economic collapse it's co-operate or die. And within the world of food, new farmers' markets, produce exchanges for gardeners, and different types of garden co-operation are opening up all the time. A small but growing counter - economy.
It is easier to TALK co-operation than to do it, and even easier to denounce the selfish and the alienated. We know that from reading this blog. My own classic example? In 1971 when I was explaining a neighborhood labor exchange to an "International Socialist" he replied, "But what is political about that? Are you going to drop a leaflet in somebody's car after you fix it?" I found the same attitude in a Green I was talking to last week. Against all psychological experience, too many leftists think that people will change as a result of reading or listening rather than through collective work and action.
There is one thing that "Common Dreams" can do to help organizers all over the country. They can give us an "Organizers Page," so we can talk to each other about the techniques and problems of organizing. Not a one day flash, but ongoing, continuous conversations about different types of action, from labor to community to peace to ecological and more. How about it, CD? Most of us already know about oppression and exploitation. How about giving us a chance to talk about what to do about it, and especially HOW to do it? And Paul? Are you reading this? How about giving CD a little push into becoming a practical tool for organizers?
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
Organizer's page? Now that could be interesting. What's it look like?
Good job on what you're doing and keep it up.
Just as I predicted, so few comments here but so many on Hedges article.
Hi Shawn,
An Organizers Forum or Page would contain a PERMANENT list of different types of organizing situations. Not only different arenas for organizing, such as peace, ecology, neighborhood, etc; but also different moments in the process - recruiting, talking to the public, running marches and demonstrations, running meetings, fundraising, and so on. As people commented in each category we would be building an archive of experience to which people could refer.
Obviously not all comments could remain online permanently. There would be a vote, therefore, somewhat like voting in Amazon, as to which comments would stay on for a long time.
We need to exchange experiences about what we are doing to create a new world, so that we can put together the best possibilities for action. We need to learn from each other.
Many people, on this site and off it, tend to live on the negative side simply because they don't know what to do. If we provide options for action, and talk about them, we will get a lot more done, AND we will feel a lot better. I hope that CD can provide us with a venue so that a new world really can be possible.
Yours in solidarity, Laurenceofberk@aol.com
I don't know if voting on which comments to keep permanently online would necessarily work but I like the rest of your idea. I think CD might be working on it if the donations are any clue.
"Against all psychological experience, too many leftists think that people will change as a result of reading or listening rather than through collective work and action."
The Reagan/Bush ideology of the last 30 years was partly responsible for forcing even progressives and liberals to abandon collective thinking and action. Rugged individualism and independence is all too common even among progressives and liberals these days. Some days I don't feel like reading the comments when I anticipate a basic repeat of all that's wrong and nothing new to most discussions. It's good to be away from the computer on some days.
Hi Stanley,
You are right, of course, about the American population having become less social in the last 30 years, and there is a lot of evidence and literature on the subject. "Bowling Alone" for example, is a large sociological tome about the loss of American sociability.
The job of a good leftist, therefore, is not only to be RIGHT about our social problems, but to demonstrate through our actions that trust and collective action are possible. Whenever possible, we have to live as though a cooperative, socialist society already existed. That is the only way we can contribute towards making it happen.
Blogs were never meant to be the place for putting solutions. People can help each other out on the road when things go bad. They just don't trust the government but I'm in OK. YMMV.
What made you want to leave this site?
Getting tired of the anti-Obama hate spew going on. Everyone sounds like Republicans. This is the only site where you get demonized for not believing in black magic spirit bullshit. Most CD regulars here do their club meeting talks, exclude, and insult. Preaching to the choir as usual. No room for change, growth, or tolerance. If you're a practical Democrat, prepare to be demonized. You have to be their "progressive" or you're called a paid agent "troll" or some shit like that. A few good people like Laurenceofberk are here to help once in a while but not a lot of nice people on this site. They can sound like tea partiers.
Why would Republicans hate Obama? Has he stolen their thunder?
Sorry, Shawn, but the criticisms being leveled at Obama are legitimate. He has f**ked up big time on far too many things since taking office. His escalation of our war on Afghanistan, his plans to keep 50, 000 troops in Iraq, with no signs of our getting out of there, his making NO effort whatsoever to roll back many, if not most of Bush's and Clinton's extreme policies on civil liberties, etc., and things like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Patriot Act are inexcusable, imho. The disastrous body of legislature called a "Healthcare Reform" Bill which was a 1990's GOP Bill that got passed, and the hijacking of abortion rights to get it passed was equally, if not more disgraceful. So was the Obama Administration's authorizing of the recent deep-water offshore oil drilling job by BP which resulted in a disaster that not only took the lives of 11 oil rig workers, but killed the Gulf and destroyed various eco-systems, not to mention the lives, health and livelihoods of thousands, if not millions of people residing in the Gulf area.
Obama didn't even have enough gumption to tell Israel pointedly to get their troops and rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers the hell out of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel in those territories.
I didn't vote for him, because I saw what was coming, with his war votes and his vote for the FISA Bill. If I come on like a teabagger to you, well, so be it.
The rightwingers in my state still complain that Obama is not doing enough to fight the terrorists and they think that he passed single payer health care. They still think he's anti-Israel.
I see. I was here in the early half of last year when it sounded like picking up like that. I didn't appreciate the exclusive tone of the discussions myself. Being from Oklahoma, I'm not used to any high expectations. Everyone here on the site would call Obama a rightwinger but most Sooners look at Obama as still a far leftist. Telling people that here was useless. I voted for Obama too but he's looking like Bush when he shouldn't. Maybe that's the anger here. There was intolerance on this site last year when some guy confessed to working for the DOD but supported progressive ideas. Everyone ganged up on him. I defended him and got into a big war. There was this one person I got into a flame war with. That person accused me of attacking them. I was banned at that time for posting a lot but I was the lone voice at that time. I came back later but visit once in a while. This site doesn't sound conducive for practical thinkers. If I say that Obama is looked at as a far leftist in my state, I'll get a boohoo response from the hardliners here but that was earlier last year. I got called a rightwinger a few times for speaking on practical terms. If I wanted advice on building communities and being inclusive, this doesn't sound like the site to do it. The CD regulars you mentioned sound like rich people using this site for their meetings. But what does all that mean? Just post what you want. Flaming is inevitable in any forum.
Hey wait a minute. I think I remember you from last year. You were battling the same poster last May that I was battling since October, right? That maxpayne dude was fun to watch when he called out on her black magic bs but he changed into a sissy so he's useless. I didn't believe her black magic bs anyway and got into a war with her on it. I got banned once and then came back after a couple of months after posting too many replies just to defend myself. Guess I'm not the only dude who comes back with a dot after my name when I get shot. I'm outta the Rosie wars. There's this new kid in town who thinks he can beat her in astrology debates. I may not agree with his astro bs either but this could be fun to watch. Two experts in astrology with differences of opinions. His name is Martian Bachelor. Weird but sorta alright. Wished he were a Democrat instead of another purist "progressive". We need some strong practical Democrats to challenge purists like RichM and his choir. If we could get more people from Huffington Post and Daily Kos to come over, the obnoxious tone of this site would change. Most of the purists would be as silent as mice on most general forums. Richm, ardent, independentmind, and all may be right about Obama gone bad but they can't expect anything better when the Republicans are blocking progress. It only takes one senator to stall any good legislation but nobody talks about it here. I getting too tired trying to make sense outta the forum. Better to have fun in the real world and let the purists melt here.
Peace
Shawn, I hear you but I think that there is something that I must advise you about. I have nothing against anyone and I don't believe in singling out posters no matter what. If there is someone you don't like, the best thing to do is stay away from that person. I replied to you on that oil drilling topic. Yesterday you said that you were out of her wars but then today you jump into them again. I don't believe that this site is obnoxious. I may disagree with some of what is said but some states could use solid leftism for a change. Oklahoma wouldn't be crimson red by now if Democrats were thinking similar to discussions found here. I didn't expect much myself when I voted for Obama and there was no third party on the ballot in OK. The anger against Obama is about his lowering the bar on expectations. Here is a simple way to look at it. In 2008, you have X amount of expectations and at that time, it was a normal amount. In 2010, the same amount of expectations, X, is too high and why? The answer is the bar for determining the average amount of expectations were lowered. Today, the expectations are 50% of X on average meaning that people expect less from him. That does not mean that they are prepared to be happy with lower expectations and many will not be. I understand that expectations were expected to be lower today than in 2008. Had Obama lowered the bar by 10-20% instead of 50%, X amount of expectations wouldn't have felt too high. If you are lowering your expectations with Obama, then do you really have any expectations at all or just lost in life? I suggest that you try to recollect what all expectations you had of this president when you voted for him and match them against what you get today. You might be disappointed, you might get mad but you will have to understand why they are angry. I would also suggest that you ask yourself how much lower were your prepared to see this president lower the bar. I expected that by now I would have 75% of the expectations I had 2 years ago and I almost do. But even 75% of X is considered too high compared to the standard 50% of X and that is not a healthy sign for this president. Hope this helps.
While I don't really agree with you about the Democrats, I really do see your point about the doom-mongering. I've thought for a while that it's become drastically counterproductive-and that if you and everyone who does disagree with it departs on a site where everyone doesn't necessarily agree with it, it'd actually help worsen the tendencies that you already despise.
First, a hard truth, then what must be one of the first steps to change it:
As long as the Republican Party, economically financed by a corporate and near-corporate economic class, can mobilize its popular political base (over 20% of the US population) to vote against its material interests on cultural-religious grounds, what chance does any other party have against it? This is especially true of any party that cannot afford to attend to the material needs of its base without offending those who provide massive amounts of funding for its election and will use the power inherent in the ownership of the media against it whenever it feels its class under attack.
To break this hegemonic hold, at a minimum, all campaign money must be stopped from corporations and a cap put on political donations so that the buying of political power becomes impossible. There are many opportunities for the further advancement of democracy, but this one has to happen right away.
Good luck to all who fight corruption, cruelty, and stupidity of whatever sort!
The author is right on the need to keep community organizing and building going. However, I don't agree with his mixing of politics into it. Politics and community building/organizing just don't mix. The damage BP has done to coastal communities in LA and the politics of BP has made community repairs very difficult if not impossible. The trick to electing better representation is to think non-politically as much as possible. Obama was lucky to get elected both on his community organizing credentials, albeit questionable, and Bush doing very badly. However, once Obama got in, his governing in favor of the corporate interests has given community organizing a bad name. Even mentioning the word community can have people lashing out on Obama and rightfully so. Another issue I take with this author is his faith based reasoning that everything will be alright only if we do our part regardless of what the politicians and the monied interests do against us. For every new politician we are to elect, that politician must prove to us that he will not succumb to the elites from the day he or she is elected to the day he or she steps down. We need ways to better vet our candidates. We must also let them know that they have to honestly assure us that they will actually tackle the existing tenured incumbents who are likely corrupt and I'm not talking about playing "good cop bad cop".
I just laughed when I heard some people of European heritage talking about something you call your Elections when Bush and Kerry were running when one of them said, We have the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.
Under current circumstances, it might work to very seldom vote for anyone who has financial backing. One can assume such a candidate has sold out.