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.
