MoveOn is No Movement, It's a Powerful Democratic Marketing and Fundraising Tool
I'm very glad that Chris Hayes wrote this exceedingly fair cover story for the Nation because it gives all of us an opportunity to examine an important organization that is tremendously successful as a fundraiser, cheerleader and marketer for liberal Democratic causes, MoveOn. I have praise for MoveOn in what they have accomplished, but their limitations are becoming more and more glaring and in the case of the continued Democratic funding of the war in Iraq, problematic.
I criticize MoveOn for what they are not doing, and that is empowering a bottom-up, democratic, progressive movement for fundamental social and political change. I am certainly not trying to reform MoveOn, that would be impossible because they are a tightly controlled organization and there is no access from the outside to change their modus operandi. Rather, I think we all should learn from MoveOn and focus on how we can use the MoveOn style, which has now been copied by thousands of groups and candidates, to actually empower a movement.
MoveOn has fallen into the same top-down rut that all the big national public interest and environmental groups are in. MoveOn raises millions and millions of dollars each year, but the dollars go into marketing, advertising, and candidates, and not into empowering the 3.2 million people on their list. Similarly, the Big Green environmental organizations, the largest DC-based environmental lobby and marketing entities like Environmental Defense, NRDC and others, together raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year from foundations and grassroots individuals. Billions of dollars over the past decade have been raised and spent by these ten or so largest and best branded environmental (non-profit) corporations. Yet despite the popularity of the environmental cause and the way environmental health issues cut across partisan politics, despite the fire and volunteerism at the grassroots where people are fighting and winning battles such as stopping new coal plants, this national movement of giant non-profit lobby organizations is politically impotent. Why? Because ever since the 1970s all the money that flows from the grassroots and from foundations, for the most part, is spent on everything but empowering and organizing and assisting the grassroots, who are starved of the money for organizers, offices, communications, strategy development and political training.
My criticisms of MoveOn are in a similar vein. If you want a cheerleader and fundraiser for the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party, then MoveOn is the ticket. But MoveOn is not a movement, nor will it spawn one.
I recently interviewed David Sirota on our website at and discussed with him the Democrats and MoveOn. The whole interview is online here. Below is an excerpt where he and I discussed MoveOn and this alternative vision of using the net tools that MoveOn has helped develop to build a bottom up populist movement.
STAUBER: When the Democrats realized that the "gift" of the Iraq war -- as Mario Cuomo has sarcastically called it -- had given them control of the House and Senate in 2006, Pelosi and other leaders obviously decided to play it safe, not investigate this Administration for its many possibly impeachable offenses, and not force an end to the war by refusing to fund it. Apparently they hope that Iraq will play out politically in a similar fashion in the 2008 election and provide a Democratic victory. Do you agree with this analysis and whether or not you do, how do you view the failure of the Democrats and major collaborators like MoveOn to force an end to the war in Iraq after the 2006 elections that were such an anti-war vote?SIROTA: Yes, I think Democrats are hoping that they can do nothing substantively to end the war, but get the sizeable antiwar vote in the general election nonetheless. The strategy is a predictable reflection of an unfortunate reality: namely, the reality that there in fact is no strong antiwar accountability system that is willing to use the election as an instrument of pressure. Instead, there are groups like Moveon.org that have built up an enormous capacity for pressure, but are using that enormous capacity as an appendage of the Democratic Party, regardless of whether Democrats use their congressional power to end the war.
STAUBER: MoveOn is not a movement although it wants to be perceived as one. It is a brilliant and effective fundraising and marketing machine, but 95% or more of their so-called members ignore any particular email appeal. These 3.2 million people on the MoveOn email list are the object of marketing and fundraising campaigns, but they have absolutely no meaningful or democratic control over the decisions of organization, there is no accountability from the leadership to the MoveOn list members, and those of us on the list are unable to organize and communicate amongst ourselves within the list because it can't be accessed by the grassroots at the local or state level. MoveOn, the Democracy Alliance, and the various liberal think tanks that have arisen to fight the Right are clearly a force able to raise millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and launch PR and messaging campaigns, but none of them are about empowering a populist grassroots uprising. Or am I missing something?
SIROTA: I believe Moveon.org, the Democracy Alliance and the array of left-leaning institutions that have arisen in recent years possess a vast amount of potential for a progressive movement - but it is only potential at this point. That's for many reasons - one of the biggest being the utter lack of small-d democracy. You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file.
