Though the2006 and 2008 elections were billed as progressive movement successes, thestory behind them highlights a longer-term failure.
During thosecontests, most leaders of Washington'smajor labor, environmental, antiwar and anti-poverty groups spent millions ofdollars on a party endeavorspecifically, on electing a Democratic presidentand Democratic Congress. In the process, many groups subverted their ownmovement agendas in the name of electoral unity.
The effortinvolved a sleight of hand. These groups begged their grassrootsmembersjanitors, soccer moms, veterans and other "regular folks"tocough up small-dollar contributions in return for the promise of movementpressure on both parties' politicians. Simultaneously, these groups went todot-com and Wall Street millionaires asking them to chip in big checks inexchange for advocacy that did not offend those fat cats' Democratic politicianfriends (or those millionaires' economic privilege).
This wasn'ttotally dishonest. Many groups sincerely believed that Democratic Partypromotion was key to progressive movement causes. And anyway, during the Bushera, many of those causes automatically helped Democrats by indictingRepublicans.
But afterthe 2008 election, the strategy's bankruptcy is undeniable.
As we nowsee, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious laborlaw reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resourceselected a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" billsrepresent environmental progress. Health care groups promising to push asingle-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payerpromises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete withprivate insurance. And antiwar funding delivered a Congress that refuses tostop financing the Iraqmess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistanconflict.
Of course,frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promiseddifferent results, had these post-election failures prompted coursecorrections.
For example,had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health carecapitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats,progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing amovement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama'sAfghanistanescalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know thoseorganizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand.
But thathasn't happened. Despite the president's health care retreat, most major progressivegroups continue to cheer him on, afraid to lose their White House access and,thus, their Beltway status. Meanwhile, TheNew York Times reports that Moveon.org has "yet to take a clearposition on Afghanistan"while VoteVets' leader all but genuflected to Obama, saying, "People(read: professional political operatives) do not want to take on theadministration."
In thisvacuum, movement building has been left to underfunded (but stunninglysuccessful) projects like Firedoglake.com, Democracy for America, theProgressive Change Campaign Committee and local organizations.
And that'sthe lesson: True grassroots movements that deliver concrete legislative resultsare not steered by marble-columned institutions, wealthy benefactors orcelebrity politiciansand they are rarely ever run from Washington. They are almost always far-flungefforts by those organized around real-world resultsthose who don't care aboutparty conventions, congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees theywere never invited to in the first place.
Only whenenough progressives realize that truism will any movementand anychangefinally commence.
© 2009CREATORS.COM
