The Obama Ground Game After November 4
Emerging as a central story of the Obama candidacy is his remarkable ground game. The most important feature of this ground game is the devolution of control over how it is run from a central headquarters to volunteer block leaders. This development has been discussed primarily from the perspective of getting out the vote on November 4. But, there is something else that this organizational development has brought - it is something that will become apparent if Obama is elected.
Training people to be political organizers is training that sticks: people learn skills that are not forgotten after the election and they think of themselves differently within their political world. In particular, they think of themselves as having a kind of political agency that brings them into the political process. Consequently, they cannot be de-mobilized easily.
Barack Obama knows this. He was trained as a community organizer, he speaks as one (I once was an organizer and just as Bush speaks in religious code, Obama constantly uses terms familiar to community and labor organizers), and he knows exactly what he is doing. In short, he is winning this election by building a powerful grassroots organization that will *not be in his control.* Obama has consistently repeated the message of decentralizing political power. His famous "Yes We Can" speech in New Hampshire after his primary loss there, for example, is a prime example of this message, as was his great speech on race in America.
What, then, are we to take from this?
I think that one conclusion we can draw is that an Obama presidency will frequently face up to the very forces that put Obama into office. I do not know how that will play out. But, it will make for an interesting 4 - 8 years. In particular, it will make for the exact opposite of what we have had in the past 8 years and, truth be told, what we had during the Clinton presidency, which was not a particularly democratic-with-a-small-d presidency.
Regarding the Clinton presidency: That White House was famously disorganized and undisciplined. Contrast that with the Obama candidacy. This campaign is run beautifully and seamlessly. What is amazing is that it is run so well *even as power is devolved from the top to the bottom.* How is this possible? I am not sure - it is something amazing and new. Perhaps the fierce anger that so many people feel in response to the Bush administration and the Republicans in general have served as a unifying force. I don't know. But, it is unlikely that the organizational ties that have been forged in the Obama campaign will utterly fade if Obama wins These ties will remain and at least some political causes will awaken them and bring these people together in politically potent ways.
So, it seems even that if Obama loses, whoever is our next president will have to face the forceful power of the organization that Obama has forged in his quest for the presidency. And, if Obama wins, his administration will be far different from any we ever seen - it will be one that owes its existence to, an administration whose strength and future depends upon a sprawling decentralized grassroots organization in a way that no other administration ever has. I am cautiously hopeful that this will make the Obama administration an especially great one.
Advertisement
Such a good post. Obama has said all along we need to change the way things are done in Washington. I hope to heaven we're about to find out just what that really means.
.
October 14, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have thought about this subject as well, as I read the many posts about the Obama campaign's incredible ground game.
Perhaps some people have not paid attention, but Obama talks a lot about service. With his ground troops in place, he has the organization in place for any kind of community organization that he believes will benefit America.
And, that same Army will be in place for the 2012 campaign.
Obama is a VERY skilled and intelligent politician.
October 15, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The really remarkable thing about Obama is not what he does best, but how many different things he seems to do extremely well. Great speaker, great strategist, great administrator, policies are well thought out and detailed, personnel choices are very good, staff are disciplined and loyal, etc. Is there anything this guy isn't good at?
October 15, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Running an effective campaign does not equal running a good government. Reference George W. Bush. The things that made him and Obama particularly effective in the campaign - message control and organization and discipline - not so much what it takes to be a successful president. You can run a huge campaign seemlessly and smoothly if you are especially authoritarian and have a tight cabal of power. The ground forces are many, but the strategists are few.
The Clintons think the more input the better which is not so great for campaigning, but in terms of governing is exactly what we need. I like disorganized Presidencies - it means that there is no one source of power and many different viewpoints are being taken into account. Or you could rule like GWB and exert your dominion over the Congress and the country with an iron fist while disregarding how unpopular your actions are.
I think we are totally in agreement here. If elected, Obama has said he will compromise and not cater to the fringes, special interest groups. But if we have a firm Democratic majority in House & Senate, who will he be compromising with? Those on the liberal side or moderates and Republicans? I have no idea how Obama will govern in office which is not very comforting. The Clintons laid it all out on the table in the campaign. Obama has kept his cards close to the vest. But I'm thinking if he wants a second term, he will pay due respect to the people who elected him in office, but only if those people are vocal and hold him accountable.
October 15, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You raise some great points here. I've read in a couple of places that the grassroots organization he built will help Obama to push the key points of his agenda through congress, but I hadn't thought until now about how much the same grassroots organization can push back if he strays too drastically from that agenda.
It should be a great 8 years.