STAUBER: If and when populist forces build an email list as big as MoveOn's -- and most of that list was built by MoveOn's posturing as an ardent anti-war organization, which it is not - - and harness it for real grassroots empowerment, that is when we might see some exciting political developments that combine the Netroots and grassroots for fundamental change. I'd love to see a MoveOn-type organization that would actually trust and empower the millions of people on its email list so that the decision making, organizing and money benefit the grassroots and grow power from there upward, one in which the structure at the top is accountable to and elected by the members. It's hard to have a political democracy when we don't even have democratic organizations or movements. I've talked with some of the leadership of MoveOn about this, but they have no intention to democratize and will remain a top-down marketing and fundraising organization. How do you view this challenge of building a powerful new populist movement serves a movement rather than serving a Party or a small elite of decision makers who fund and run liberal think tanks?
SIROTA: It's a huge challenge and gets to a deep psychological issue. Are we willing to think in movement terms, or are we going to keep succumbing to partisan terms foisted on us by a shallow media? Breaking free of that latter propaganda is no easy task - it requires a real commitment to grassroots organizing and education. That's unglamorous stuff - the kind of stuff that doesn't get you media accolades in the 24-hour news cycle. But it's the kind of stuff that builds real power. I would say that if the institutions of the much-vaunted new progressive infrastructure are interested only in being celebrated in the short-term, meaningless media cycle, then they should do what they are doing. But if they are interested in actually building a movement that wields real power, they need to radically change from autocratic institutions looking for applause from Big Money, Big Media and big politicians, to democratic institutions looking to make meaningful change. There's a reason why the labor movement continues to be the most durable and powerful movement apparatus in human history: it is fundamentally a democratic movement. Trying to build a progressive movement on an autocratic model is a concept that may change the deck chairs on the Titanic - but ultimately a concept that leaves everyone on a sinking ship.
Thank you. There is a little too much self congratulatory rhetoric on our side, and not enough objective views. It is pretty clear that the moveon agenda goes only as far as the political establishment allows it. That is no movement.
July 29, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting stuff but the conclusion that the labor movement is democratic would come as news to many a union member.
July 29, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hearty "no shit!" to that.
July 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up.
July 29, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn began as a "movement" during the Clinton years, and has morphed into something that generates a lot of noise (and some cash from time to time) while having little or no real positive effect on things.
Much of this has to do with such blunders as their "General Betray Us" ad, which in one stroke threw away any chance to actually force some hard questions on the man, by making the too-clever-by-half headline the topic. Once the ad instead of his peddled lies became the topic, that battle was lost.
They threw away whatever credibility they may have had on that one, and from what I see have yet to regain much if any of it.
July 29, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They lost me a long time ago with their various childish ads and slogans. They had a real opportunity to make a difference -- I don't know if that necessarily means "becoming a movement" per se -- but in my opinion they limited themselves to playing the hyper-partisan nyah-nyah gotcha game instead.
July 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true. Unfortunately, they represent a squandered opportunity, because like far too many on the "left", it's not about anything other than them.
Win the damn elections first, then start pushing for things.
July 29, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think that part of the goal of groups like MoveOn is to tamp down any 'movement' that might develop by just giving the people who might agree with their political POV one choice...donate money. I think a movement is the last thing that the politicians who say they are in the political left, and get financial benefit from MoveOn's operations, want to see...because they probably feel it will conflict with at least part of their narrative and ultimate goal, which is to get them in power and once there help them keep it. I was for the first time thinking about donating money to the D's (I am a registered (I) from the far left) but their inaction on the war and their cave-in on FISA dashed any idea I had of opening my wallet on their behalf.
July 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like what's going on to me, too. The media also rewards politicians for controlling their followers, not for letting the voters lead them. Stauber wants to use MoveOn's membership base so that he can organize within the group through a social networking platform. Seems like a good idea. But the moment that Obama's supporters used his mybarackobama.com to protest his FISA vote, the media fell into a fit of "How ironic!" stories...
I could see MoveOn saying back to Stauber -- why should we give you access to the email list that we collected? I can also see that some MoveOn members might not want to be contacted by Stauber. They didn't sign up for that, after all.
July 29, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey destory23, actually I am asking NOTHING of MoveOn, not access to their list or anything else. I'm pointing out how they use their list -- top down marketing and fundraising for Democratic Party efforts and candidates. And I'm pointing out that IF the organization's the goal was to empower that list and organize it and make the MoveOn "leaders" accountable to the grassroots, and make the list accessible at the grassroots, these would all be exciting developments. But MoveOn is not going to change itself, it's a tightly controlled organization run by a small handful of people at the top. MoveOn raises tens of millions a year for its own TV advertising campaigns and for candidates. Imagine if that money from the grassroots were used to put in place and support organizers, strategists, attorneys, advocacy journalists and other locals who were linked nation-wide as a movement. That is an exciting vision. None of these national groups pursue that vision, although MoveOn will probably weigh in at some point in this discussion about how they are organizing local councils, but it's not at all the same. If we want a powerful grassroots progressive movement, we need to build it and fund it. MoveOn is not about that, and I am not expecting a leopard to change its spots.
