Jack & Jill Politics

EVENING THREAD IS UP

in response to power analysis comments - I attended a Gamaliel National training in November, and in fact, they did stress the importance of power analysis. They rely heavily on one-on-one relationship building to build "power" relationships. However, as you correctly point out, this is not really going to be able to happen directly with Obama. I think part of the issue is that Gamaliel has great experience, and apparently success, on local and state issues with its various affiliates. The organization is just recently looking at its national power and attempting to wield it (health care is their first national issue). It will be interesting to see how their methods play out in this larger arena. My speculation is that they will attempt to continue to hold the upper echelons accountable via the lower ones (i.e. local affiliates work on their respective state's Congressmen). Realistically, though, this can only be so effective at reaching the President. The true test of accountability by the people for President doesn't come until re-election time. Anyway, like you said, this is Obama's agenda anyway, so he will push it no matter what.

Thank you

Okay, I have to say, this is a really typical, political speech.

and then:

Jarret concludes her speech with : Are you fired up?

Standing ovation: I guess the answer is "ready to go"

Okay the whole room is shouting "Fired up and ready to go"

Hmmmmmm.....

Since I have started to realize how much of Obama's approach when it comes to non-titans of power/non-politicians is about creating and promoting an inspiring narrative, I have been wondering about power relationships. Specifically, are there real and usable means to keep the president actually accountable to those who are not in his inner circle and/or among the powerful already?

I don't see much by way of actual levers of accountability -- since the successful organizing I have seen has been around getting Obama elected, and so has him and his narrative at the center. Also, I haven't seen social movements in the US as particularly effective, just in general in my adult lifetime.

I wonder if the community organizers are doing any sort of power analysis, or whether it is going to mostly be at the level of good feeling and fired up and the narrative crafted by the very person -- Obama -- who is taking on a role of tremendous structural power...

Hudson: All of this will not happen just because we have a friend in the White House.

That is realness.

Hudson: It will take all of our active participation.

Under what banner? And with what kinds of power dynamics in operation?

Note: by narrative, I am talking about what is described in the pdf I link to just below, which I was directed to in a discussion about narrative included in the comments section of this essay over at The Field)

Here's the pdf I mentioned -- takes a little while to load but IMO well worth reading.

Professor Marshall Ganz, Organizing Course (2006): Motivation, Story and Celebration (pdf)

And whoa, whoa! Speaking of -- just as I was getting ready to post this, here's this liveblog comment:

Rev. Timothy McDonald: "Change did not come from inevitability, it was dragged in kicking and screaming by many of the people from this room...history is only made when ordinary people get emotional."

Yes but who is directing the emotional narrative and what are the power dynamics of that situation?

I myself suspect that Barack Obama's primary interest in connecting with community organizers is to try to ensure that they work within the narrative set up in the campaign phase of his organizing.

Oh and yes I have shifted perspective considerably. I still support him being president, BTW, just from a very different location now.

Emotion should be used to motivate one to act- its not a way to work.

Well we need to hold his feet to the fire. Not only for partisan reasons (i.e. passing healthcare) but also to keep him getting corrupt. The GOP congress would have done better in the last two elections if they weren't a rubber stamp for Bush. I don't think Bush would have been arrogant if people stood up against him.

Well we need to hold his feet to the fire.

...people stood up against him...

This isn't an attack or disagreement, Micheline. So I hope that is clear even if I am going to be really blunt in my reply.

These statements sound good but are hugely imprecise. What do those things mean in actual practice? What power or leverage do "we" have? How is that power/leverage used? What resources are needed to use it and how will we get them? Etc etc

I'm not trained in power analysis but I can see that imprecision has been a major tendency in social movement contexts I've known in my life. And as a result we often tend to rely more on words that sound good (hold his feet to the fire, people standing up) and not as much on what it will really take, for real and with details and do-able strategies etc -- to hold those in power accountable. I suspect that the movements are pretty weak and have tended to rely more on rhetoric and symbolism than on effective practice. But that's just a guess If it's true, then these phrases need lots and lots of actual precise work to be able to be put into any sort of effective action.

I am not a strategist, by the way, I just sometimes know when things need questioning.

i understand your concern that the movements have been pretty weak, insofar as effecting change. Part of the problem on the left is that they are sometimes not very good at messaging. Their messaging can be abstract or stale. It needs somehow to connect with people. Look at the card check issue. Labor unions want a card check so that workers won't be intimidated in not joining the union. Workers just have to sign a card stating their desire in joining in a union. Businesses are against it. The issue is really about protecting people's right to join labor unions but the issue is framed by business groups as a privacy issue because the card check would do away with the secret ballot. Well right now the business groups have successfully framed the issue in that way. Labor unions need to talk about how people have been intimidated by corporations to not join one.

To me part of keeping politicians feet to the fire is independent groups mobilizing people to do petitions drives, contacting representatives in Congress and conducting letter writing campaign. It must , however, include messaging so that we dominate media discourse.

Live Blog? It will take me a few seconds to figure this thing out.

dnA: Sorry! I couldn't connect to do some blogging! But I read the comments! GOOD STUFF! :>)