October 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. This is as it should be and, I think, as Barack would want it. One of the words he uses most frequently is "accountability" and I don't get the impression that it is just a buzzword for him...
October 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is this: if Obama wins, many different groups of voters can and will insist they were the reason Obama why.
In this post we are told it is the grassroots organizers. Someone else can plausibly say every election is won in the center, i.e. heretofore undecided independents will put him over the top. Others will say it was African Americans' extraordinary turnout. Or Hispanics in Colorado and New Mexico. Or the millions of folks who donated money. The problem is there is no possible answer to this. Everyone is potentially the margin of victory.
What will be interesting is how forcefully these various groups would demand their claim be recognized as true and how strongly they might demand their preferences be followed.
One problem Clinton faced was that every democratic constituency tried to get everything they wanted right away and this caused several major political problems from the larger Clinton agenda.
What I would be interested in knowing, is not what would the country (under an Obama administration) would do for the grassroots organizers, but what will they do for their country.
We still need to organize the public around so many important changes. Elected a president does not change the political culture of our country by itself.
October 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A point made time and time again at the Camp Obama political organizing workshops - On November 4th is just the end of the beginning.
October 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few months ago, Peter Beinart wrote an interesting column about how the way a candidate runs his campaign is often an accurate reflection of how he'll run his presidency:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702196.html
From the article:
Jimmy Carter ran as a moralistic outsider in 1976, and he governed that way as well, refusing to compromise with a Washington establishment that he distrusted (and that distrusted him). Ronald Reagan's campaign looked harsh on paper but warm and fuzzy on TV, as did his presidency. The 1992 Clinton campaign was like the Clinton administration: brilliant and chaotic, with a penchant for near-death experiences. And the 2000 Bush campaign presaged the Bush presidency: disciplined, hierarchical, loyal and ruthless.
Of the three candidates still in the 2008 race, Obama has run the best campaign by far. McCain's was a top-heavy, slow-moving, money-hemorrhaging Hindenburg that eventually exploded, leaving the Arizona senator to resurrect his bankrupt candidacy through sheer force of will. Clinton's campaign has been marked by vicious infighting and organizational weakness, as manifested by her terrible performance in caucus states.
Obama's, by contrast, has been an organizational wonder, the political equivalent of crossing a Lamborghini with a Hummer.
October 15, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl Rove ran an excellent campaign for GWB as well full of promises that never materialized. Bush was not held accoutnable by those fiscal conservatives because what else are they going to do - vote Democrat? Or what about those folks who bought into GWB the uniter compassionate conservative? GWB had a brilliant campaign strategy team and they never stopped campaigning to actually govern.
Good messaging and campaign stratgy does not translate into good governance. I just don't equate the ability to campaign with the ability to govern. Two very, very different things. I am expecting after the election that Move On, liberals in Congress will need to keep up the pressure on Obama very loudly like what happened with FISA. Even if Obama wins the grassroots will need to be active and on alert to speak up for the concerns that matter to them. It's not about loyalty to Obama or trusting him to govern as he deems best - it's about holding him accountable for the hope for change that he inspired.
October 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your response seems confused.
The Beinart article says the style of campaign management predicts the style of governance. That may well be so, or it may not, but you have reduced it all to "good". There are vast ways in which the successful Bush and Obama campaigns are different. But in character and effectiveness. "Good messaging and strategy" are not the characteristics of the Obama campaign that most people here are talking about.
Then in your second paragraph you seem to confuse style of governing with the substance of governing. One could imagine an autocratic governing style that nonetheless promoted policies that you like. And one can imagine a governing style open to bottom up participation that was totally ineffectual or resulted in policies you disagree with.
The last sentence has me totally confused:
How do you hold someone accountable for hope. Either you believe in your ability to effect change or not. I don't remember where Obama has ever said, elect me and you can rest easy, I'll fix everything for you. Quite the opposite I think. SO the question again is what are you going to do?
I am interested to know who you think should drive the agenda come January if in fact Obama wins?
October 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably not helpful to rehash the details on character, but I'd say being on different sides of the primary I have a much diffeent perspective. Karl Rove was extremely effective - he was able to get an unpopular president reelected in 2004. That was a miracle.
The thing people marvel about the Obama campaign about is how tightly controlled their messaging was. I hope to not see that style replicated in the Obama administration. Great ideas don't always come from within your circle of supporters. Krugman's a good example of that - criticized Obama on policy proposals, but sometimes the input of a critic is good.