July 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good distinction to make. MoveOn could have done what you're talking about but it didn't, so maybe some one should.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that MoveOn is, indeed, 10 years old. It grew up with email as opposed to social networking. What if MoveOn were 5 years old and had started as a popular Myspace or Facebook page? Could have gone in a totally differenty direction.
July 29, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that moveon is not the movement I'd like to see, but it did recruit 8 neighbors in my precinct in 2004 so it had some of the attributes you describe. I think the party has pretty much tried to squash it. I wouldn't trash moveon until we've got something better.
July 29, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what bothers me about this topic. No one could possibly believe that MoveOn is perfect. It is a human enterprise, so it has to be imperfect. But, the most ludicrous part is that we couldn't possibly agree on what "perfect" means if we even tried.
MoveOn has been effective at times and ineffective at other times, always as judged by what they seek to do. Given the vast number of members of MoveOn, it isn't remotely possible for what they seek to do to be left to democracy to a greater extent than it already is. MoveOn supported Obama because the membership voted that they do so, not because the few who control MoveOn made the decision. So, we members do control the activities to some extent.
At one time, about 4 years ago, MoveOn attempted to organize their members into local action groups, but that effort failed, in my opinion, due to a lack of things that the groups could and would do.
In the world that we occupy today, MoveOn is most effective doing just what they now do - add some support for one of the only two viable choices of political parties we have, the Democratic Party. So, rather than knock it for not being what it can never be, lets support it for being something that can be very helpful to reaching the goals so many of us seek.
July 29, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
...wonder what moveon.org thinks of a possible Obama administraton plotting a military strategy to get bin Laden.... there haven't been too many articles about how Obama's foreign policy wonks are continuing to "refine" possible deployment of military forces in and around Pakistan and Afgan borders....hmmm, me see a hornet's nest over there too...
July 30, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Destor...
I wouldn't expect MoveOn to give up the mailing lists. But it just underscores how difficult 'the establishment' makes it for any grassroots movement to take hold. But since MoveOn was such a vocal critic of the war have they criticized the D's for not addressing it? Are they holding the feet of democratic politicians to the fire for not supporting the causes that MoveOn claims they champion?
To be perfectly blunt I am f'ing pissed at the D's right now. As usual I feel like I have been sold down the river to their favored group of corporate backers. The R's will NEVER be an option...while I am pissed at the D's the R's really do scare me sh*tless. The Green Party? Well I don't feel like throwing away my vote quite yet. Libertarian Party? Nope, while I agree on their social agenda I can't support their pro-corporate agenda which might be even worse than the R's. So what is left to do? Pack it in and just give up on politics completely has crossed my mind. All I know I am getting tired of beating my head against a concrete wall hoping that by doing so I can somehow have an effect. I can't tell you how disillusioning the Democrat's handling of FISA was to me. Why even bother any more?
July 29, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I had an answer for you since I'm as let down as you are. You and me are in an uncomfortable political space since we're for libertarian social arrangements but reasonable regulation of resources and capital. The major parties just don't seem to want any of that.
It's depressing, I know. I think we have to vote. But we don't have to give anybody any of our time or money.
July 29, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't know if I am gonna vote this go round Destor, I am serious. But I live in CT so in that regard I doubt my non-vote will matter all that much. I am tired of being called an asshole because I feel certain things need to be defended. Once we are asked to compromise core principles 'for the greater good of the party' I don't know if it is a party worth supporting.
July 29, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
i live in michigan so i figure my vote's gonna matter quite bit this go round. i too am thinking my pocket is the best place to put it.
July 30, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are content to let the chips fall where they may. You know very well that there are two choices - yet - you reject the only other option we have besides the Repugs?
Thank you for a completely fucked up federal judiciary.
I really get so damn tired of the selfish extremists - you don't get what you want, so to hell with women's rights; to hell with the Supreme Court; to hell with the economy and the environment.
You didn't get your vote on FISA.
Damn I wish you people would grow up.
