Michaelburdick,

I almost entirely agree with your views and I dont mean to nitpick, but the canvassing organization that I worked for has documented over 1,000 people that work for over 400 progressive organizations, foundations and government offices. To say that there is no opportunity for advancement is just false. That being said, this shouldn't be the only way that young (or older) progressives get their foot in the door at liberal institutions. It just so happens that paid canvassing jobs are one of the only ways at the present time to get involved at the entry level (this needs to change). If you look at it another way, thousands of people who wouldnt have otherwise gotten involved at all in progressive politics have this opportunity to canvass. The cream of the crop rise to the top and go on to do great things. We shouldnt discount that. It is not that this shouldnt happen, there just needs to be more options (like the ones that you and Michael Connery speak of).

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:18 PM in response to The Conservative Youth Factory

Michael,

Well, I deeply disagree with many of Ms. Fishers' premises in Activism Inc. One of the biggest criticisms that I have of the book is the idea that because the Fund or GCI isn't doing the exact kind of organizing that she prescribes, (i.e.- neighbor-to-neighbor or community organizing) that somehow any other way of doing it is fundamentally flawed, or as she calls it "scorching the grassroots". Of course, we need people working in their own neighborhoods to identify local problems and solutions, but does that mean we don't need established progressive grassroots organizations building support for highly effective advocacy groups that have won countless campaigns? I don't buy that argument. She completely discounts any good the organizations do and focuses almost entirely on the negative.
In short, I think the premise that canvassing organizations "do" anything to "local" grassroots is off the mark.

I don't know that much about the current status of the lawsuits. The Fund did change their pay policies to protect themselves after the lawsuit was filed. I personally don't feel that the lawsuits have merit (full disclosure: I worked for the Fund). Their pay policies are very clear: if you can't raise enough money to cover your salary, then you can't work for the organization. It seems to me, anything less would be a bad business model. People contribute money on the phone, at the door because they want the money to go to the organization, not to go to the person at the door. I am not saying that this is the only model to run a grassroots organization, but it has been effective in raising over $400 million, getting 20 million petition signatures signed, helping provide the seed money for 76 different organizations, identifying over 1.3 million consistent members, etc.

Posted at March 4, 2008 4:51 PM in response to The Conservative Youth Factory

While I agree with your premise that the conservative movement has been much more effective at nurturing the next generation of activists over the past 30 years, I disagree with your assertion that canvassing operations offer little more than "slave-labor wages and little in the way of upward mobility or skills training." I worked with a canvassing organization for many years that provided (and continues to provide) reasonable wages, great training and lots of room for advancement. In fact, many thousands of public interest professionals and lifelong political activists got their start canvassing and I suspect that will be the case well into the future. That being said, I agree with the rest of your article and find it very exciting that the infrastructure for progressive change continues to grow. I look forward to part 2 tomorrow.

Posted at March 4, 2008 3:05 PM in response to The Conservative Youth Factory