Rebuild the Dream by Van Jones Page B

had somehow managed to highjack or cripple the organization? It is perfectly understandable that Team Obama would try to keep control of the force it had consolidated—and use it to help in governing. Nonetheless, OFA could have been designed to be more empowering—with more invitations and opportunities for self-organization, even if it challenged Obama at times. OFA also could have been given a mission to shake up the status quo—by fighting to get big money out of politics, or by raising a big “war chest” to go after Congressional opponents of change in either party.
    In the end, in a narrow sense, OFA was a good tool for supporting the president and the Democratic Party. But, in a broader sense, it was a poor tool for growing a transformative movement. OFA’s limitations would not have been so disappointing, if there had been another national organization in place to take on the “transformative movement-building” work.
    The problem was no other organization existed. Grassroots progressives were far from building one, when Obama launchedhis campaign. When the campaign was over, many hoped that OFA would become that organization, and they were bitterly disappointed.
    In June 2010, James Vega, a colleague of the legendary pollster Stanley Greenberg, even laid out a proposal for building an independent organization, to complement OFA:
    Progressives need an independent movement, but not because Obama “failed” or “betrayed” them. Progress always requires an active grassroots movement, and the lack of one for the last thirty years is the key cause of progressive “failures” and “defeats.” . . . Defining a broad progressive agenda and building an independent “yes we can” movement to support it is the way to escape the vicious circle in which the progressive movement now finds itself—forced to constantly criticize Obama for not continuing to play the role of the progressive leader of a social movement that it is simply no longer in his power to play and then castigating itself as a failure for its inability to force him to do so. This is not the best way to build an independent progressive movement.
    (Note: an independent progressive “Yes We Can” movement would not need to compete with or be in conflict with the Organizing for America organization that has now evolved into the grass-roots base for the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party. OFA is narrowly and specifically focused on organizing support for Democratic candidates and the immediate Democratic agenda—which is a vital and legitimate function. A broad progressive “Yes We Can” movement, on the other hand, would be more explicitly progressive, more long-term oriented and more sharply focused on creating enduring community institutions and movement spirit.)
    Unfortunately, nobody stepped up to turn this proposal into a practical force.
    Perhaps it should not have come as such a shock that the DNC proved itself incapable of running a mass movement. But in the end, many committed activists felt duped and abandoned nonetheless. The loss of a political home was disorienting and demoralizing for millions.
    Many said, in essence, “I worked my butt off for this victory. I was just out there at the inauguration with two million people, holding hands with strangers. I was weeping with joy while Bush’s helicopter flew over my head, taking him away to Texas. I felt like I had finally gotten the country I’ve always wanted. I felt like I belonged. I was so excited, so inspired. And now all of that feels like it is gone. What happened?”
    What happened was a mistake, and it was just the first. In the months and years to come, the lack of a fearless, independent, populist force for change would cost the reform forces dearly.
BIG MISTAKE NO. 2: WRONG SPIN ON THE STIMULUS
    For any incoming administration, the transition from campaigning to