July 29, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA this time, maybe Roe next time, the 1st amendment after that. It is called precedence Tena. If a party can't be bothered to stand up for the 4th amendment they'll probably be predisposed to not stand up for any of them if 'political considerations' dictate it. Ever hear of the "rule of law" or is that not important in the 'big picture' either?
July 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Women's rights? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? That was one of the first things the establishment party abandoned on their way to becoming a weak version of the Republican Party.
I'm grown up enough to know that it isn't going to make any difference until people hold at least one of the parties accountable.
July 29, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really get tired of being lectured by people who don't agree that what I think is important is important and I get especially tired of being called a child just because I don't necessarily share somebody's priorities.
FISA isn't just a travesty, it's a representative tragedy. I keep voting for Democrats but I wind up with wars I don't want, violations of civil liberties I don't want and even prudish social policies I don't want.
But it's one thing for me not to get what I want out of policymakers. I'm used to it. It's another thing for the very people who should be against unwarranted domestic surveillance, for same sex marriage and against the military industrial complex to tell me that I'm somehow obligated to a party that has failed to enact the right policies on any of that.
Don't tell me to grow up. Work for a better party. If you really think that what the Democrats have done in the times they've had power is right... well... that's another discussion. I'll gladly tell you why you're wrong. But without the condescending "child" language you've resorted to using.
July 29, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really get tired of being lectured by people who don't agree that what I think is important is important and I get especially tired of being called a child just because I don't necessarily share somebody's priorities. ... Don't tell me to grow up. Work for a better party. If you really think that what the Democrats have done in the times they've had power is right... well... that's another discussion. I'll gladly tell you why you're wrong. But without the condescending "child" language you've resorted to using.
Word up.
July 30, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, here's The Enforcer, right on schedule.
July 30, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It occurred to me about 3 years ago that moveon was using the antiwar movement to gain members but that it was really run by establishment democrats that were not at all interested in listening to the progressives. Nothing to be angry about, they are just political pros doing their thing, but nobody to support either.
July 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen and Absolutely.
July 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live on Manhattan Island, a place packed with Democrats. And pretty powerful ones. Yet, I felt like MoveOn was sincerely inviting me to be on a local 'council' where I could participate in decisions about the local direct actions they do.
Are you suggesting that MoveOn hand off its national reach to you? It'd have to hand it off to everyone. I'm not sure what the organization you're looking for would work like.
July 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my response above to destor23. The local council concept is, as I understand it, about MoveOn creating local groups that can work under the direction its national campaigners and decision makers. Its a logical extension of their various local organizing effort to try to put in place more structure. But it is a long, long step away from actually trying to become a democratic organization where decision-making at the top is accountable to the the grassroots membership, where there would be elections of national leaders by a bigger membership, where decisions of how money is raise and about how money is spent would be transparent to members, and where instead of money being drained out of local communities into national advertising campaigns that a small handful of people decide to launch, money is directed back at the grassroots to create locally powerful organizations. Imagine using a list of 3.2 million progressive to create local organizations that actually wield power at the community and congressional district level, and that could hook up a the state level across the country. That's the type of vision that a real marriage of the netroots potential and the old fashioned grassroots organizing I was raised on could facilitate. But again, I'm not expecting MoveOn to do this because they won't. They are very happy being in control of a 3.2 million person liberal list that they can use as they see fit to help the Democratic Party. Good luck with your council experiment, though!
July 29, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for all the typos above! Read with imagination!
July 29, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with many of the posters that Moveon is not a perfect organization nor has been entriely effective. I am not sure about its top-down dynamic but I can attest that I have given them very little money but much more of my mind when it comes to their talking points. This election like any of the other ones that we will have in the future must first start with all of us taking in active role in the communities we live in any way we can. Essentially this is where I feel a little perplexed with Move-on and other NGO's/Activist organizations. It is important that we ca reconnect with our community and actively play a role in shaping its future. To me this is the fire that must be started and it does not start with throwing stones at every mistake any side has made in the past but must be made by coming to the agreement within the community that it wants to be empowered to take on the responsability of shaping the community of the future. The bottom-up is the energy which needs to be harnessed by the leaders of this community and they do themselves a disservice by not actively encouraging public debates and public participation on any issue which they maight face. Transparency, open-mindedness, and rigorous analysis would go a long way in bringing our country back together. One of the problems that impedes much of this is the MSM and the lack of diversity in much of the media markets. Indy media does a good job and the online community has done wonders for encouraging debate on civic issues.
It was sad to see the forceful way in which Redlasso was dealt with by FOX and friends!
July 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
2 things John,
One, you state:
Why the conservative characterization here? And, what values/beliefs would qualify one for membership in the Pelosi wing?
