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.