Share

A Party Is Not a Movement

by: David Sirota  |  Creators Syndicate

photo
Code Pink activists demonstrate in Washington, DC. (Photo: codepinkhq / Flickr)

    The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive "movement" have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one.

    Though the 2006 and 2008 elections were billed as progressive movement successes, the story behind them highlights a longer-term failure. During those contests, most leaders of Washington's major labor, environmental, antiwar and anti-poverty groups spent millions of dollars on a party endeavor - specifically, on electing a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. In the process, many groups subverted their own movement agendas in the name of electoral unity.

    The effort involved a sleight of hand. These groups begged their grassroots members - janitors, soccer moms, veterans and other "regular folks" - to cough up small-dollar contributions in return for the promise of movement pressure on both parties' politicians. Simultaneously, these groups went to dot-com and Wall Street millionaires asking them to chip in big checks in exchange for advocacy that did not offend those fat cats' Democratic politician friends (or those millionaires' economic privilege).

    This wasn't totally dishonest. Many groups sincerely believed that Democratic Party promotion was key to progressive movement causes. And anyway, during the Bush era, many of those causes automatically helped Democrats by indicting Republicans.

    But after the 2008 election, the strategy's bankruptcy is undeniable.

    As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources elected a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Health care groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance. And antiwar funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict.

    Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

    For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health care capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand.

    But that hasn't happened. Despite the president's health care retreat, most major progressive groups continue to cheer him on, afraid to lose their White House access and, thus, their Beltway status. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Moveon.org has "yet to take a clear position on Afghanistan" while VoteVets' leader all but genuflected to Obama, saying, "People (read: professional political operatives) do not want to take on the administration."

    In this vacuum, movement building has been left to underfunded (but stunningly successful) projects like Firedoglake.com, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and local organizations. And that's the lesson: True grassroots movements that deliver concrete legislative results are not steered by marble-columned institutions, wealthy benefactors or celebrity politicians - and they are rarely ever run from Washington. They are almost always far-flung efforts by those organized around real-world results - those who don't care about party conventions, congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees they were never invited to in the first place.

    Only when enough progressives realize that truism will any movement - and any change - finally commence.

    --------

    David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

That the path to real change

That the path to real change does not lead though the Democratic Party has been clear for many years. I am not sure the path, at this point, at least, is through electoral activity at all. We have to organize at work and in our communities and engage in non-violent direct action. Democrats will only take our time, money and good faith and then stab us in the back as often as they can after they get elected.

I joined the Green Party in

I joined the Green Party in 1984 and am proudly still a member. I have run against Democrats because for all of my friends who are Democrats I still can not find people working on Democratic party campaigns who are ready to give up voting for anyone who will continue to vote money for empire. That is the real divide. Empire. Tools of the trade as economic development. As long as people vote for Democrats they are saying the violence of the military industrial complex is okay because that will be in the budget every year. As Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb said "The Democratic Party is where good ideas go to die. The environment, health care, justice, the elimination of poverty are all held hostage by the military industrial complex and the belief that governments must have a militarist component rather than actually seeking peace on earth. Doing the right thing will never serve the Democratic party because it does not serve the war machine. It deserves no support.

Like it or not - and it

Like it or not - and it appears you don't like it - we have a two party system. Therefore if you want change, you are more than likely to have to work with the system. Otherwise, you might as well spit in the wind, tug on Superman's cape, etc. What I see happening is the groups leading the progressive movement are pressuring those in the Democratic power toward a more progressive agenda. The wheels of our Democracy move extremely slowly. Changes, whatever they are aren't going to happen over night. Pressuring Democrats and electing progressives are the best way to further the progressive agenda at this moment in time. I see groups doing just that. You can go rogue, but you ain't gonna get anything done. Just what has the Green Party been able to do to move the progressive agenda?

tried 3 times to forward

tried 3 times to forward this, and "8 yrs ago today" got forwarded instead. this has happened to me before. is a democraticic party member working for you?

The next step is to bypass

The next step is to bypass the political machine and create a people-based movement with its own capacities for strategy, organizing, communications, policy-making, etc.

This is exactly what my colleagues and I are doing.

Just this week, we released strategy memos commissioned by grassroots activists and focused on health care reform and ethical discussions of corporations in small towns.

We are serious about building a different kind of politics. David Sirota is right that we need to get into the arena of movement-building and engage the populace in grassroots democracy like never before.

In solidarity,

Joe Brewer

Director, Cognitive Policy Works

http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com

Both are correct: we have a

Both are correct: we have a two-party system (like it or not) and these two parties can be pressured to move by strong, organized grass-roots movements. Look at what the extreme right wing has done to the GOP, once the party of Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower, and Abraham Lincoln (not that all 3 of these examples are the same calibre).

Thank you David Sirota,

Thank you David Sirota, thank you Truthout, for this refreshing article focusing people's attention on the real world. How much breast-beating goes on from people repeatedly rediscovering that representative government is not democracy but merely rule by the politicians and administrators for those who buy them! How many illusions are clung to only to be shattered daily! Lynne (21:36 Sept 11) mistakes the sham for the reality. NOTHING worth achieving has EVER been achieved against organised predators without the power of a mass movement behind it. Even the American revolution of 1776. Overwhelming public opinion isn't enough as we are seeing with the Obama administration serving (in deeds) those who have long ago bought them along with their party - using wealth created by the people and stolen from the people. Only a focused mass movement, which addresses the population and its organisations (including the political parties but not confined to them) and challenges predator power can win out. Requests to the predators to cede any of their power and wealth are mere letters to waste paper baskets. May David Sirota's message be promoted worldwide.

This is a thoughtful essay

This is a thoughtful essay but we must be very careful to understand why parties appear as soon as a representative democracy is established. They are necessary to focus peoples' attention on the most important issues and then offer candidates to support well-defined policies. A real party is ideological (with a steady philosophy of governance), programmatic (with a specific and concrete program in support of that philosophy), and disciplined (with members who are faithful to the promises which the party made to the people). To condemn all parties, rather than to make them work right, is very dangerous. Movements are necessary to make the parties work right.