That's just lazy, and, I might add, offensive thinking and writing. Please peddle that garbage in some other forum, such as The Corner.
Two, you write:
Exceedingly fair? Take a read of this excerpt from the piece and tell me again that it was exceedingly fair. John McCain, Campbell Brown, and Bill O'Reilly weghinh in on MoveOn.org?
Please.
July 29, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very valuable and insightful post, John. I believe MoveOn is merely one of the more prominent examples of this phenomenon. Having involved myself in environmental issues for well over a decade, I can vouch for the commonality of larger "liberal" organizations' mistrust and vague contempt for the grassroots.
Although an unwillingness to share the catbird's seat and fundraising largess surely plays a role in the perpetuation of the wall between big and little orgs, I think the inherent caution and tentativeness among Democrats also plays a role. Presumably because of repeated electoral defeats and related disappointments since 1980, upper-tier Dems are often loathe to allow the unwashed masses much in the way of access, freedom of movement, or support. They fear that any affiliation with "people in the street" would be a major strategic blunder.
Problem is, this top-down dynamic has become habitual. There are any number of indications that America's political pendulum is in full shift toward a more pro-Dem direction. But the bunker mentality of the big orgs, even in their relationships with the grassroots, remains. I can't help but think that major opportunities for progressive change are being missed as a result.
July 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this is largely an exercise in the attacking of straw men. Why is there a need to establish MoveOn as a "non-movement", when they've never claimed to be a "movement" in the first place? They collect signatures and raise money. Money is useful, email lists are useful - for getting money. Internet petitions are the most useless form of political currency known to man.
I read Hayes' article, and it was largely good, but always, this constant purer-than-thou voice came through the writing, and always that voice seems to confuse a few very important points.
Most on "the left" are indeed sick and freakin tired of the various "movements" of the left being dominated by loudmouthed idiots dressed like Abbie Hoffman, demanding to get their way at every turn, trying to fight every single cause at once in a great cacophony, to the overall accomplishment of nothing. There are certainly many in the Sirota - Hayes - type wing of "the left" who want very badly to return to those ways, because it feeds their need to be, well, purer-than-thou. Whoever protests the loudest about the most things at once is the coolest!!! Whoever has the most harsh stance against Dems in the Senate who didn't somehow single-handedly stop the war is the coolest!!! Whoever screams for impeachment the loudest is the coolest!!!
You see what I'm getting at here? Most on the political left are beyond tired of those kind of people and their completely ineffective approach to political reform, if they can even be said to had one. There is a very basic formula at work, with regard to pressuring Congress. More and better Democrats. The weapon that 'the people' have against Congress, particularly the House, is the Primary. Run people against bad Dems, kick them out. You can't force a blue dog Dem who has made up their mind to vote with Bush not to by waving a giant puppet and screaming til you're blue in the face.
Do I wish MoveOn was more 'radical' and somehow able to bend Congress to its very well by issuing a sternly worded email? Hell no. I'm not stupid. That type of thinking is for stupid people, sorry. MoveOn can be criticized for all kinds of things, but they have gotten more accomplished than any comparable group on the left, ever, in the history of American politics. Except for Obama's organization now, nobody's even close. At all.
All of this just comes off to me as a rather false debate, in which it is easy and satifsying to critcize MoveOn for not being something they never were and never claimed to be. Re-thinking the approach to movement politics and what 'change' or 'radicalism' and what have you, means to the left - now that's a debate I'm interested in, and unfortunately for those who want to weild magic powers out of their sheer will to do so, MoveOn would be a prime example, in many areas, of how to do this correctly. Does the left need to go further and build on their success? Of course. But what I'm readin here, and in Hayes' article in the Nation, is not forward-thinking, its looking back into the past, and deciding that 60's style protesting was much more effective and useful than it really was. Really, what it did was feel good at the time, and help keep the political left out of power for the past 3+ decades. Not something we need to return to. Please!
July 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What reform has been put in place by the D's? So you are sick and tired of hearing us when nothing gets done? Do something then damn it!!! We have a president who has most probably broken the law. But impeachment is off the table. We have multiple amendments to the constitution being pissed all over. All we get is 'carry on Mr. Bush'. We have a party that won an election in '06 partly because of their anti-war stance and when we ask why nothing has been done about the war we get to hear we are 'loud mouthed idiots'?
I don't even care about 'reform'...I just want people in power to stop the damage being done to the fabric of our republic...just call me a 'purer than thou' jerk. I love the 'vote for us D's because we are less awful than the alternatives' attitude. It inspires me I know.
