Continuing dialogue with Micah Sifry: Hope, health, activism and results

by Karoli on January 3, 2010 · 16 comments

Update 1/4/10: The final installment in this exchange is here. There’s also an excellent comment on Sifry’s original post from Spencer Critchley here. It’s been a great discussion, and in the end, we just disagree.

I appreciate it when someone responds to what I’ve written in a thoughtful way, even if they do open the dialogue with “a blogger who calls herself…” Before digging into the debate, I should probably clear up the personal and quite possibly ‘sentimental’ items in question.

My mother really named me Karoli…

It’s on my certified birth certificate. You could argue successfully that she was drugged when she did it, since mothers who gave birth in the 50s generally were, but nevertheless, I “call myself” that because she did it first.

Why don’t I use my last name on my blog posts? Because I married into a very conservative family who has some standing and name recognition in our real-life community. My spouse and I agreed early on that it was fine to raise the children as liberals provided I didn’t run around attaching his family’s last name to all of my liberal rants online. It’s worked for 21 years now, so I don’t plan to change that anytime soon.

Think of me as one of those people whose first name is strange enough that they really don’t need a last name. Still, I’m just as real as you are, and have videos of CNN interviews as well as an entire year of NewsGang Live recordings to prove it.

All politics is personal

Sifry opens with this:

It’s fundamentally a sentimental post, arguing that it makes more sense to be a “positive catalyst for change,” to take responsibility for making change into our own hands, and to “quit taking potshots at the President.” Why the latter is in contradiction with the former is beyond me, but whatever.

Now, now, there goes the cynicism again. Because I made statements about acting through hope rather than criticizing from afar, I’m sentimental? I guess that’s one way to describe it, though most who know me think of my beliefs and action style as passionate. Sentimentality suggests a sort of hands-off kumbaya kind of existence, where rational thought flies out of the window while I type in a starry-eyed stupor and play “Imagine” on a repeating loop.

Political thought begins and ends in personal terms. Call it sentimental, call it passionate, but what it is, whether framed in positives or negatives, is personal.

Settling on facts

Enough of the personal, let’s look at the facts still in dispute between us. Sifry continues to argue that the early campaign funding for Obama has some weightier influence than the later grass-roots funding. This contradicts an earlier post of Sifry’s written just after Super Tuesday, where he characterizes Obama as a ‘reformer’. In that post, he wrote:

If it were not for the internet, and all the campaign- and voter-generated activism that it has enabled, Hillary Clinton would already be the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, and Barack Obama or another reform-minded candidate would be trailing badly.

I read that statement as affirmation of my position: that the internet and grassroots activists were the engines that fueled AND FUNDED Obama’s campaign, not the traditional lobbyists, corporations, and special interests.

In February, 2008, Sifry sang the praises of an operation that relied on the internet grassroots for funding. In January, 2010, we’re told that all that was nonsense, that Obama’s true ‘keepers’ were those 2007 “financial backers”.

Here are a couple of facts: No lobbyist or PAC money powered the Obama campaign. All donors were limited to individual donor limits of $2,300 each for the primary and general election. When donations are added up to totals ‘by industry’, they include the Goldman-Sachs housekeeping staff along with the secretaries and investment bankers. My own contributions were classified as “financial services” or “health industry” because they either came from my small business which is a third-party pension consulting firm, or the paycheck I received from my employer, who was peripherally related to the health sector. We could actually go through the names of donors and pick out the ones we recognize, but it would be a huge waste of time. Take the totals, divide them by $4,600 and you’ll have a lowest-possible number of donors from that sector. The actual number giving might be much higher than that, and likely is.

Here’s Sifry’s source for the contention that the only donors who matter were the early donors:

So we’re clear: Obama got about 2/3rds of his donations from $1,000+ donors, while Clinton received 86%. 68% of Clinton’s donors gave the full $2,300, while less than half of Obama’s did. Even in the very early days of the election — that first quarter of 2007 — 22% of Obama’s donors gave $200 or less. In fact, Obama had more small donors than any viable candidate but Kucinich. (I don’t consider Gravel to have ever been a serious candidate, but Kucinich was in the beginning.)

Sifry asks this question again:

Obama’s small donor surge came later, but who do you think he remembers?

My answer: He remembers the millions who dug in and gave what they could, including that 22% who dug in at the time when he had the lowest chance of overcoming the ‘establishment money’ pouring in to Clinton. C’mon, Micah Sifry. Bill Clinton was THE fundraising machine for the Democrats until Obama usurped the Clintons altogether.

As further evidence, Sifry cites the 39.6 million received from the financial, real estate, and insurance sectors overall. Yet my original fact set still stands: Even when aggregated, these donors represent a small fraction of the total funding received by Obama. He completely ignored the $42 million received from retirees, while giving a nod to the $43 million given by lawyers and law firms.

Power shifts and grants

The last area of rebuttal concerns the grassroots and role of the OFA leadership and Obama himself in stirring them to action.

The critical issue, which Karoli completely skates past, is the actual trajectory of how OFA was slowly put together after the election, and the actual structure of the organization. This isn’t about whether or not grassroots volunteers were empowered during the campaign–it’s about what kind of organization was, or wasn’t, offered afterwards to carry their momentum forward. That’s what my first post was about, and it’s still the topic worth debating.

I suppose I lack the ‘insider knowledge’ to know exactly how NOT to skate past it. From what I see as an early supporter, organizer and continuing contributor, OFA has continued to serve its purpose: Mobilizing and informing supporters. Even though a year is a long time, it’s not all that hard to point to some key ways that OFA and field organizations were utilized, particularly with regard to health care reform. Rather than outline them here, I’ll point you to this post on TechPresident about the efficacy of gathering real life stories through the OFA organization and outreach, this TechPresident post about OFA’s conference call and appeal for their organization to organize and speak out for health care reform. Both of those point to an organization poised to utilize those grassroots supporters as groundswell support for the issue itself, preventing Congress from allowing it to fall by the wayside of partisan (or bipartisan) hubris.

It’s probably appropriate to point out that no President has managed to get a comprehensive health care reform bill this far through Congress–passage in both Houses, House/Senate compromise pending. Details released today about how the two bills will be reconciled indicate a fast track to the President’s desk. Without grassroots participation, organization and pressure, it wouldn’t have made it past the Senate Finance Committee. There is no question in my mind that it was an effective use of the organization put in place during the campaign.

Score one for the OFA organization. A big one, in fact. All hail the power of the grassroots, even when called to push against their grassroots opposites.

What could have been different?

In an earlier post today, Sifry addressed other aspects of the Organizing for America decision tree and leadership matrix. I’ll shift to those for the balance of this post.

First, the Obama team could have immediately made “keeping the movement going” as high a priority as the formal transition process was in the months of November/December/January right after the election. Their failure to do so should be seen as an act of criminal political negligence.

Hmmm. I can’t speak from the inside, but I can speak as a member of the OFA grassroots.

  • On December 4, 2008 I received an email inviting me to sign up to host or attend a Change is Coming house meeting on either December 13th or 14th.
  • On December 9, 2008 I received an email reminding me to attend one, with a link to a listing of area meetings and a video to watch.
  • On December 16, 2008 I received an invitation to sign up for service projects, parades, whistle-stop rallies, ticketed inaugural events and other local community service projects.
  • On December 19, 2008 I received an email asking for input on how to best organize/utilize our voices going forward, along with a link to some results from the house meetings.
  • On January 23, 2009 I received an email with a link to a video made by Mitch Stewart and David Plouffe about the future of OFA
  • On February 7, 2009 I received information and a link to a video from the President about his economic recovery plan (ARRA)

The list goes on. A quick search of my email turned up about 200 communiques mostly focused on issues, disseminating information, and trying to get ahead of the message machine that is our ‘media’.

Let me answer a question with a question: Given that OFA placed primary focus on issue-centered questions, should they have de-emphasized issues for organization around future candidates?

If issues-based activism was the right shift to make from a ‘person-based’ campaign, then they handled that transition in a pretty efficient fashion. The disaffection alleged to be happening within the ranks of the organization may have more to do with the reach of the liberal ‘big tent’ and inevitable agendas that arise from that, from single payer advocacy to more moderate versions of health care reform. But without question, the single most damaging message to those who support the OFA organization is that they have been ‘sold out’, and this is a message that Sifry has reinforced, rather than refuted.

Because the Democratic party serves such a wide spectrum of interests, there are some who are disappointed, some bitterly so. So bitter, in fact, their message has turned from hope to disdain, as though the President was elected to be a big daddy to serve their interests alone. I am not sure there’s much of anything anyone can do to assuage that, because it’s entirely personal and somewhat irrational. (Because…sing the chorus now, politics IS personal…)

Sifry’s second criticism:

Second, and this is the most critical part in my view, they could have set out to introduce and connect local Obama supporters to each other, organized by congressional district.

Here’s an excerpt of an email I received in June from our local OFA organizer, who is now campaign director for a local candidate:

Organizing for America has dispatched two wonderful Summer Organizers to Congressional Districts 23 & 24. While their primary goal for the summer will be to organize around Healthcare Reform, they are also curious what local groups and activists are up to. Please take a moment to e-mail these two terrific organizers and tell them what’s occurring in your community, what you would like to see happen on a local level and how you would like to be involved.

It went on to give their names and email addresses for contact information.

Looks like OFA agreed with Sifry’s ideas about strategies, and so do I. We only disagree about whether it was done. He says it wasn’t; I prove that it was.

Ending on a positive note

Sifry’s question here is one with which I wholeheartedly agree:

I would also ask why most observers and analysts pay so little attention to the details of political organizing. Politics is not only about what leaders say and do in Washington and on TV. Political organizing is the basis for political movements, which in turn alter the climate for politics inside Washington.

If there is one single frustration I could point to, it’s this one. The day Nancy Pelosi published the House health care reform bill, I read it and posted the high points. Within hours, the lies about it came online. I rushed to post a series of rebuttals, all with facts, all trying to quell what I knew was going to be an onslaught of nonsensical lies and more lies about the bill.

What did our mainstream media do with that? They amplified the lies, to the point where I ended up actually calling THEM out as liars.

Media Matters for America and Politifact caught on to it, but not before the lies got major traction and played out in the reporting of the summer tea parties and town hall meetings.

If there has been one consistent failure in the past year, it has been the failure of our media and press to give any attention to the substance of our political discourse. If there has been one theme that has run through those of us who support the President and health care reform in particular, it has been that our voices don’t matter to the media this time around, at least in the context of what has been reported and highlighted for the public at large who may not be as obsessed with politics as I or others. Or at least, they don’t matter unless we’re consistently critical.

We can organize all day long, but as soon as the teapots started whistling, our voices were effectively silenced in the dialogue taking place on mainstream media channels. Ironically, they’ve only received attention recently, as some of the netroots has become quite vocal in their opposition and criticism of the President since health care reform has not taken the shape they hoped it would.

Going forward after health care reform, the question will be whether or not the netroots and grassroots are ready to shift focus to more local concerns. They’ve had their eye on the national arena for three years, via a focus on electing the President, and then the year-long focus on health care reform.

When I write about hope, I do it because my goal is to bring more like-minded politicians into office so that we’re not beholden to the Liebermans and Nelsons in Congress, or the minority tyrants that stymie California politics. Cynicism doesn’t win elections. That’s the lesson here. Activism wins elections, and activism is powered by hope of things to come that are better than what we have today. Individual hope, collective hope, and the power to move that from a “sentiment” to a result.

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Karoli January 4, 2010 at 12:51 am

Thanks, Linda! Maybe I won't wait for Maddow…with Fox causing all the cable rates to increase, it might be time to start up our own show right here on the Internet and broadcast direct to all who might want to listen. :)

2 lindadapper January 4, 2010 at 6:37 am

Right on. Hope that they listen and put you on Rachel Maddow. You make sense of issues that seem almost incomprehensible at the start and explain them in a logical and understandable manner.

3 Cynematic January 4, 2010 at 6:38 am

I'd like to further distinguish hope as sentiment far from passive and sentimental, but instead defined as one of the most powerful motivations for change:

“…the essayist Rebecca Solnit says: 'Hope is not a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky. It is an axe you break down doors with in an emergency. Hope should shove you out the door, because it will take everything you have to steer the future away from endless war, from the annihilation of the earth's treasures and the grinding down of the poor and marginal… To hope is to give yourself to the future – and that commitment to the future is what makes the present inhabitable.'”

–from Johann Hari's blog post about the year 2009

Not a lottery ticket, but an axe to break down the door. I think many of us who gave so much of ourselves in the 2008 election are well aware that having Obama as president was important but not enough. It's this understanding of hope I wish progressives would seize on as we go forward.

4 Karoli January 4, 2010 at 8:50 am

Well said, Cyn!!! I couldn't agree more. It's what gets us out of bed in the morning (and did for the last 8 years, too). Since engaging in this back and forth I've had several OFA volunteers reach out to me via direct messages on Twitter. They don't seem to be discouraged at all…in fact, they're gearing up for 2010 midterms to buck conventional wisdom.

5 Karoli January 4, 2010 at 8:51 am

Thanks, Linda! Maybe I won't wait for Maddow…with Fox causing all the cable rates to increase, it might be time to start up our own show right here on the Internet and broadcast direct to all who might want to listen. :)

6 Cynematic January 4, 2010 at 11:36 am

Great to hear–I'm all about bucking conventional wisdom. Elbow grease and GOTV. :)

7 So Sad January 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Unfortunately your model of hope, “It is an axe you break down doors with in an emergency. Hope should shove you out the door, because it will take everything you have to steer the future away from endless war, from the annihilation of the earth's treasures and the grinding down of the poor and marginal… ” and your execution of it will destroy this great country of ours. But you progressives have your heads in the clouds and seem to think if you swing the axe high enough and long enough, your hoping will bring about a new 'changed' result from those of the past. So Sad. Your hope will affect me and my fellow Americans in a negative way. Why don't you consider moving to Europe where the change your hoping for is in place. Try it out for a while and then see if you want to bring it over here.

8 Shoq January 6, 2010 at 2:09 pm

So Sad: Of course, after conservatives spend 30 years discarding any respect for pluralism, turn most of our economy over to a handful of monopolies, and sit back while our infrastructure crumbles, our educational system slides into the sea, some wingnut like you will always stand up and bloviate about YOUR exceptionalism, YOUR country, and YOUR desire for anyone that doesn't agree with you to just leave. We've heard this refrain since the “love it or leave it” losers who defended the Watergate burglars, the Iran contra criminals, and the idiotic tea partiers who seem to love Dick Armey and billionaires more than their own children. And some wonder why we're in this fucking mess. It's because of deaf, dumb, blind, and STUPID sheep like you who elect people that make you FEEL empowered, but who actually strip you of any and all of it. I want my fucking country back, and it's up the ass of people like you. Just die quickly.

9 So Sad January 7, 2010 at 2:52 pm

The past 30 years has had the impact of you progressives. It's the left that has caused more problems interrfering with equality. It's your sheeple who say they demand equal rights and then legislate any sense of equality out the window. Look at your example of our educational system sliding into the sea… It's the left who has a stronghold on it and has caused it to 'slide into the sea' as you say. No, the right hasn't had a stronghold for the past 30 years at all. Get real Shoq (although your language and name calling doesn't shock me at all. I expect it from your side. seems to be all a lot of you on your side have to offer…) Your side needs to be honest about the destruction you have caused over the years and will continue to bring on this great country of ours.

10 pull ralph lauren pas cher August 18, 2014 at 8:07 pm

Vendredi soir, en plein concert au Wireless Festival, Kanye West a tout interrompu durant 20 minutes pour le plus grand malheur des personnes présentes. Vraisemblablement, le rappeur avait beaucoup de choses à dire, à commencer par des reproches aux paparazzis et journalistes. "Les personnes me regardent comme si j'avais un problème, comme si j'étais quelqu'un d'incontrôlable (…) Les médias… Ils veulent te faire sentir que tu n'es rien à leurs yeux. Ils contrôlent tout le monde avec des rumeurs et des mensonges. Ils vous volent puis vous vendent à vous-mêmes", avait-il lancé. Ce n'est pas tout puisqu'en plus d'attaquer les médias, le chéri de Kim Kardashian s'en est pris au milieu de la mode en suppliant, "Ne me discriminez pas parce que je suis un homme noir qui fait de la musique." Au milieu de ces nombreux règlements de compte, Kanye West a eu envie de parler de la mère de sa fille North, Kim Kardashian. Il a avoué au public présent qu'il souhaitait déjà l'épouser il y a… sept ans. "J'ai dit à Kim, il y a sept ans, que je voulais l'épouser, et je l'ai fait", a-t-il déclaré. Celui qui chante Niggas in Paris a également évoqué ce qui l'avait fait craquer chez sa chérie à l'époque. Il s'agit de ses cheveux… Retrouvez cet article sur CloserMag.frBillets d'avion payés par l'UMP : Jean-François Copé vole au secours de son épouseLe 20h people : Les Bleus accueillis avec ferveur par leurs supporters, Nicolas Sarkozy en vacances dans le SudLes amis de Justin Theroux ne croient pas en son mariage avec Jennifer AnistonNathalie Kosciusko-Morizet critique encore l’action d’Anne Hidalgo à ParisJessica Simpson et Eric Johnson sont mariés !La chanteuse Priscilla n'est plus célibataire

11 read more August 19, 2014 at 10:28 am

I just want to say I am all new to blogging and site-building and actually savored your website. More than likely I’m want to bookmark your website . You actually have outstanding articles and reviews. Appreciate it for revealing your website.

12 check content August 20, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude!

13 Gwenn Diaz August 20, 2014 at 11:02 pm

Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

14 Margy Sare August 21, 2014 at 1:11 am

Everything is very open with a clear description of the challenges. It was really informative. Your site is useful. Thanks for sharing!

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: