no-holds-barred way for change, if such a fight required battling it out with Democrats. During the first year of the Obama presidency, Republicans, who had no power in the House and had to fight to maintain a filibuster in the Senate, were not the only obstacles to far-reaching legislation. Serious challenges came from the more conservative Democrats. An independent organization could have challenged the Blue Dogs to do more. It could have helped leaders in any party who wanted to win real change. But as a project of the DNC, OFA could not openly battle it out with Democrats, no matter how bad some of them were. Nor could it openly support Republicans, libertarians, Green Party members, or independents, no matter how good they were.
Also, as designed, OFA members could not mobilize people to change the presidentâs legislative prioritiesâor oppose them. It was set up to support the presidentâs priorities, whatever they happened to be. And those priorities could, and would, change, after the campaign.
Another problem was simply a matter of style. Magic is hard to measure, but lasting movements do need a sense of drama and spectacle, including huge rallies, massive marches, and star-studdedevents, to keep the spirit of the effort alive. A popular cause is powered by dramatic mass mobilization. It feeds on conflict and competition. A crusade requires idealism and aspiration, including voices and ideas that go beyond the perceived limits of the possible.
OFA did not take this approach; the organization was mainly known for asking people to donate online and to make phone calls to Congress people. It was confined by the insider strategy, which the DNC and the White House pursued. Rather than mobilizing the people and then cutting a deal with opponents from a position of strength, the White House tended to seek a deal first and then use OFA to mobilize people to fight for the pre-compromised position. This approach may have made sense inside the halls of power, but it left many grassroots supporters cold.
Vocal critics complained that OFA seemed to be characterized by too much one-way communication; it lacked the kind of âweâre all around the campfire togetherâ feel of the Obama campaign. OFA could never restore or replicate the feelings of excitement and self-empowerment that had been rising before Obama ran and reached a crescendo during the campaign.
Other conceptions of OFAâs identity and role, however unlikely, were at least possible. Obama could have taken a cue from former Vermont governor Howard Dean. After his path-breaking 2004 run, Dean converted his campaign organization into an independent group. Thus, Dean for America became Democracy for America (DFA). Dean went on to become the head of the DNC, but he did not fold DFA into the DNC. He kept the organization independent of the party; as a result, DFA remains an important independent force to this day.
In an idealized world, one could imagine president-elect Obama saying, âListen, Iâm going to be head of state and head of the Democratic Party. But Iâm going to trust these 13 millionpeople to talk to each other, make proposals to each other, and vote on them online, to form their own sub-groups, pool their own money, sometimes to oppose me, sometimes to support me. This is going to be a people-owned, people-powered organization. OFA will be holding online elections for a national governing board to guide the operations. As a former community organizer, I have decided to entrust and empower these 13 million people to fight for change in the way that they want, not just the way that I want. I know that more good things will happen for America that way.â
In the real world, Team Obama had no incentive to make such a decision or declaration. It would have meant giving up direct control of its most valuable asset outside of the halls of government. And it could have led to a disaster. What if irresponsible people
Also, as designed, OFA members could not mobilize people to change the presidentâs legislative prioritiesâor oppose them. It was set up to support the presidentâs priorities, whatever they happened to be. And those priorities could, and would, change, after the campaign.
Another problem was simply a matter of style. Magic is hard to measure, but lasting movements do need a sense of drama and spectacle, including huge rallies, massive marches, and star-studdedevents, to keep the spirit of the effort alive. A popular cause is powered by dramatic mass mobilization. It feeds on conflict and competition. A crusade requires idealism and aspiration, including voices and ideas that go beyond the perceived limits of the possible.
OFA did not take this approach; the organization was mainly known for asking people to donate online and to make phone calls to Congress people. It was confined by the insider strategy, which the DNC and the White House pursued. Rather than mobilizing the people and then cutting a deal with opponents from a position of strength, the White House tended to seek a deal first and then use OFA to mobilize people to fight for the pre-compromised position. This approach may have made sense inside the halls of power, but it left many grassroots supporters cold.
Vocal critics complained that OFA seemed to be characterized by too much one-way communication; it lacked the kind of âweâre all around the campfire togetherâ feel of the Obama campaign. OFA could never restore or replicate the feelings of excitement and self-empowerment that had been rising before Obama ran and reached a crescendo during the campaign.
Other conceptions of OFAâs identity and role, however unlikely, were at least possible. Obama could have taken a cue from former Vermont governor Howard Dean. After his path-breaking 2004 run, Dean converted his campaign organization into an independent group. Thus, Dean for America became Democracy for America (DFA). Dean went on to become the head of the DNC, but he did not fold DFA into the DNC. He kept the organization independent of the party; as a result, DFA remains an important independent force to this day.
In an idealized world, one could imagine president-elect Obama saying, âListen, Iâm going to be head of state and head of the Democratic Party. But Iâm going to trust these 13 millionpeople to talk to each other, make proposals to each other, and vote on them online, to form their own sub-groups, pool their own money, sometimes to oppose me, sometimes to support me. This is going to be a people-owned, people-powered organization. OFA will be holding online elections for a national governing board to guide the operations. As a former community organizer, I have decided to entrust and empower these 13 million people to fight for change in the way that they want, not just the way that I want. I know that more good things will happen for America that way.â
In the real world, Team Obama had no incentive to make such a decision or declaration. It would have meant giving up direct control of its most valuable asset outside of the halls of government. And it could have led to a disaster. What if irresponsible people
Similar Books