July 29, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of creating and attacking strawmen:
If you think that Sirota, Hayes or I fit these descriptions you need to ratchet back the caffeine drinks, buddy.
July 29, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phrase it all as a purity contest if you like, but that's not where a lot of us are coming from. Tell me why, when we have a majority in the Senate, Tom Coburn can stop any number of bills, with Harry Reid's support, and yet Reid won't stop FISA from coming to a vote. Forget purity. I'd like to see effective action when we have a majority.
July 29, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that there are many who read here who would disagree with what you posted. Unfortunately we are still faced with having a barely existent majority in the US Senate, and that relies on Lieberman voting to allow the Democrats to organize the Senate. Given that reality, no impeachment conviction was ever remotely possible.
I would have greatly enjoyed having the House conduct impeachment hearings back in 2007, taking the gamble that something would trigger such mass revulsion by the voting public that all Democrats in the Senate, and Liberman, plus a couple of Republicans, might vote for conviction. The gamble was that it wouldn't, and, instead public opinion would hold that the Democrats frittered away their opportunity to do lots of good with their "majority" all for a political gotcha moment. That outcome was the odds on favorite.
As to FISA, I still haven't forgiven either Feinstein or Obama for not doing all in their power to derail that vote. But, the reality in the Senate was that the vote was going to occur and it was going to pass, because many of our Democratic Senators are not "progressive" by any definition.
Political changes as big as are required to convert the Congress and administration from the reactionary, conservative, corporate dominated body that it is, take a long time and a lot of work. We have made some progress, but we have a long way to go. So, I swallow my disappointment in Obama, and I will vote for him and do limited campaigning for him. McCain cannot be allowed to win.
July 29, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, onceler. My feeling exactly.
July 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that. I couldn't have asked for a better follow-up post to demonstrate my point.
July 29, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Stauber is absolutely right.
Actually, it probably all goes back to the very founding of MoveOn.org, which was not an anti-war group that started this website. It begin in the earily days of meet-ups, thus whatever, whoever is at the top has no real concern for the vast lower membership level, isn't really all that interested in ending the war either. At least the top executive must hope the war will continue as Nancy Pelosi hopes it will, so as to pocket the money and pay out a pittance for ads and candidates.
Dems really need to get control of the party, and the horrendous criminal enabling ways of this administration. If we really want change, why isn't impeachment on the table, or does Nancy endorse torture, like the same way we saw her endorsed illegal wiretapping?
July 29, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Stauber is absolutely right.
Actually, it probably all goes back to the very founding of MoveOn.org, which was not an anti-war group that started this website. It begin in the earily days of meet-ups, thus whatever, whoever is at the top has no real concern for the vast lower membership level, isn't really all that interested in ending the war either. At least the top executive must hope the war will continue as Nancy Pelosi hopes it will, so as to pocket the money and pay out a pittance for ads and candidates.
Dems really need to get control of the party, and the horrendous criminal enabling ways of this administration. If we really want change, why isn't impeachment on the table, or does Nancy endorse torture, like the same way we saw her endorsed illegal wiretapping?
July 29, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I thought we won the election in 2006 so I was pushing for things like ending the war funding and for a strong stand against the FISA farce -- well, I could go on and on. It makes no difference. The establishment party is the real joke. Nothing moveon could do would be more ridiculous than coward caucus led by Pelosi and Reid.
July 29, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a MoveOn coordinator (volunteer) and have worked on the councils for two years.
I have a couple points to make in response to your comments.
1) Yes- the council set-up is not democratic and is not about training. This has been a point of frustration for me for sure. I churn one event after another and have had trouble building and reliable group here. My organizer certainly is helpful, but there is no real training or development, instead there are instructions to be carried out.
2) MoveOn is in someways tied to the Dems and is difficult to influence from the outside.
3)The flip side of this is how could MoveOn be a 'national' organization if we were all doing our own things in each state? I mean this as an honest question. It is a trade off I think between control and a national group. Would it have the same fundraising prowess if it was a series of local events?
4) MoveOn raised money and energy for Donna Edwards--a progressive Dem running a primary against a Conservative Democrat. It did that after polling members to see if they should. So yes it is tied to the Dems but is not wholly complacent as some would make it sound.
5) I've been to a lot of 'local; events and have often been unimpressed with them. They are usually run and populated by people with big signs like 'Bush is a Terrorist' which get us nowhere, and have lots of eople who argue about the Green Party vs. Anarchy. MoveOn however is designed to bring people who would not normally be activated and who would not normally come to a rally--and I think they do that--those are the only people who really ever show up at my events.
Again I agree with much of what you said, but wanted to share these complexities.
July 29, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, add the ACLU, IMO, to all the enviro groups focused on money and marketing as much as anything. I think newer, smaller groups like CCR have done more, or taken the lead more, recently than the ACLU.
July 29, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This problem of top down control, elitism, using so-called "members" simply to raise money, is endemic in national organizations. A great book on this subject regarding the environmental groups is Losing Ground, by Mark Dowie.
July 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how do you build a national movement from the bottom up? I mean this as an honest question.
It is easy to say MoveOn is bad for x y and z. But when you say it should use that money to support activists- what does that mean? MoveOn is actually very good at get out the vote/phone banking activities.
What would a coordinated national/ground up movement look like?
July 29, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to my question... crickets...
I think MoveOn could push Dems more and wish they would. I think if they endorsed a few more progressive challengers, we would have a few more progressives going into the General Election.
July 29, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on, BT... I'm all for pushing people to answer our questions but you only gave Stauber like an hour, way after the work day was through on the east coast. let's see what happens, either in this thread or in a future post.
July 29, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for weighing in, Blue Thunder.
July 29, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moveon doesn't 'use' their list of 3.2 million. That list represents people with ideas about politics. Maybe they won't pay for activists and organizers and lawyers in every state but will pay for TV ads. And maybe those people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama and don't want to see any challenges against the Democratic leadership.
It's not as simple as suggesting that Moveon is a pot of money that can be vectored in any direction. It isn't, and it can't.
July 29, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know MoveOn helped Donna Edwards against Al Wynn.
Al Wynn is a Pelosi Democrat--you know that very well Matt. MoveOn is more progressive than Pelosi, Wynn, etc. It wanted Dems to campaign on Iraq far before the Dems themselves wanted to campaign on Iraq.
To keep its 3 million members and cash in-flux is must strike a balance between helping Democrats win and pushing Democrats to be more progressive.
Hopefully we'll see more Donna Edwards/MoveOn candidates in the future.
July 29, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah, MoveOn isn't cool enough, it isn't pure enough. Oh my, I feel so special now.
July 29, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
i worked a moveon phone bank in SF during the 2006 elections. i will say the place was packed with hundreds of people working the phones on behalf of democratic candidates.
i don't think they ever claimed to be a movement and the best measure of how they're spending their donor's money is the fact that the donors keep giving.
you want to solicit funds for grass roots candidates look at daily kos and others.
don't be hating on my moveon.
July 29, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"MoveOn is No Movement, It's a Powerful Democratic Marketing and Fundraising Tool"
You say that like it's a bad thing...
July 29, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is probably gone from this discussion but I thought I would weigh in again on Bluethunder comment.
"But how do you build a national movement from the bottom up? I mean this as an honest question."
What I see is a national organization that has its structure and franchises out state organizations which are empowered with more latitude to effect state issues and state politics. Moveon can keep on doing what they are doing and they can aide in setting up a base structure, a platform for a state oriented organization to build up off. What becomes important is the ability of local community organizations to take root in the everyday realities which a community and its public see day in and day out. We need the help of a national organization to inform us on the big ball/forest side of things while each state can focus on the small ball/tree side of things. Obviously this is easier expressed here than actually accomplished but I see many people in my community who would be more than happy to play a bigger role in influencing their own communities. getting America back on track, so to speak. And to me means building from the bottom up, I do not count on my government in many cases to understand the realities that I see everyday. They are worried about national security, not the homeless man who lives under a bridge in downtown etc. I am sorry if this sounds preachy, but I think in many cases this is the America that I see. An america where we are aware of our impact in our world and on those around us and because of this it is understandable to see the limitations that national organization has when addressing any issue.
July 29, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been doing MoveOn Council meetings in that lefty haven of the Bay Area for the last two years on and off.
What has been great about them is that people come out, they get involved and they do stuff, dumb stuff like bake sales and hold up dumb ass anti-McSame posters, but it is people doing something together. The dismissive attitude of MoveOn ain't perfect and not doing exactly what some people want is always going to be true. MoveOn is trying to figure out how to make the Councils work, which would build more power at a grassroots level, but it's hard.
But the people who have done stuff have been non-activist types. It's rare that purist lefty-type Bay Area activists showing up at MoveOn meetings. I must say it's a great relief, it's certainly annoying to see it on the internet. MoveOn is trying to figure out how to build a progressive movement with people who have little free time, no history of activism and no skills in organizing. I certainly don't have the hours to sit through trainings the way I did in my twenties and thirties, few people with lives do.
Back in the nineties with CISPES, we built a ten foot spine and marched down Market street with it, with a sign saying 'Democrats This spine is for you, end the war in El Salvador!". I and another of the organizers got lectured the whole damn way, on why we shouldn't target the Democrats, why we shouldn't make a joke about the war using corporate slogans, why we shouldn't make cool visuals, by one guy.
The bozo never answered us "Why aren't you organizing your own demonstration?"
We helped end the war in El Salvador, I'm sure somewhere on the internet the bozo is complaining because people aren't doing something his way.
July 29, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A movement to do...errrr, what? Bring fundamental change? What kind?
I frankly don't think there's the slightest chance of building *A* movement for fundamental change. Too much dissension, too many arrows pointing in too many directions. You don't believe me, spend a day reading the comments sections of TPM and CommonDreams.org. There isn't a Left, but two, three, many Lefts.
What I think is possible, and not particularly related to the ups and downs of MoveOn.org, is the building of groups doing organizing around particular issues. Yes, you say, we've already got that, and look what good it's done. Well, those groups have been, for the most part, ineptly organized and badly run; either they're so establishment that their alternatives aren't really alternatives, or they're so alienated that they daren't support anything practical for fear of outraging their members. So we get nothing.
Al Gore, for all the criticisms one can make of him, did something very smart: his proposal to get off carbon energy in ten years was bold and galvanizing, echoing as it did JFK's challenge to put astronauts on the moon by the end of a decade. It's the kind of thing bold political organizers could use to build pressure on a putative Pres. Obama (if he wins) to move the country's energy policies in progressive directions, or on Democratic legislators to resist the machinations of a Pres. McCain (shudder).
A similar, *concrete* proposal on health-care, with numbers, charts, blueprints, circles and arrows on the back, could be similarly galvanizing. Likewise on international law. Likewise on housing and the banking crisis (and the perp-walks that should be happening regarding all of those).
In short, I don't think an umbrella movement is possible right now. But I do think individual movements could achieve some important political goals; Obama, while no raging progressive, is enough of a political blank slate that he could conceivably be pushed to the left in the same way Roosevelt was. Note that there wasn't a single progressive movement which pushed Roosevelt (the Communist Party tried and struck out), but individual movements such as the Townsend pension movement, Huey Long's challenge, and the CIO applied leftward pressure. It could happen again.
Peace,
Paul
July 30, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What many don't get about MoveOn is that it really is not a "membership" organization in the true sense of the word. You don't "join" moveon really. You sign up to be on their list and from then on you can either participate or not participate.
The right doesn't get this when they disparage MoveOn. The people on the email don't actually vote on what their actions will be. From that perspective it is top-down.
Each individual action is either participated in or not by each individual. Just like the Democratic Party I don't agree with every position or action they take. I am glad they are there though. Often they are the only reason I find out about some of the "issues" going on in the Captiol. They keep me informed.
The issues are diverse. I don't agree with everything they do but I am glad they are there as another avenue of participation. As far as judging the success or not, I agree that it is hard to measure that and I think it is better answered by the management of the organization. Only they know what they really have set out to do and wether or not it is successful.
July 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
such a joke - let me get this straight - here is an organization - or rather a "service" that is the first one in modern history to actually enable progressives to gain POLITICAL POWER, and all elitists like Stauber and Sirota can do is trash and criticize - here's a suggestion - rather than bitch about a group that has done as much if not more than any progressive group in modern history, why don't you start your own group to run things the way you see fit. This is why progressivism fails - self-described progressive "experts" (who havent WON a damn thing in how long?) eat their own, rather than fostering and improving. While you all have been bitching in the last 72 hrs, MoveOn has been getting PROGRESSIVE frames into the national news cycle on issues from health care to taking on McCain and BIG OIL. Go write another book and screw off.
July 30, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
you stand for nothing. and you will stand for anything.
the people you think ought to 'grow up' think that people like you ought to wise up.
how dare you talk about the judiciary when you defend the FISA revisions with propaganda and misinformation. obama's eagerness to trash the judiciary (and the rule of law and the fourth amendment) is THE reason i am not likely to vote for him. but you go ahead and keep your hands over your eyes and ears and keep your lips flapping with your follow-the-leaderisms like a 'good democrat'. and keep thinking in four year increments while pretending to care about the long-term impact on the judiciary. you may have fooled yourself but that only makes you a fool.
so, no. thank YOU for the fucked up judiciary. you're getting what you paid for.
July 30, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink