Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Activist-Prankster Infiltrates Tea Party and Anti-Immigrant Rallies

This has to be seen to be believed. An activist who goes by the name of "Robert Erickson" has infiltrated Tea Party and anti-immigrant events to stage "Borat"-style pranks on the people in attendance.

This first video at the Minnesota State Capitol shows Erickson giving a speech to the assembled anti-immigrant crowd. Some excerpts from his speech:



Its no secret that with an invasion of immigrants, comes waves of crime.  We see them involved in massive theft, in murder, and bringing diseases like smallpox, which is responsible for the death of millions of Americans.  These aren’t new problems though, they have been going on for hundreds of years, and continue to this day.
I say its time for us to say enough is enough!  Are you with me?  Are you with me?  Lets send these European immigrants back where they came from!  I don’t care if they are Polish, Irish, English, Italian, or Norwegian!  European immigrants are responsible for the most violent and heinus crimes in the history of the world, including genocide and slavery!  Its time to restore the sovereignty of people native to this land!  I want more workplace raids, starting with the big banks downtown.  There are thousands of illegals working in those buildings, hiding in their offices, and taking Dakota jobs.  Let's round them up and ship them out.  Then we need to hit them at home where they sleep, I don’t care if we separate families, they should have known better when they came here illegally!

If we aren't able to stand up to these European immigrants, who can we stand up to?  We need to send every one of them back home, right now. Thank you very much, and we’ll see you in the streets! 

Columbus go home!  Columbus go home!  Columbus go home!


On the second video in Washington, DC, Erickson scores an interview with anti-immigrant activist Roy Beck of Numbers USA.



Illegal European immigration is one of the worst things we have going in this country, " Erickson tells Beck as the cameras roll. "It's not a new problem. It's been going on for hundreds of years."

Indeed, Beck agrees, apparently without realizing the he's the butt of the joke, "It helped finish off the Indians."

When asked what we should do with illegal Europeans Beck states: “We think that E-Verify ought to be used at every workplace…”  “European verify?” asks a straight faced Erickson.

Several minutes into the interview, once Beck realizes that Erickson is sarcastically advocating the deportation of all white Europeans, Beck brings the conversation to an embarrassing halt.


Erickson has a fan page on Facebook and is on Twitter. He is definitely one of the more creative and ballsy activists out there.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

SMS Uprising: Mobile Activism in Africa


I am urging everyone who reads this blog to check out the recently published book, SMS Uprising: Mobile Activism in Africa, published by Pambazuka Press in Africa and Europe.

It is a collection of essays on using the cell phone as a tool for political and social activism. The anthology contains an essay written by yours truly on the work of Fahamu, a UK and Kenya-based Pan-African NGO which pioneered the use of cell phone text messaging for an activist campaign to enact legislation for women's rights in 2004 among other high-profile campaigns which attracted international media attention at that time.

From the book description:
SMS Uprising provides a unique insight into how activists and social change advocates are addressing Africa's many challenges from within, and how they are using mobile telephone technologies to facilitate these changes.

This collection of essays by those engaged in using mobile phone technologies for social change provides an analysis of the socio-economic, political and media contexts faced by activists in Africa today. The essays address a broad range of issues including inequalities in access to technology based on gender, rural and urban usage, as well as offering practical examples of how activists are using mobile technology to organise and document their experiences. They provide an overview of the lessons learned in making effective use of mobile phone technologies without any of the romanticism so often associated with the use of new technologies for social change. The examples are shared in a way that makes them easy to replicate -– 'Try this idea in your campaign.' The intention is that the experiences described within the book will lead to greater reflection about the real potential and limitations of mobile technologies.

If you want to learn about innovative uses of cell phone technology, are curious about its applications in activist campaigns, and want to learn more how this technology is being applied in activism in developing countries then this book is for you. Buy the book and tell them you heard about it from this blog!

Saturday, November 07, 2009

So You Want to be an Engaged Citizen

This compilation of resources combine my interests in new media technology and citizen-centered political advocacy. Reading about, exploring, and using these resources have been educational to me in learning how to be an effective advocate, how best to harness the latent power of ordinary citizens for social and political change, and what tools are available on the Internet to help an individual be an active, engaged citizen.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. It is a compilation of what I think are the best resources available from reputable organizations which deal with issues and politicians in a non-partisan way and which seek to promote greater transparency from the government and elected officials.

Online Resources for Researching Information about the Government


Open Congress

OpenCongress brings together official government data with news coverage, blog posts, public comments, and more to give you the real story behind what's happening in Congress. Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists already know what's really going on in Congress. Now, everyone can be an insider.

Show Us the Data


Show Us the Data: Most Wanted Government Documents is collecting examples of government documents and data that are unclassified and should be easily available to the public online, but are not.

Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics

OpenSecrets.org is the nation’s premier independent website tracking the influence of money on U.S. politics, and how that money affects policy and citizens’ lives.

OpenCRS: Congressional Research Reports

Taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. Yet, these reports are not made available to the public in a way that they can be easily obtained. Open CRS provides citizens access to CRS Reports already in the public domain and encourages Congress to provide public access to all CRS Reports.

Online Resources On Elected Officials and for Contacting People in Government


The White House: Office of Public Engagement

The Office of Public Engagement creates and coordinates opportunities for direct dialogue between the Obama Administration and the American public, while bringing new voices to the table and ensuring that everyone can participate and inform the work of the President.

Project Vote Smart


Project Vote Smart provides detailed information – biographical information, campaign finances, interest groups ratings, issue positions, and public statements – on elected officials including the President, members of Congress, state officials and leadership in state legislatures.

GovLuv

GovLuv uses Twitter to connect you instantly with your representatives in government.

General Sources of Information that Relate to Citizen Advocacy


Sunlight Foundation Insanely Useful Web sites

The Sunlight Foundation was founded in 2006 with the non-partisan mission of using the revolutionary power of the Internet to make information about Congress and the federal government more meaningfully accessible to citizens.

Personal Democracy Forum

Blog focusing on the latest news and information on the intersection between technology and politics.

Book Recommendation


The Citizen's Guide to Lobbying Congress

Exactly what the title says it is. A handy, practical guide for citizens to lobby their Congressional representatives.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Interesting Political Articles: Organizing for America and Gerrymandering

Disorganized: What happened to Obama's massive network of grassroots activists?

from The New Republic
Last year, after winning the presidency, Obama decided to keep intact the backbone of his stunningly efficient, innovative campaign. Previous presidents had outsourced their activism to interest groups; Obama was going to create his own. OFA was supposed to be a new kind of permanent campaign: a grassroots network wielding some 13 million email addresses to mobilize former volunteers on behalf of the administration's agenda (and keep them engaged for 2012). "We've never had a political leader who has continued their organizing while in office like this at this scale," Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of MoveOn, told NPR in January.

As right-wing protesters dominated the news this summer, it would have seemed the perfect opportunity for Obama's much-touted organizers to drown out the conservatives with some coordinated agitation of their own. But they barely made a ripple. Where were they? And how could such a formidable grassroots operation--having just put Obama in office--fall quiet so quickly?

Full article at The New Republic

Redistricting and Gerrymandering: Can the Internet Help?

from the Personal Democracy Forum
Gerrymandering has long been one of the ugly little secrets of American politics, and absolutely one of the arenas where the role of technology has been to make politics worse, not better. Every ten years, after a new census is completed, state legislatures redraw district lines, using powerful computers that essentially enable them to pick their voters before the voters ever have a chance to pick them. Wonder why 94% to 98% of incumbent Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are have been re-elected every cycle since 1996? Or why so few House seats--generally only one-in-ten--are considered up for grabs each cycle? This has long been one of those problems mostly of interest to academics and good government groups, and while everyone wrings their hands about how the resulting lack of electoral competition is bad for democracy, fosters polarization and entrenches corruption, so far no one has figured out how to make ending gerrymandering into a more popular cause.

Enter RedistrictingtheNation.com, a new site built by Avencia, a firm that specializes in web-based geographic analysis, visualization and modeling applications. The site offers an intriguing way of breaking down the barrier to public engagement on this issue, and, if it manages to draw more support, could actually change the game by showing citizens how easy it is to draw fair political boundaries, and how corrupt the process is now.

Full article at the Personal Democracy Forum

Thursday, June 04, 2009

The Political Outsiders Part III: FairVote

Political reform is a dicey matter. There are many who clamor for and demand reform of the political system. I’ve been an observer of the American political scene for a long time and I have seen anti-establishment reform movements and efforts come and go through the years. Many of these efforts generate a lot of activity and even media attention but eventually fizzle out and end up not reforming anything.

One organization’s reform efforts, however, stuck out to me like a sore thumb—an organization called FairVote. This organization’s efforts stuck out to me because they actually are succeeding in implementing crucial reforms. Not only are the reforms the type of actions designed to promote democratic participation among ordinary people and those who are outsiders to the two major parties—which I thoroughly support—FairVote actually has a record of concrete results in implementing reform on the local and even the state and national level.

The most successful and visible of FairVote’s many projects are:

Instant Runoff Voting
National Popular Vote

Instant Runoff Voting or IRV is a voting method designed to encourage participation of third and minor parties in elections by removing the “spoiler effect” that is intrinsic to our two-party dominated, winner-take-all model of elections. The National Popular Vote or NPV plan would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The respective links above contain more specific information on these efforts.

A Track Record of Results

FairVote has a track record of success of implementing these reforms incrementally on the local level, for example, such as municipalities and city councils that have adopted IRV as their voting method. But more impressively, FairVote has also had some success on the state and national level. The NPV plan has been submitted for legislative consideration in all 50 states and (as of today) and has been enacted into law in five states (Maryland, Illinois, Washington State, Hawaii, and New Jersey).

FairVote could not have accomplished all of this without heavy-hitting political allies and if you review the websites for both IRV and NPV you will see that among FairVote’s endorsers and supporters are current and former state legislators from both major parties, mayors and city councils across the country, and even nationally-known politicians from both major parties including John McCain and President Barack Obama.

Both IRV and NPV also enjoy wide media coverage from and have been endorsed by prominent news outlets. Despite this, however, FairVote still operates pretty much under the radar of public consciousness and is not yet a household name in mainstream American politics. If you ask most Americans if they are familiar with FairVote and its reform efforts you would most likely draw a blank.

One can argue with the merits of the IRV and NPV plan—and a healthy discussion on political reform is always a good thing in my book. But one thing that cannot be argued with is results. FairVote has consistently and incrementally shown results in its efforts. Whether it is media coverage, endorsements by prominent politicians or actual implementation of its plans into law through local and state legislatures, no one can deny that FairVote has been a highly effective force for political reform. At the end of the day, that is really what counts and the metric by which reform efforts should be measured.

Part I of this series
Part II of this series

Saturday, February 14, 2009

We Are Not a Movement?

Interesting article over at the Open Left blog which makes the observation that:

In their articles today on how "the left" is failing under the Obama administration John Judis and Glenn Greenwald decry the lack of a mass popular movement agitating all political actors, including President Obama, to enact a specific policy agenda. However, the decentralized, self-producing, public sphere multiplying reorganization of our society brought on by the self-publishing, network neutral Internet is in direct contradiction with the vision of a discrete, hierarchical organization working to enact specific policy agenda. That just isn't going to happen anymore...

As such, even mass membership institutions themselves will be variable in how, and why, they continue to operate. Their goals will be vague, and even those vague goals will not be fixed. This is less comment on the state of the American Left than it is a comment on broader changes in our largest cultural institutions. There is simply no way for the sort of left-wing movement implied by Judis and Greenwald to come into existing given our larger societal trends.

An interesting take on social movements in the Internet Age -- basically, the type of hierarachical, top-down organizations such as a political party or a membership organization (like the NAACP) will become less relevant for Progressive political action and a diffused, decentralized network will take (or has taken) its place.

I am taking the discussion out of Open Left and bringing it here to MOA to get a feel for how a more racially diverse and politically independent audience might see this argument. Do you agree? Is "movement" obsolete for Progressive politics and activism is best channeled via a decentralized, diffuse network? Can such a diffuse, amorphous network of people be effective in enacting policy changes and forcing political parties to take it seriously if it is not organized in a way traditional organizations are organized?

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Book Review: Taking On the System


Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga contains a very big contradiction. He set out to write a “Rules for Radicals” for the Internet Age -- a practical guidebook on how ordinary people who are not political or media insiders can use the power of social media and the Internet, combined with their own passion, ingenuity, creativity and beliefs, to influence the political process and win battles to promote the Progressive cause. His book, therefore, first and foremost, was a paean to small “d” democracy -- the power and potential for ordinary, average people to participate in a meaningful way in American politics.

Yet, Zuniga frames democratic participation in the book exclusively along the lines of how to influence the political process as Democrats. His case studies of political success stories primarily illustrate insurgent political activity within the Democratic Party (Jim Webb’s Senate candidacy and victory in Virginia, Ned Lamont’s challenge to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, the electoral defeat in Virginia and political downfall of George “Macaca” Allen, Carol Shea-Porter’s inspiring victory against all odds for a House seat in New Hampshire). I thought to myself this seems to be a very narrow view of democratic participation. The book, when it mentions it at all, does not have a high regard and is dismissive about activism among people who do not consider themselves Democrats.

Zuniga’s perspective comes from his admiration for the practical, common-sense principles of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
“We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy… It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that political revolution can survive without the supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.”

Zuniga’s focus on the Democratic Party, therefore, seems to be an acknowledgement of the reality of the dominance of the two-party system in American politics. Zuniga’s focus is to work within that framework to be able to advance Progressive principles and goals. To do otherwise -- try to change the System as an outsider (via a third party or as an independent) -- will only relegate one to the political wilderness where one’s efforts, no matter how well-meaning, will be marginalized and largely ineffective. Progressives in America -- if they want to be effective --, therefore, should join the ongoing battle within the Democratic Party (and there is a battle going on) between the corporate-friendly DLC wing of the party and the insurgent, Progressive Netroots.

The contradiction becomes obvious at this point. Originally written as a guidebook for political outsiders to take on and influence the System, the book urges one to become a political insider and be part of the System. Register as a Democrat, support Democratic candidates, elect Democratic politicians to office, for Zuniga, is the primary and most effective way to “take on the System.” To be fair, he urges Progressives to support Progressive and populist Democrats. But still, this contradiction is jarring to me.

I can’t refute the reality of the entrenched two-party system and the practicality of working within its parameters. I also can’t refute the very real fact that third parties and independents function largely in the margins of American politics and have not gained traction in recent years to become viable as the political opposition. Even outsider electoral reform efforts such as the programs by FairVote (Instant Runoff Voting, the National Popular Vote) require the cooperation and support of elected politicians and hence, cannot afford to be marginal and to function outside of the mainstream.

At this point, it would be very easy for me to dismiss Zuniga’s book as not being very radical after all and not really a guidebook for political outsiders. I can rail at his theses as being misleading and perhaps even imply that the book is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy designed to negate the burgeoning dissatisfaction most Americans have with BOTH major parties (by asserting that the answer to that dissatisfaction is more support for the Democratic Party). But that would do a great disservice to his reality-based argument.

Zuniga says:

“We live in a world where there is no reason anyone should whine or complain that they are being shut out of the system. The tools are available to mount credible challenges to even the most entrenched of powers. Such efforts will always lack resources, and will mostly face well-funded, deeply entrenched foes, but innovative tactics and smart use of money can carry the day. (p. 240)”

My questions for Zuniga -- and I am still speaking as a Progressive here -- what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

To be clear, I will support Progressive Democrats and I am 100% supportive of their efforts to transform the Democratic Party into a more inclusive, populist and Progressive political party. The bottom line for me, however, is although I found a lot to agree with in Zuniga’s book, I didn’t find that it spoke to me as a political outsider -- an independent Progressive. It didn’t answer my burning questions on how people like me can play a role in American politics other than as marginalized spectators.

All in all the Liberal Arts Dude gives Taking On the System four out of five stars. It would have gotten the full five stars if it provided better answers to my burning questions. But I found the book thought–provoking and that it generated a lot of introspection in me which led me to examine my own motivations for political participation.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Precarious Progressives

A couple of news items that caught my eye today:

The good: as reported in the Open Left blog
An exciting new piece of progressive infrastructure is emerging to help progressive candidates in federal campaigns: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Rather than focusing on large, independent expenditures, ala the Club for Growth, it seeks to help progressive federal candidates, such as Tom Geoghegan, by providing them with expert staff, advice, strategy and connection to the netroots. The focus will be on open seat primaries, and progressives who face competitive general elections, but primaries against conservative Democrats might also come into play.

The bad: as reported in Personal Democracy Forum
Some of the most popular state, local, and general-interest blogs in the progressive blogosphere were brought low this morning, when the lone developer behind the hosted community-blogging service SoapBlox threw in the towel. Well-regarded sites like Pam's House Blend, Blue Jersey, Michigan Liberal, Swing State Project, and MN Progressive Project found earlier today that they couldn't access either the public-facing front ends of the site or their sites' content-management backend. As of this afternoon, the sites are (mostly) back up, but that hasn't eased fears that a core part of the left's online infrastructure isn't all that sustainable.

SoapBlox became a building block of the progressive blogosphere, especially amongst state-level group blogs, by offering all the same powerful tools that blogging platforms like Scoop offer but at a fraction of the price or effort. Scoop, which powers the blog giant Daily Kos, can be difficult to deploy and maintain, and can cost in the thousands of dollars. A hosted alternative to Scoop, SoapBlox replicates all the weaponry of big-name blogs at a bargain price that runs in the neighborhood of $10 or $15 a month. But that low price and ease of use comes at a cost. SoapBlox has been the part-time project of one man, and he's burnt out. Earlier today, Paul Preston, a.k.a., "pacified," posted a note on SoapBlox.net calling an end to the service.

There is momentum in creating a Progressive infrastructure. But as the example of Soapblox points out, much of this infrastructure is put together pretty much with duct tape and wire. The operator of Soapblox has since turned back from his retirement of the platform and an effort is underway to save the system from total breakdown but it really is a wake-up call to Progressives and other outsider political movements to see how precarious their positions really are in relation to the Establishment they seek to reform.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Progressives and Independents

I: Kicking the Left with Impunity

There was an interesting discussion at the Open Left blog today in the wake of Barack Obama picking conservative evangelical pastor Rick Warren to say the convocation at his Presidential inauguration:

[T]here are clear benefits for Democrats who are able to generate public, left-wing outrage against their actions…This is a widely held view, and is openly shared by Democrats as high ranking as Rahm Emanuel. As long as the generation of public, left-wing outrage toward their actions is understood to be politically beneficial to Democrats, then many Democrats will continue to undertake actions that have the direct or indirect goal of generating public, left-wing outrage at their actions. This is pretty straightforward. As long as the cost of annoying progressives is not only zero, but actually a net positive, then Democrats will continue to annoy progressives ad infinitum.


For a solution, the article argues:

Progressives must make the political cost of such actions unacceptable to the Democrats who are willing to undertake such actions for political benefit. At the congressional level, I accept kos's premise that the only means of holding Democrats accountable for angering progressives are primary challenges (sitting on your hands or supporting third-party candidates just doesn't work). Or, to be a bit more accurate, the only way for outsiders like us to engage in progressive accountability for Democrats in Congress is to spend actual resources attacking a member of Congress in his or her district.


The commenter “leftvet” observes:

The only accountability that works for politicians are political consequences. The left is currently unable to exact political consequences on any politician, so we are, of course, ignored or vilified. Chris has summed it up very well. Progressives have no real choice but to continue to support mainstream Democrats, no matter how many times they f**k us over, because there is no other electoral option available to us. The Dems know it, and continue to exploit that situation.


This conversation is fascinating to me on so many levels. As someone who self-identifies as a Progressive, it is truly maddening to witness case after case after case of Democrats kicking Progressive values and politics to the curb once they get elected even after they ran on the promise and symbolism of Progressive idealism. It is as if once elected, the best way to gain political credibility is to take gratuitous potshots at liberals and left-wingers who supported them in elections.

The discussion at Open Left, although it hits upon many of the right points, completely misses a very big point -- not everyone agrees the best strategy to enact a Progressive agenda is to elect Democrats into office. Many people who are potential supporters of any Progressive movement are NOT Democrats, have absolutely no intention of being Democrats, and do not have any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party given the party’s record on many issues Progressives care deeply about.

No one seems to be seriously talking about appealing to and bringing Independents into the fold -- and this comes at a time when satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and the number of people who are self-identifying politically as anything other than Democrats and Republicans is at an all-time high. I don’t claim to be an all-knowing political guru but I am tired of Progressives getting their asses kicked by Democrats in the process of playing by the rules of the game of American electoral politics.

Is the only viable goal for Progressive activism to elect Democrats into office (even if they are better Democrats)?

II: The Fight for Open Primaries

Here’s an idea: how about Leftist Progressive activists join Independents in efforts for radical structural reform? One effort they can join very easily right now is the effort by Independents for Open Primaries. A petition is circulating right now to ask President Barack Obama to:

• Initiate and support federal legislation to create open primaries for election to federal office in all 50 states that guarantees full access for independent voters;

• Establish a Presidential Task Force on Political and Electoral Reform that includes representatives of the broad movement of independent voters to consider sweeping nonpartisan reform of the electoral process and its administration;

• Use the bully pulpit to speak out on the importance of open primaries and the inclusion of independents in all aspects of the electoral and political process.

They are trying to reach 1,000 signatures by Inauguration. This is one way Progressives can get themselves introduced to the burgeoning movement among Independents who, increasingly, are becoming aware of their political potential. It is one way Progressives can form a bridge with Independents to join in an effort they care about (and which stands to benefit voters and political parties who seek a viable alternative to the Democrats).

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Book Review: In the Balance of Power


In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third Party Movements in the United States by Omar Ali

In the Balance of Power was a fascinating book. It is, on one level, an historical account of African-American participation in the American political process, written from the vantage point of African-Americans’ history as independents -- outsiders to the political system dominated traditionally by two major parties. It starts from slavery in the 1770s, to the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the major hallmarks of U.S. history as it relates to African-Americans’ historical struggle for equality: the collapse of reconstruction, Jim Crow and segregation, the Civil Rights movement, the social and cultural upheavals of the sixties and seventies, through the present-day Independent movement of the Ross Perot era and the various organizations that were offshoots of that effort. It culminates in Barack Obama’s historic, insurgent candidacy and win over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential elections.

If one reads the book as a chronological history of African-American political participation, one can still come out with a rewarding experience and perspective. I derived an appreciation for the role of third parties and independent movements in pushing the envelope of political discourse to make certain things we take for granted a reality – the eight-hour workday and civil rights, for example, or womens’ suffrage.

I found myself constantly bowled over by one unexpected historical insight after another on the political activity of African Americans. More than just being passive, oppressed subjects as traditional historical accounts have tended to portray them, African-Americans have a rich history of organized, anti-Establishment political activity dating back to the days of slavery and through modern times.

For most Americans, their familiarity with African-American political activity begins with the Civil Rights Movement, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. But African-Americans, historically, have been active participants in the country’s democratic political institutions even at points when they were most marginalized.

As early as the 1700s all the way to the 1900s and beyond, African Americans were forming political parties, having political conventions, running for office, running sophisticated political campaigns and forging alliances with other insurgent political movements and political parties. Most amazingly, there were actual instances of these efforts winning and African-American candidates taking office as early as the 1800s on the local level and even at the state level.

Most telling were the risks and opposition that these efforts faced which can run along the lines of unfair practices to keep them out of participating in electoral politics, restrictions to ballot access, disenfranchisement of their voting rights, to the more crude threats of lynchings, harassment, death threats, and organized mob violence. Most interestingly, much of this opposition was state-sanctioned and came from the highest levels of the major parties at the time.

I also found insightful the later accounts of African-American political participation in the post-segregation era. Martin Luther King Jr. warned of the perils of over-reliance and dependency on one major political party (in this case, the Democrats) and to pin all of one’s hopes and political efforts in that arena. Ali describes a disconnect between younger generations who do not necessarily have a loyalty to nor a perception of the Democratic Party as being the best vehicle for African-American political expression and the old guard of the Civil Rights era who are overwhelmingly loyal to the Democrats.

This disconnect touches upon my own thoughts and interests as an Independent that I have written about frequently. I do not consider myself a Democrat -- I will support Democratic candidates and politics. But I have found that my brand of Progressive politics plays only a marginal role, at best, in the Democratic Party. Moreover, as a Progressive, I do not see myself in any capacity supporting Republicans. Where does that leave me politically but supporting marginal third parties or not voting at all?

This dilemma mirrors the options Ali laid out (p. 151) on the options to African-American political empowerment in the post-Civil Rights era as they evaluate the role of political participation in their community and the Democratic Party:

1) Instigating Black-led reform of the Democratic Party
2) Forming a Black political party
3) Practicing political eclecticism and putting support on whoever can be most helpful to you at the time
4) Charting a course that is most beneficial to the black community and the Republican Party
5) Following the fusion populist approach: building a base for independent politics among African-Americans and creating coalitions with white independents

In the Balance of Power deserves to have a wide readership. As an academic study and as a work of political analysis the book is an example of top-notch scholarship. More than a scholarly work, the subject matter is timely and relevant to current events as:
Increasingly less tied to the Democratic Party, black voters have been looking for new electoral options in the face of bipartisan failures at home and abroad. Sixty-six percent of all Americans believe that “the nation is on the wrong track;” 89 percent disapprove of the job being done by Congress; 71 percent disapprove of the job being done by the president. Among African-Americans, the feeling and experience are even stronger. Whether people are concerned about the failure of our public schools, our health care system, or the war in Iraq, there is widespread recognition that the two-party establishment is either unwilling or unable to address the current state of affairs in a developmental or democratic manner (Ali, p. 2).

The Liberal Arts Dude gives In the Balance of Power five stars out of five.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Obama's Grassroots Network

The Other Transition: Whither Obama's Movement?
By Micah L. Sifry, from Personal Democracy Forum
While most of the country's attention is focused on the transition underway in Washington, another vitally important transition is taking place right now in Chicago. I'm referring, of course, to the future of the Obama movement and network, or what some organizers refer to as "OFA2" (as in, Obama for America II). Thanks to reporting by Peter Wallsten in the Los Angeles Times, we know that "This weekend, hundreds of field staffers and some key volunteers are planning a marathon closed-door summit at a Chicago hotel to begin negotiating details of what the network might look like when Obama takes office in January. A group of field organizers from battleground states has been enlisted to draw up a plan."

What exactly is going on? The Obama people are saying very little. For a team that has been refreshingly open about the transition in Washington--not only posting an extensive list of transition staffers and donors but inviting public comments on top issues like health care and the economy, letting everyone see those comments and rate their value, beginning to engage in open dialogue via YouTube and mass conference calls and community discussions, posting the names of the outside groups lobbying the transition as well as the text of their position papers, asking for comments on same--the transition to OFA2, which seems to be de facto centered in Chicago, has been a totally top-down, one-way affair.

Yes, the Obama political team has been asking for input from its supporters about the future of OFA2. BarackObama.com features a big online "supporter survey" and the campaign (I guess that's what we still have to call it) has urged supporters to schedule local "Change is Coming" house parties for the weekend of December 13-14. "These meetings offer supporters a chance to reconnect with one another and talk about the issues that are most important to them," says Obama staffer Christopher Hass, "as well as an opportunity to discuss what they can do to support Barack's agenda and how they can continue to make an impact in their own communities....Your input, through the online surveys and through these upcoming house meetings, will help guide the future of this grassroots movement."

But what kind of guidance can isolated individuals and disconnected house parties give, other than vague affirmations of the need for "change" and their desire to pitch in?

Full article at the Personal Democracy Forum

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The New Organizers: The People Behind Obama’s Ground Game

Click on the link to the Huffington Post to read a remarkable article by Zack Exley on the on-the-ground operations of the field organizing of the Obama campaign.

The "New Organizers" have succeeded in building what many netroots-oriented campaigners have been dreaming about for a decade. Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so "top-down" and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or "bottom-up" organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning. The architects and builders of the Obama field campaign, on the other hand, have undogmatically mixed timeless traditions and discipline of good organizing with new technologies of decentralization and self-organization.

Win or lose, "The New Organizers" have already transformed thousands of communities—and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation. Obama must continue to feed and lead the organization they have built—either as president or in opposition. If he doesn't, then the broader progressive movement needs to figure out how to pick this up, keep it going and spread it to all 50 states.


Full article at the Huffington Post.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

This is the most exciting political article that I have read in a long time and really gives me hope for the future. The Obama campaign has built the foundation for an actual, bonafide, nation-wide social movement that has the potential to mobilize people and get things done in a concrete, realistic way. Kudos to the Obama campaign field staffers for this.

After the elections are over I can’t wait to see what form or forms these on-the-ground operations will take and what roles these volunteers will take on as they take the ball of citizen-powered democratic participation and run with it.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

A Sound Strategy: Go Local First

I get email updates from an organization called Progressive Majority. They are an organization which puts into practice the ideas that I touch upon in this blog post on the importance of running candidates on the local level and establishing a network of progressives in locally-based offices such as city councils, school boards, etc.

From their web site:
Progressive Majority recruits committed progressives to run for office at the state and local levels. More than 750 people have accepted our call to serve and, as a result, we've elected 259 to office. This work is changing American politics - we've helped flip control of four state legislatures and 27 local governments. Finally, the rise of the right wing is on hold and progressives are in charge!

Progressive Majority was founded in 2001 to serve as a multi-issue political action committee (PAC) by leaders from organized labor, Members of Congress, and progressive donors. Its network has since grown to over 50,000 progressives nationwide. They have programs in Arizona, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Their aim is to grow the movement until it is in the top 24 battleground states.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

Regardless of how you feel about electoral politics (most, if not all of PM’s candidates will run as Democrats) an infusion of progressive candidates and leaders on the local level is sound strategy in building a national, progressive agenda. PM’s approach is long-term in scope and recognizes the principle that to have a viable political movement, the foundation for it must first be in place.

That foundation, for PM, lies in electing candidates in locally elected offices in key geographic areas. Get enough of your people elected in those offices nationwide and pretty soon you will find the progressives competitive with the Republican-corporate backed political machine on a national level. But this time, with an active base of local and grassroots support.

This is an effort that was clearly designed with a long-term goal in mind. The goal is to build a national movement and not just throw support to a big name individual or high-profile candidate in high-profile races. The goal is to build a strong political infrastructure on a state-by-state basis—much like the conservatives did for themselves in the last 40 years.

This is the type of politics which excites me and which gives me hope for the future.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Five More States May Curtail Affirmative Action

Ballot measures pushed by Ward Connerly are likely to win passage

The prominent affirmative-action critic Ward Connerly appears well on his way to getting up to five states to vote in November 2008 on ballot measures banning the use of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies.

And, according to political analysts who monitor the states that are the targets of Mr. Connerly's planned "Super Tuesday on affirmative action" — Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — he stands a very good chance of getting measures passed in all of them.

All five states, which together account for 7.4 percent of the nation's population, have laws that make it fairly easy to place such referenda before their voters.

They also share several characteristics that suggest they will approve limits on affirmative action by solid to overwhelming margins. All have populations that are well over three-fourths white, and all lack the presence of minority advocacy groups strong enough to easily mount large-scale opposition campaigns. The only state among them that is not known for social conservatism is Colorado, where conservatives nonetheless account for a large enough share of the ideologically polarized electorate to have scored some key ballot victories in recent decades, passing term-limit and tax-limitation measures.

Full article here from the Chronicle of Higher Education (requires subscription)

The website of Ward Connerly's organization

Sunday, October 07, 2007

In Jews, Indian-Americans See a Role Model in Activism

When Anil Godhwani and his brother, Gautam, looked into creating a community center for Indian-Americans in Silicon Valley, they turned to the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco as a model.

When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.

Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.

Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout.

Full article here from the New York Times