MoveOn and the Progressive Movement at a Crossroads
I'm grateful to TPM for hosting this discussion, and it seems the timing is fortuitous. As is so often the case, MoveOn is in the news this week, first for co-sponsporing, along with Color of Change and the rapper Nas, a protest of Fox News' coverage. And later, for Bill O'Reilly's deranged comment that, "It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan."
Whoa.
As I note in my cover-story in the Nation, this kind of crazy, over-heated rhetoric is par for the course. Heck, John McCain even said MoveOn "ought to be thrown out of this country." But understanding MoveOn as some kind of radical vangaurd -- as both the right-wing and MSM generally do -- gets the organization exactly wrong. MoveOn's success (and its limitations) lie in its ability to organize vast swaths of people who aren't radical or even that inclined towards ostentatious acts of protest. Their constituency is, by and large, what Richard Nixon once referred to, in a different context, as "the non shouters"
For a group that dominates the headlines as consistently as MoveOn does, it's remarkable to me just how poorly it is understood. In taking a look at the organization as it approaches its tenth anniversary, I was trying to get a handle on just what MoveOn was, how it worked and what it's future prospects were. But MoveOn also serves as a good representative for a lot of the other components of the progressive movement, which, after eight years opposition, is now trying to figure out its role should Democrats come to control the federal government.
There are three questions about MoveOn's future I think are particularly relevant:
1) What does the next MoveOn look like? The model of internet activism they pioneered has been widely adopted, plowing the ground the Obama campaign has so fruitfully harvested. But there appears to be diminishing returns, as its rate of growth has slowed considerably, and politicians learn to ignore mass petitions. In response they've started experimenting with new platforms (Facebook), and putting more emphasis on face-to-face organizing. Will this trend continue and will it be more effective?
2) How does MoveOn function in relationship to a possible Obama administration? They endorsed him in the primary and gave some pushback over his FISA heresy, but its unclear just how much fear they strike in the hearts of Democratic politicians. MoveOn's critics (some of whom are joining in discussion) charge that MoveOn has grown too cozy with the Democratic party and been insufficiently confrontational, particularly on the issue of funding the war. Of course, it's unclear how much a more confrontational stance would have accomplished but negotiating the tricky terrain of pressuring your ostensible political allies is something all of us on the center left are wrestling with.
3) Just how effective is MoveOn, and how effective can it be without a deeper network of social capital, and a more democratic model? That is, while MoveOn is undeniably (to my view) a net positive for the left and for the country, does its model of activism-made-easy cut off its potential for something bigger?
I don't really have the answers to these questions, and I think the MoveOn folks, who tend to be pretty humble and thoughtful, don't necessarily think they have all the answers either. But the stakes are pretty high right now, with a war that grinds on, and the possibility of some seriously significant progressive legislative reform on the horizon.
The progressive movement, in other words, is approaching a crossroads, and this seemed as good time as any to take a look a where we've been and what's next.
I think it might be important for MOve-on to place some resources in different regions of the nation in order to further strengthen a regional grass-roots approach. I believe that moving forward it becomes much more important for regular Americans to take their civic responsability much more seriously. This is where Move-on can come in and help connect local activist, politicians and local business achieve the type of progress each community foresees! Move-on gets criticized as an entity, as a single group, but it is just important for Move-on to emphasize the differences that many of its members have while encouraging the reason why they stand together.
July 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
JoshQ. is on point. Moveon needs to put their resources and expertise into educating state and local groups how to successfully promote their issue, how to research the opposition and how to respond to false and misleading information. Most citizen issues tend to be non-partisan in nature so this would remove or minimize the "stigma" of being a left wing radical organization, a perpetual talking point of the right wing noise machine.
Citizen action groups are like the militia in some ways, they arise out of the general population but, like a militia, there needs to be an organizing, planning and strategic component which may not exist within the citizen group. This could be the role that Moveon is fitted to.
July 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like MoveOn but sometimes the group just hits the wrong notes?
Like, what do you all think of this video:
http://gawker.com/5030085/moveon-goes-viral-with-gross-pro+obama-valtrex-ad
It's kind of funny but comparing hope to the herpes might not be that effective.
July 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a somewhat tangential comment on MoveOn's administration.
For months I have been getting their e-mails for "crucial" actions late - often a week late. They seem to be the only messages that are delayed. I just got some on the 24 of July that were dated July 17. I've tried to call this to their attention on a number of occasions over what seems like a year but the result hasn't changed. I receive no answers. I've given up trying to get them to listen. Is someone listening?
Someone at MoveOn needs to look into the delays in getting their e-mails out. I don't know whether it is a problem with their website host or my high speed internet service (Comcast). Sometimes I put on my conspiracy hat and think it's intentional by someone in the system.
Does anyone else note the problems?
July 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't had that problem but then, I took my name off of MoveOn's lists. They email way too frequently for my tastes. It got to a point where I just couldn't stand it.
July 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least moveon exists as a vehicle to receive input and send a message apart from the woeful risk averse appeasement minded party. Their e-mails don't annoy me nearly as much as the e-mails from the party in all its incarnations always asking for money and never providing a vehicle to reply.
July 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, bluebell, that pisses me off too: you hit "reply" to respond to the latest bleating from Nancy, Harry, or Dem-whoever, and it automatically fills in "no-reply."
However, you CAN outsmart them: just look in the header and see what the sender's address is [e.g., Pelosi@DCCC.org]. Then type THAT into your "send to" slot and compose your scathing response to their drivel.
Of course it's only the staffies who read this stuff, but still, it's satisfying to let them know you won't be contributing.
July 29, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the "got hope" ad--it would be more effective if it were funnier. The difficult thing about tasteless satire is that it has to be incredibly funny to work at all. And that ad is only sorta funny.
It needs some ADR, a couple of different shots and a funnier close.
If it is going to be the first political ad ever to air on Comedy Central, they better get a Comedy Doctor to take a look at it.
July 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn and other groups faced the crossroads a few months back and made what I consider a wrong turn. They should not have taken such an active role in the primary battle between Obama and Hillary. Neither candidate is very progressive, both advocate similar policy positions and each generate extreme partisan support.
To support a candidate in such a hard fought and extremely close election the usual tactics involve overlooking the faults of your candidate, rationalizing away his negative traits and actions, parsing every word of the opponent and spinning those words in the most negative way, and defending positions and actions of your candidate that in a less heated battle one would object to. Both sides engaged in all these things and more during this primary season.
Such unqualified support before an election make it difficult to effectively challenge your candidate on actions and policy positions after the election.
These tactics also tend to alienate the opposition. Its one thing to use them in a battle between democrats and republicans or even against the far right wing democratic candidates in congressional primary elections. But quite a different thing to use them in a tight divisive fight between two very similar candidates.
MoveOn attempts to be a group representing a certain spectrum of progressive citizens but by playing such a partisan role in the primary it has alienated a significant portion of those citizens. I have *moved on* and switched all my contributions to other organizations as well as using any influence I might have among my peers to discourage them from involvement in moveon.
July 28, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's OK for the DLC to support a certain spectrum of the party but not OK for moveon? The conventional wisdom seems to be that any group representing the liberal side of the party is beyond the pale but all groups wanting to cozy up to the Republicans are "moderate" no matter how far right the proposals they support. I'm sure many like me initially joined on with moveon over the Iraq War after the establishment party so badly led us and the country over the cliff into the $10B a week morass (that they all keep voting to fund!)
I very strongly support a group be it moveon or something else that represents the liberal side of the party and never lets the Pelosis or Reids or Clintons and yes the Obamas know that we are not on board the right-wing train to disaster.
As for their support of Obama, he was the non-DLC candidate. What else can you do? These are hard times for anyone believing the country is on the wrong course (like about 85% of us?). We have few choices and not one of them is a good enough choice.
July 28, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The assumption that you base your response on is that Obama was the progressive's choice. I disagree. There were many progressives that supported Hillary. In fact I and many others felt Hillary to be the more progressive choice. MoveOn made a choice that went against the views of a significant minority of its members in a very heated and important race. That was sure to have repercussions.
This was the first presidential primary that moveon chose to endorse a candidate. In the ballot sent out to members there was only the option to vote for Hillary or Obama. Many members complained and contacted moveon because they wanted there to be an option to not endorse any candidate. While Obama overwhelmingly won the vote only about 10% of the members voted. 10% doesn't seem sufficient to accurately gauge the members views.
The DNC doesn't care what the liberal wing of the party thinks about its endorsements and moveon should not care about what the right wing of the democratic party thinks of its endorsements. But MoveOn made a choice that fractured its membership. I would have preferred no endorsement in that case as moveon has done it past presidential primaries. I felt that no matter who won the vote it would hurt the organization. I have no idea how it played out for them or how it will play out as I terminated my relationship with MoveOn immediately after the vote.
July 29, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC doesn't care what the liberal wing of the party thinks about its endorsements
That's for sure.
July 29, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to MoveOn's support for AlGore?
Last week, Gore called on America to be carbon dioxide-free within 10 years.
Let's not stop there, let's call on America to be 100 percent oxygen-free within 10 years.
July 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 31, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, don't know what I did wrong, the blockquote was supposed to end after the first line! (Edit function needed!!!)
July 31, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink