Views » February 7, 2008 » Web Only

A Two-Track Strategy For 2008 And Beyond

By Ken Brociner

In less than a year, America will have a new president. Barring unforeseeable events, on Jan. 20, 2009, the inaugural oath will be administered to either John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Should the Republicans retain the presidency, we will be in for four more years of darkness. On the other hand, should Obama or Clinton become president, we—the progressive movement and the left—will face a range of opportunities that have the potential to put us on the long road toward fundamentally changing America’s foreign and domestic policies.

Over the next year, we need to put into place a two-track strategy that will provide our movement with a sense of direction for both the short and long-term struggles that lie ahead.

Track one: On practically every issue that we care about—from stopping the war in Iraq, to fighting global warming, to protecting civil liberties, to tackling economic injustice—the Democrats have far better policies than the Republicans.

Because of this, our top priorities between now and Nov. 4 must be to do all we can to help elect either Obama or Clinton while at the same time working to help the Democrats strengthen their majorities in the House and the Senate. And in the process of mobilizing to achieve these two goals, we should also be organizing to expand the progressive movement.

The effort to defeat George W. Bush in 2004 represented one of the most highly coordinated, well funded, and intensely fought mobilizations that (take your pick) progressives, the center-left, liberals, or Democrats have ever mounted. For many, it felt more like a flesh and blood political movement than a mere campaign to elect John Kerry president.

In all likelihood, over the next 10 months we will see something of a similar magnitude and intensity develop. And if Obama emerges victorious in the race for the nomination, the mobilization to elect Kerry will pale in comparison.

This time, though, we need to do a better job of letting activists know that there will be a coordinated, nationwide effort to elect a Democrat to the White House that will be operating independent from, but parallel to, the official campaign of the Democratic presidential candidate.

If we are going to build and sustain a movement, we must provide activists with the clear sense that a national movement for systematic change not only exists but is being coordinated in one form or another.

To illustrate the point: How many of the thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush volunteers in 2004 were aware that a national coalition called America Votes was (loosely) coordinating the work of practically every national progressive group in the country? Similarly, how many activists were aware of the massive, nationwide (albeit highly targeted), grassroots effort mounted by Americans Coming Together (ACT)?

America Votes is still very much alive. Currently 42 organizations have joined the coalition, including groups like MoveOn, the AFL-CIO, ACORN, and Emily’s List.

In 2004, ACT was able to place thousands of organizers on the ground in key swing states because of the funding provided by George Soros, the Lewis family, and other wealthy individuals. While ACT no longer exists, a similar, as of yet unnamed, organizational effort is now in the works for the current election cycle.

While many activists knew about the role that ACT and America Votes played in the campaign to defeat Bush, the vast majority of progressives were, at best, only dimly aware that these two groups even existed.

This time around we need to place a greater emphasis on keeping progressives fully informed about the key components of the national mobilization to oust the Republicans from power. By making sure that all activists are plugged into the progressive movement, we’ll be providing some of the all-important glue that will help unify and grow the movement in the years ahead.

Track two: In order to seriously address the problems that are facing our nation and the rest of the world, we will need to construct a vital and visible left-wing of the progressive movement.

One of the reasons the progressive movement lacks a coherent left-wing is because the term “progressive” has lost its radical edge. (For a related discussion of this, see “The Left’s Identity Crisis.”)

In recent years, the movement has had one clear thing in common: its visceral opposition to George W. Bush and everything that he and his fellow right-wing Republicans stand for. But should the Democrats recapture the White House in November, the limitations of the progressive coalition will become apparent.

Among the most important limitations is that many of the most influential organizations within the progressive movement have yet to adopt agendas that call for truly fundamental policy changes—either foreign or domestic.

But if we are going to transform America into a nation that provides all its people with a decent life while also working to alleviate human suffering throughout the rest of the world, we will need a progressive movement bold enough to adopt such a far-reaching agenda.

In short, we need a left wing of the progressive movement to lead the way. For only a revitalized American left can chart the path that our country so desperately needs to follow.

Note to Readers: I invite you to join the discussion and comment on the issues I have raised. Because this will be a moderated discussion, I promise that you will not have to sort through off-topic or abusive comments. Let’s have a lively, civil and stimulating exchange of ideas.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Couldn’t making a group like America Votes highly publicized simply open it up for criticism?  Can’t it do its coordinating job without being heavily publicized?

  It seems to me that to play a real role, and one worth publicizing, America Votes needs an ideological identity.  It has to be clear that it is organizing groups to do something in particular for it to be useful for everyone to start identifying with it rather than the smaller groups they are a part of.  So of the two things you call for I think that ideological clarity has to come first.  There has to be something to be loyal to and something to organize around before we can start talking about a movement at all.

  Posted by Poppolphil on Feb 11, 2008 at 2:01 AM

  There are several quotes that relate to this article.

  The first: “I am not a member of any organized political party.
  I’m a Democrat.” —H.L. Mencken

      He wrote this over seventy years ago, and it is still true.

  The second: “You can fool some of the people all of the time,
  and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool
  all of the people all of the time.”—Abraham Lincoln

      Unfortunately, the portion of people you can fool all of the time
  is growing, and the Republicans are exploiting that.  The very people
  who scream about economic issues and social decay still vote based on counter-intuitive “moral values”, however myopic and hyopcritical that is.  Representational government.

  The third: “Insanity: trying the same thing over and over again
  expecting different results.” —Albert Einstein

      The Democrats whine, complain, and otherwise talk.  Meanwhile,
  Karl Rove and Tom Delay organize character assassinations, gerrymander districts to favor red-voters, massive mobilization of Republican base voters, and coordinates shut-outs of Democrat polls; how quickly forgotten were the long lines of Cleveland, OH. 
      And while both of those characters above are gone, the machine they leave behind will be in full force in 2008. 
  The last relevant quotes are from The Art of War:

  “In war, numbers alone confer no advantage.”

      This is the irony of any Republic, which is what we live under.
  We cannot have a repeat of Election 2000, where numbers did not win.

  “The skillful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man.”

  Posted by PhoenixPhan on Feb 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM

  Poppophil,

  You have raised a number of very important points. I’ll try to briefly address each one.

  I agree that it would be better if America Votes had more of an ideological identity. But I think you’re a bit off target when you suggest that in order for activists to come identify with it, it must do something “in particular.”

  It already does - in that it coordinates the electoral work of 42 nationwide   progressive organizations - albeit very loosely.

  But I don’t want to oversell America Votes. I am not arguing that progressives should see it as their primary organizational home every four years. Clearly people are much more likely to identify with the group they feel a real connection to - be it MoveON, a particular labor union, Emily’s List etc.

  The main reason I pointed to America Votes is that it is a national coalition that brings the progressive mvt. together in an activist oriented common effort. And not just any “effort ” -  it is the most important one imaginable -  trying to end the nightmare of the last 8 years.In doing so, it not only helps our chances of winning the election, it also provides some of the glue that we need to bind us together as a movement. (a movement that, contrary to what I take to be your view about this, really does exist).

  Having said all this, though, I am very much in favor of developing a more formal organizational structure on the left (but NOT a third party) - along with some clarification of just what it is we stand for.

  I’ll be exploring this theme in my next column. But if you have any ideas about how progressives should develop more of an ideological identity,
  it would be great if you could post them here. This, in my opinion,  is exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having.

  Ken Brociner

  Posted by kenbrociner on Feb 15, 2008 at 3:24 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Ken Brociner

• Progressive Blind Spots
  Since its formation in 1997, the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) has been… morePosted on June 30, 2009
• Israel and the Klein Doctrine
  The recent meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu… morePosted on May 31, 2009
• The Cuban Revolution and the American Left
  For countless leftists who came of age politically sometime between the late 1950s… morePosted on April 28, 2009
• Israel, Gaza and the Left
  One of the left's most significant ideological failings in recent years has been… morePosted on February 22, 2009
• Moving Forward Without Dogma
  Despite the severity of the current economic crisis, the morale of the progressive… morePosted on January 25, 2009