Maybe It Takes a Community Organizer to Lead a Country
Barack Obama's history in grass-roots organizing got its first real blast of national attention from the Republicans. Rudy Giuliani, keynoting the GOP's convention in St. Paul, provoked a wave of snickers and catcalls by sneeringly asking, "What's a community organizer?" Sarah Palin followed with a dig of her own.
On Nov. 4, they (and we) learned that Obama's three years on the streets of Chicago, helping the unemployed find jobs and helping neighborhoods press the city for critical services, were the first steps in building the impressive organizational skills to win the presidency of the United States.
As my academic-activist friend Peter Dreier notes, "The Obama campaign hired hundreds of organizers from labor unions, community and environmental organizations and religious groups. They, in turn, recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and trained them in the skills of community organizing. They used door-knocking, small house meetings, cellphones and the Internet to motivate and energize supporters. They used the Internet and social networks to raise funds, in small and large amounts, from the largest-ever donor base. They opened more local offices than any other presidential campaign."
So now comes the question: How will the vast Obama campaign database of 3.1 million donors, 10 million supporters, be used?
For legal and privacy reasons, the overtly political part of it - prompting pressure on members of Congress to support Obama proposals, supporting Democratic candidates in 2010 and 2012 - will have to operate independently of White House operations.
But the Obama team has already set up a Web site, www.change.gov, which is reporting on transition developments, relaying the president-elect's messages, and inviting subscribers to register their own opinions and ideas. A parallel White House effort is to follow.
Now comes the thorny question: Where is all this activity headed? David Bollier, editor of the onthecommons.org Web site, poses the critical question: "Will the people on these lists be treated as a claque of loyalists who will be fed Pavlovian directives of the sort that Rush Limbaugh issues to his 'dittoheads'? Or will Obama allow his millions of supporters to mature into a community of citizens who, while obviously sympathetic, will be allowed to deliberate among themselves, disagree with the administration and even publicly challenge the president?"
My strong hunch is that Obama, true to his community-organizer roots, will opt for open discussion - part of an exciting change in national direction in which grass-roots citizens are both honored and relied upon.
But it may be challenging to keep an open-dialogue national network up and running: In the midst of hard-fought battles for administration bills, the president's own political operatives will be tempted to use the big national network for constant support, few questions asked.
Plus, while people in the network might be polled to determine their opinions on set questions, the logistics of harvesting tens of thousands of "best" ideas, evaluating all with fairness and then translating them into clear options, might prove daunting.
The task, though, could be made more manageable by channeling many communications to the appropriate Cabinet departments and asking them to respond. Indeed, the Democratic platform, composed in large part by the Obama team, clearly promises:
"We will enhance the flow of information between citizens and government - in both directions - by involving the public in the work of government agencies. We will not simply solicit opinions, but will also use new technology to tap into the vast expertise of the American citizenry."
It couldn't be said more clearly!
Indeed, the opportunities for increased transparency and accountability to the public, at the Cabinet and agency level, represent one of the most exciting possible breakthroughs. It may require a lot of guidance and encouragement of Washington's long-maligned bureaucracies. Though many of the "faceless" but dedicated officials in the agencies, frustrated by the inattention and neglect of the Bush years, will likely welcome the fresh winds of direct contact with a concerned public.
What's fascinating about all this is the two-way communications potential on issues crucial to the country's future, building ideas of mutual responsibility.
A top example: the global climate and energy crisis. It will require, notes Seth Fearey of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, dramatic behavioral change on the part of Americans - to cut back on our voracious energy consumption, drive less, use transit and bikes more, recycle and conserve in more ways than official Washington could ever imagine.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded, in his fireside chats, to convince Americans to conserve in World War II. Without a war, motivating a nation may be far more difficult.
Which is precisely why Obama's weekly addresses (being carried on YouTube), combined and strengthened by "social networking" through his motivated Internet-linked network, might be the right combination for the times - presidential leadership combined with community organizing, mobilizing us to act on the most pressing 21st-century challenges.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Barack Obama's history in grass-roots organizing got its first real blast of national attention from the Republicans. Rudy Giuliani, keynoting the GOP's convention in St. Paul, provoked a wave of snickers and catcalls by sneeringly asking, "What's a community organizer?" Sarah Palin followed with a dig of her own.
On Nov. 4, they (and we) learned that Obama's three years on the streets of Chicago, helping the unemployed find jobs and helping neighborhoods press the city for critical services, were the first steps in building the impressive organizational skills to win the presidency of the United States.
As my academic-activist friend Peter Dreier notes, "The Obama campaign hired hundreds of organizers from labor unions, community and environmental organizations and religious groups. They, in turn, recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and trained them in the skills of community organizing. They used door-knocking, small house meetings, cellphones and the Internet to motivate and energize supporters. They used the Internet and social networks to raise funds, in small and large amounts, from the largest-ever donor base. They opened more local offices than any other presidential campaign."
So now comes the question: How will the vast Obama campaign database of 3.1 million donors, 10 million supporters, be used?
For legal and privacy reasons, the overtly political part of it - prompting pressure on members of Congress to support Obama proposals, supporting Democratic candidates in 2010 and 2012 - will have to operate independently of White House operations.
But the Obama team has already set up a Web site, www.change.gov, which is reporting on transition developments, relaying the president-elect's messages, and inviting subscribers to register their own opinions and ideas. A parallel White House effort is to follow.
Now comes the thorny question: Where is all this activity headed? David Bollier, editor of the onthecommons.org Web site, poses the critical question: "Will the people on these lists be treated as a claque of loyalists who will be fed Pavlovian directives of the sort that Rush Limbaugh issues to his 'dittoheads'? Or will Obama allow his millions of supporters to mature into a community of citizens who, while obviously sympathetic, will be allowed to deliberate among themselves, disagree with the administration and even publicly challenge the president?"
My strong hunch is that Obama, true to his community-organizer roots, will opt for open discussion - part of an exciting change in national direction in which grass-roots citizens are both honored and relied upon.
But it may be challenging to keep an open-dialogue national network up and running: In the midst of hard-fought battles for administration bills, the president's own political operatives will be tempted to use the big national network for constant support, few questions asked.
Plus, while people in the network might be polled to determine their opinions on set questions, the logistics of harvesting tens of thousands of "best" ideas, evaluating all with fairness and then translating them into clear options, might prove daunting.
The task, though, could be made more manageable by channeling many communications to the appropriate Cabinet departments and asking them to respond. Indeed, the Democratic platform, composed in large part by the Obama team, clearly promises:
"We will enhance the flow of information between citizens and government - in both directions - by involving the public in the work of government agencies. We will not simply solicit opinions, but will also use new technology to tap into the vast expertise of the American citizenry."
It couldn't be said more clearly!
Indeed, the opportunities for increased transparency and accountability to the public, at the Cabinet and agency level, represent one of the most exciting possible breakthroughs. It may require a lot of guidance and encouragement of Washington's long-maligned bureaucracies. Though many of the "faceless" but dedicated officials in the agencies, frustrated by the inattention and neglect of the Bush years, will likely welcome the fresh winds of direct contact with a concerned public.
What's fascinating about all this is the two-way communications potential on issues crucial to the country's future, building ideas of mutual responsibility.
A top example: the global climate and energy crisis. It will require, notes Seth Fearey of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, dramatic behavioral change on the part of Americans - to cut back on our voracious energy consumption, drive less, use transit and bikes more, recycle and conserve in more ways than official Washington could ever imagine.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded, in his fireside chats, to convince Americans to conserve in World War II. Without a war, motivating a nation may be far more difficult.
Which is precisely why Obama's weekly addresses (being carried on YouTube), combined and strengthened by "social networking" through his motivated Internet-linked network, might be the right combination for the times - presidential leadership combined with community organizing, mobilizing us to act on the most pressing 21st-century challenges.
Barack Obama's history in grass-roots organizing got its first real blast of national attention from the Republicans. Rudy Giuliani, keynoting the GOP's convention in St. Paul, provoked a wave of snickers and catcalls by sneeringly asking, "What's a community organizer?" Sarah Palin followed with a dig of her own.
On Nov. 4, they (and we) learned that Obama's three years on the streets of Chicago, helping the unemployed find jobs and helping neighborhoods press the city for critical services, were the first steps in building the impressive organizational skills to win the presidency of the United States.
As my academic-activist friend Peter Dreier notes, "The Obama campaign hired hundreds of organizers from labor unions, community and environmental organizations and religious groups. They, in turn, recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and trained them in the skills of community organizing. They used door-knocking, small house meetings, cellphones and the Internet to motivate and energize supporters. They used the Internet and social networks to raise funds, in small and large amounts, from the largest-ever donor base. They opened more local offices than any other presidential campaign."
So now comes the question: How will the vast Obama campaign database of 3.1 million donors, 10 million supporters, be used?
For legal and privacy reasons, the overtly political part of it - prompting pressure on members of Congress to support Obama proposals, supporting Democratic candidates in 2010 and 2012 - will have to operate independently of White House operations.
But the Obama team has already set up a Web site, www.change.gov, which is reporting on transition developments, relaying the president-elect's messages, and inviting subscribers to register their own opinions and ideas. A parallel White House effort is to follow.
Now comes the thorny question: Where is all this activity headed? David Bollier, editor of the onthecommons.org Web site, poses the critical question: "Will the people on these lists be treated as a claque of loyalists who will be fed Pavlovian directives of the sort that Rush Limbaugh issues to his 'dittoheads'? Or will Obama allow his millions of supporters to mature into a community of citizens who, while obviously sympathetic, will be allowed to deliberate among themselves, disagree with the administration and even publicly challenge the president?"
My strong hunch is that Obama, true to his community-organizer roots, will opt for open discussion - part of an exciting change in national direction in which grass-roots citizens are both honored and relied upon.
But it may be challenging to keep an open-dialogue national network up and running: In the midst of hard-fought battles for administration bills, the president's own political operatives will be tempted to use the big national network for constant support, few questions asked.
Plus, while people in the network might be polled to determine their opinions on set questions, the logistics of harvesting tens of thousands of "best" ideas, evaluating all with fairness and then translating them into clear options, might prove daunting.
The task, though, could be made more manageable by channeling many communications to the appropriate Cabinet departments and asking them to respond. Indeed, the Democratic platform, composed in large part by the Obama team, clearly promises:
"We will enhance the flow of information between citizens and government - in both directions - by involving the public in the work of government agencies. We will not simply solicit opinions, but will also use new technology to tap into the vast expertise of the American citizenry."
It couldn't be said more clearly!
Indeed, the opportunities for increased transparency and accountability to the public, at the Cabinet and agency level, represent one of the most exciting possible breakthroughs. It may require a lot of guidance and encouragement of Washington's long-maligned bureaucracies. Though many of the "faceless" but dedicated officials in the agencies, frustrated by the inattention and neglect of the Bush years, will likely welcome the fresh winds of direct contact with a concerned public.
What's fascinating about all this is the two-way communications potential on issues crucial to the country's future, building ideas of mutual responsibility.
A top example: the global climate and energy crisis. It will require, notes Seth Fearey of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, dramatic behavioral change on the part of Americans - to cut back on our voracious energy consumption, drive less, use transit and bikes more, recycle and conserve in more ways than official Washington could ever imagine.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded, in his fireside chats, to convince Americans to conserve in World War II. Without a war, motivating a nation may be far more difficult.
Which is precisely why Obama's weekly addresses (being carried on YouTube), combined and strengthened by "social networking" through his motivated Internet-linked network, might be the right combination for the times - presidential leadership combined with community organizing, mobilizing us to act on the most pressing 21st-century challenges.