Here's something that I think is missing from both Activism, Inc, and this very thoughtful response and that is the distinction between what I would call organizing vs. a fund-raising canvass.
As Greg notes at the end, the ends of this form of "activism" is to raise cash, not to engage citizens in the civic process of governance. Yes the Fund's canvasses occasionally generate letters and phone calls to elected officials on specific policy issues. But mostly they get money.
This is not organizing. It is fundraising.
Organizing is the search for, training of, and engagement of local citizens in the civic process. It is about building permanent infrastructure that can channel a citizen's energy into actions: voting, communicating with elected and public officials, marching, and even more direct actions if necessary for the achievement of a civic goal, such as the passage of a bill to raise the minimum wage.
Can a fundraising canvass help achieve this through its ability to get people to sign petitions or make calls from the canvassers cell phone? Yes. Does this do what everyone seems so desperate to figure out, namely engage and mobilization large numbers of people, the left's main strength? No.
Criticize the Fund and GCI all you want for their management style and their lack of impact on building a core of progressive activists, but understand that fundamentally these organizations are not set up to do what people are accusing them of not doing, which is build a mass base of people willing to take action in support of progressive public policies.
What would have been a more instructive book would have been to contrast the model and approach of the the Fund and GCI with groups that do attempt to build mass bases among core progressive constituencies and move those bases into action. These include the best activist unions like many locals of the Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, CWA, Ca. Nurses Association, and membership organizations like the Sierra Club and ACORN.
Unions and ACORN especially employ professional organizers whose job includes recruiting members, giving them the skills and expertise necessary so members can run campaigns on issues of their own choosing, and keeping those members engaged in campaigns and the electoral process.
This is something that the Fund and GCI has never done, though GCI might say they do. But since they are in actuality simply buliding donor lists or running GOTV canvasses, they aren't really building an active, engaged membership.
What Activism, Inc should lament is the decline in membership-based organization that have always formed the backbone, if not larger body, of social movements: the Farmer's Alliance in the 1880's and 90's, unions (and the Communist Party) in the 1930's SNCC, CORE, and the NAACP in the Civil Rights Movement to name just a few.
But then, given the fact that organizing has dropped out of national consciousness I am not surprised that the author couldn't even conceptualize what organizing looks like.
I'm pretty sure the distinction is very much understood--and at the heart of the issue. Fisher actually grounds her critique within the larger body of literature that you're referring to, about the decline of participatory membership organizations, citing scholars like Ganz, Boyte and Skocpol at length. (I made similar references to Skocpol and Boyte's writing in a post about some history of civic institutions and activism in "Strip-Mining the Grassroots.")
I'm sure the distinction is understood. However, I think one of the problems we have had in this blog conversations has been in distinguishing between critiques of the GCI/DNC fundraising, the GCI/MoveOn GOTV, the "organizing" the PIRGs/Fund does, and the actual organizing done by groups like unions or right wing churches.
I think a great deal of the overall point is that bringing in thousands of young progressives and burning them out on activism by having them canvass for a few weeks or a month means that they will never get involved in actual organizing. I think that's one of the "negative externialities" that I keep babbling about. :)
Both comments here have merit I think. But what's been so distressing in most of the stuff I've been reading about Activism, Inc is that it fails to grasp the massive differences between canvassing and organizing.
Dansomone sums it up by saying "However, I think one of the problems we have had in this blog conversations has been in distinguishing between critiques of the GCI/DNC fundraising, the GCI/MoveOn GOTV, the "organizing" the PIRGs/Fund does, and the actual organizing done by groups like unions or right wing churches."
I don't think people would be so distressed about the "churn" and the post-canvassing drop-off in being politically engaged if there was a large and vibrant sector of orgnaizations that was actually organizing in the sense of unions or ACORN.
Certainly ACORN, which put over 10,000 people in the streets during the run-up to the 2004 election, has shown a willingness to move these GOTV canvassers into the long-term work of being community organizers. Organizing, like canvassing, is not for everyone. Fewer people, in fact, make it as organizers than as canvassers.
But I don't think The Fund is "crowding out" other groups by depriving them of potential staff and volunteers so much as it is the only game going with the capacity to bring so many staffers in within short periods of time. ACORN's GOTV canvass is the only thing I've seen of comparable size and capacity.
Is the failure to inculcate values of citizen action and the skills to pursue it by the Fund worrisome? Yes.
But if there were vibrant and large-scale organizing operations, it would be less worrisome because large numbers of people would be joining those groups instead/after getting burned by canvassing.
Instead of griping about teh damage the Fund causes, it would be better for Activism, Inc to show orgs that are actually succeeding.
But I'm just babbling here. Suffice to say I agree with both comments here and I'm looking forward to more substantial and in-depth debates.
Nathan-
That is a really great comment, but the one thing that I would like to point out that most of the campaigns employing the PIRG techniques do not state that they are fundraising, they claim that they are organizing and building membership. The sad reality is that the only field operations that many large membership organizations have, including MoveOn and (to a large extent) the DNC, is based off of the PIRG model. A quick comparison of the Field Directors (and other leaders) of these big groups with former leadership at the PIRGS is instructive, IMO, as to why this is the case.
A quick example- the DNC's field operations, outside of the funding of the state parties, is (to the best of my knowledge) all GCI and other PIRG clones, and if you look at their advertisements you can see how badly they lie (and lie, and lie...) about what it is that their field people do. I called up one of the numbers to hear their schtick after I saw a sign that said "help Democrats win in 2004! Help build up the local capabilities of the Dem party!" and it took me 20 minutes of wading through their horrendous BS pitch to get them to admit that A) this wasn't going to help in 2004- AT ALL and B) they don't really raise money for any local groups, including the 50 state strategy, since almost 100% of the money taken in simply pays the canvassers.
Self interest wins the day yet again, I guess...
I totally agree that their marketing is the purest bullshit. I would point out that, though, that the realy money in a canvass operation comes from following-up with people who donate at the door. The direct mail and phone solicitation that comes after the donor is acquired is where the client org makes its cash.
I also think it is sad that groups don't have their own field capacity, which is an example of the decline of membership-based organizations and the decline of party organizations in the wake of the ascendancy of mass media.
Building your own field capacity requires the creation of a certain internal culture and the investment of a lot of time and effort with very little front-end payoff. Not to mention the people with the skills to do real organizing are few unless you create your own, which takes a long time.
I'm not excusing, so much as lamenting and pointing out why it doesn't happen. But until it does The Fund is going to rule the roost for field contacts whether they call it organizing or canvassing.
Unless for some reason progressives thought it would make sense to invest in expanding the capacity of groups like ACORN and the Sierra Club and USAction and promote union organizing. And maybe bringing back the Dem party precinct leader infrastructure. Then you wouldn't have to worry about buying field capacity because you would already have it. But its a long-term commitment and that doesn't work well in an environment dominated by 2-year election cycles.
Something to think about.
I want to clarify, after Alex's comment, that it does seem like the DNC's 50 State Strategy is a big step into the right direction vis a vis truly grounded, long-term organizing. Bizarre as jasmine's comment below is, that Dean-NYT mag article was actually on my mind all week--Dean is funneling money out of the central party, out of Washington, and into the party presence in the states.
Now, we've talked plenty about GCI's DNC canvass already - should the DNC be running a canvass in addition to the 50 State Strategy? Well, yeah I think it's potentially a good complement. But the GCI/Fund model is problematic in the partisan, electoral context, fundamentally so: it's a long-term base-building effort being sold (to canvassers and donors alike) as a short-term action plan to TAKE BACK CONGRESS. That's a big contradiction; furthermore, it defines GCI's managerial environment, and exacerbates the Fund model's flaws.
The canvass could be a positive complement for the 50 State Strategy -- if it was also more about party advocacy, and about making positive contributions to the local and state infrastructure. And, of course, if it upheld the basic Democratic Party values of minimum wage and labor rights.
There are definately ways in which a canvass can augment a long-term stragety to build capacity and infrastrucutre. USAction affiliates have done this and I know about an effort in suburban Philly by ACORN that does something similar.
I agree that it is about the goals going in and about ensuring that it supports efforts that build something real and long-lasting, rather than just building a donor list (which is importnat, don't get me wrong).
The key here is that a FUnd-style canvass is a good tactic to use in a larger startegy. Not a strategy in and of itself.
Well said.
I would point out that, though, that the realy money in a canvass operation comes from following-up with people who donate at the door. The direct mail and phone solicitation that comes after the donor is acquired is where the client org makes its cash.
I have seen many stupid ponzi schemes in my life, but this one really takes the cake. I have a bridge in lower Manhattan that I want to sell whomever is paying for this contract at the DNC.
Come to think of it, we're all getting suckered.
Alex, I think we agree on a lot of the macro-stuff related to the use of Fund-style canvassing in a larger progressive movement context, but I think the history of canvassing over the last 30 years shows it to be a very cost-effective way of acquiring a donor list.
If you really sat down and ran the numbers I don't think a marketing firm would come close to working out.
I'm also distressed by your characterization of the canvass as a pyramid scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the new investors coming in pay for the old investors cashing out until it collapses. A canvass acquires names for a list that are then used for a variety of fundraising appeals. This is a sound fundraising technique (the post-acquisition appeals) used by non-profits across the country, politically oriented or not. In no place are new donations used to cash out old donors.
IMHO opinion the most damaging critiques against the Fund and GCI are the management model and the idea that generations of potential progressive activists are being burned. I'd also say that its a damning critique to point out how this isn't really organizing, but that would require the people who contrat with the fund to actually understand what organizing is in the first place, which it's pretty clear they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be contracting with them in the first place.
Sorry to distress you Nathan, but I'll stick by my characterization, though in this case it's a pyramid scheme that preys upon idealistic young activist. In this case I am not saying that the monetary side of the canvass is the scheme, though I still have yet to see any hard data that these schemes help MoveOn and the DNC financially (for other groups, such as Greenpiece and the Save the Children campaign that I see everywhere I turn, that don't depend upon local organizing then I might be persuaded to see the benefits), while I have seen plenty of evidence of the terrible toll they take on our party. The pyramid part of this scam is the "enticing" young activists in, chewing them up/exploiting the hell out of them, and spitting them out, all in the name of "making a difference". Yes, some people might climb up the pyramid, but the vast majority are going to leave with only a sore rear end.
I'll say it again- this is NOT a "sound fundraising technique" when it is not part of any real movement (which I don't really think that you disagree with). There are plenty of local political groups, doing real field work, that could use the money a lot more than either GCI or MoveOn/DNC. The fact is that MoveOn/DNC/GCI make it harder for local groups, those groups they purport to help.
Now- if a canvass is part of a larger campaign, then I can see the value, but the activities of MoveOn and DNC done through GCI do not qualify as belonging to a larger campaign, except in the most remote/abstract way.
The last thing that I would point out is this:
I think the history of canvassing over the last 30 years shows it to be a very cost-effective way of acquiring a donor list.
Coincidence? I think not.
It's time to scare the foxes out of the henhouse, it's time to purge the PIRGS from the party!
"The last thing that I would point out is this:
Hmmm. What else has characterized the left over that same exact period? Stagnation. Decline. Destruction of labor/environmental/consumer protections. Lossing (over and over).
It's time to scare the foxes out of the henhouse, it's time to purge the PIRGS from the party!"
Alex, I'm pretty sure we're mostly on the same page here. I definately agree that a canvass without a larger strategy is potentially dangerous to a progressive movement. I agree that The Fund's model does a poor job of cultivating progressive activists.
I'm not sure I'm a partisan of the thought that this is therefore the strangulation of progressive politics, so much as it is a symptom of a larger abandonment of organizing and civic engagement in the post-CRM and anti-war movement world.
But this last part, that I quoted above (sorry I'm so html illiterate that I can't make the cool snippet box everyone else uses), I just have to say "correlation is not causation".
First, I only said 30 years because this kind of mass fundraising used across the country has only really been done for the last 30-40 years.
Second, the collapse of organizing is the result of a number of different trends including the rise of mass media and direct mail advertising for candidates, the rise of television itself, the decline of unions, and the collapse of 1950's and 1960's membership groups that fed the 1960's movements. I'd also throw in the creation of the 501c3 organization as a result of the 1956 revision to the tax code and the post 1974 reforms of the political money system. It ain't just the rise of canvassing.
'Nuff said. We're basically arguing about commas when we agree on the chapter.
Agree on all your points, including the fact that canvassing didn't cause the decline of the left. I would just amend my statement above a bit: the correlation of the time-periods between the rise of the PIRG model and the decline of the left is a bit too striking to ignore, but that decline has many parents...
Nuff said.
Thanks!