I shouldn't say I hold him accountable for hope. He is not responsible for our belief or lack thereof. But Obama is responsible for promises. I can rationalize something like reversing on telecom immunity from Candidate Obama as politically expedient to get elected. To givern, you first have to win. But I EXPECT that President Obama would have made a very different deicison.
In terms of the agenda, I expect as usual the President drives the agenda, but I don't want them to be just rubber stamp. We can increase the Democratic majority in Congress and push for the progressive liberal agenda including on universal healthcare. Obama is a compromiser -he should be able to compromise within his party as well if there are better ideas to be had and we have the political power to make it happen.
October 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about GOOD governance. I'm talking about STYLE of governance. Bush's campaign style was an accurate reflection of his governing style. The ability to lead a campaign reflects a person's ability to lead a country.
Bush deferred to Cheney and Rove in the campaign and he deferred to them in the White House. And he surrounded himself with cronies who weren't qualified for the jobs he gave them.
Obama doesn't defer to anyone. He surrounds himself with smart and qualified people, asks questions and listens to their advice, but unlike Dubya, Obama really is the decider.
The Beinart op/ed I cited was a turning point for me. I was a Hillary supporter and had decided I wouldn't vote at all if Obama won the nom. Once I read that article, I started to see how Obama could be a great president.
October 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That comment was meant to be a reply to dijamo.
October 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to know, but I feel fairly confident that Obama is indeed in charge of his campaign. Clinton and McCain's campaigns seem to share a quality that there are/were real doubts at times about who is in charge. In Bush's campaign it was clear Rove was in charge.
October 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama campaign style to me seemed to stay above the fray and let surrogates come out and hit the hard blows - I am hoping that will not be reflected in his adminsitration. I want him to be able to take tough stands.
Also - do you really want to say that Obama was in charge of his campaign entirely? The only reason I've been able to move beyond the primary bitterness as much as I have is that Axelrod has become my Karl Rove. I don't blame the tough campaign tactics in the primary on Obama directly - just deflect it to the campaign. :) It's kind of a joke, but there's a lot of truth to it too.
October 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'll let you deal with your issues in private. If it helps you to demonize Axelrod, go right ahead.
I'm not sure what you are talking about staying above the fray. What issues has Obama not taken a stand on that the campaign has through surrogates. If this is just about the back and forth accusations of the democratic primary then I'd rather you keep that to yourself. I don't see a whole lot of good coming from rehashing accusations and counter accusations about who said/did what. If you have an example from the general campaign I'd beinterested to hear it.
As to your last point, I am sure Axelrod runs the campaign, but I don't doubt for a second that he answers to Obama, that Obama sets the tone, lays down the parameters of the campaign, defines the message. You think Axelrod told Obama to give that speech on race?
Frankly, I think this is the standard model of a campaign. Most people who run for office are pretty competent. Bush I think is a major exception. The last 8 years has proven that both Cheney and Rove played him like a puppet. By contrast, I seriously doubt you'll see Axelrod anywhere near the White House, if Obama wins. He's an operative, like Carville.
October 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the article actually disagrees with you on who was in charge:
October 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
replied in my comment above.
October 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
After 11/4, the ground-game troops should be ready to mobilize to contest a stolen election.
October 15, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Given the enmity of McCain's campaign, I've also been thinking about the intertia that he is bulding up should he lose.
No doubt the Republicans will mount some highly combative front against an Obama presidency, but I am wondering how effective Obama's new style will be against such a foe?
If there has been a formative shift in the way power is wielded from the bottom up, how will it all pan out against the old power players?
Thanks.
October 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the ground game can work in two ways. Yes, the folks on the ground can keep Barack on the straight and narrow. But he now has ways of mobilizing millions of people very rapidly. A kind of rapid response on the ground network, that can be used in a variety of ways - at nearly a moment's notice.
October 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't the entire question HOW he mobilizes his supporters.
If he can convince 3 million people to send the DNC $10 a month, I think he could break the grip of lobbyists in Washington in one fell swoop. No one running for office would have to kowtow to special interests to be able to finance their re-election. This seems unlikely as most people are just not that motivated to give.
Will he ask his supporters to go door to door canvassing for health care reform? How does one build a legislative consensus by popular mobilization?
Does he ask his supporters--and I guess everyone else who is willing to simply devote themselves to service that furthers the common good?
Or will the "grassroots" set themselves up as an sort of independent force, demanding a particular type of policy outcome?
Obviously that is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the possibilities, but it suggests that there is potential for great progress or counterproductive infighting.
October 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Thera.
We need to stay with Barach after, I pray, he is elected by being the change we want to see in the world.
It doesn't start with him.
It starts now, with us.
October 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink