Michael Dover's Blog

Progressive Pragmatism

Michael A. Dover — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:25:08 EST

The issue of pragmatism may become a cottage industry, much as the concept of
globalization was. It is true that it can distract away from clarifying the underlying
political and economic issues. But in this case, I think it is healthy to discuss it. It
is an issue on which I've posted twice to this list. In the Extended Post, there is a longer message.
Michael Dover, mdover@umich.edu I refer in this posting to Christopher Haye's article about pragmatism in the December 29, 2008 The Nation. I refer also to a PDF file which may not be uploaded to this seite but is available upon request.

What Next for Progressives of Obama?

Michael A. Dover — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:30:27 EST

By Michael A. Dover
mdover@umich.edu

This is in response to the proposal by Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher at:
http://progressivesforobama.net/discussion-on-our-future/ and on the Progressives for
Obama yahoogroups list serve.

Interesting proposal, Carl and Bill. One operative statements seem to be: "Progressives
for Obama is in a position to play a catalytic role in moving forward in a major way." I
did read the final report written by Carl, emphasizing how many hits on the website,
etc., but it seemed to me a bit overestimated. The number of endorsers wasn't huge, and
the final/current number of participants on this group isn't vast either. Yes, when the
media was looking for things to say about the left's approach to the campaign, we got a
little coverage.

And it was nice to think someone somewhere in the campaign was listening. I for one
succumbed to that when David Plouffe came out with a call for folks to go "all in"
between then and election day, a couple of months after my posting to P4O of that title.
But I dismissed the temptation to give more credence to my influence than called for,
something we might try to avoid as we discuss what's next.

Another operative statement is: "Left-progressive defines the political orientation,
essentially broad agreement with the principles of the initial call to 'Progressives for
Obama", in combination with, "First, already mentioned, is a common political orientation
mentioned above."

I for one saw little evidence on this list of anything resembling such a common outlook,
either towards the campaign or in terms of any conceptualization of what P4O was all
about. In general, since the 1991 split in the left, eclecticism has been the order of
the day. This was a positive thing at the time, but there are costs to eclecticism,
including the inability to garner unified action but most importantly the lack of
evolution of coherent theory and strategy. See my theory of the fates of social movement
organizations below.

All along, in P4O, one issue has been, to what extent "left-progressives" should work in
one of the following ways:

1. Within the Obama campaign as individuals,

2. Within the campaign as Progressives for Obama in the group of that name within the
Obama website (which ended up poorly utilized)

3. Independently as part of various established groups such as Move-On or PDA or various
union or professional association PACs or in one of the non-partisan voter groups,

4. Independently within Progressives for Obama (but again, despite the report of our vast
influence, was there a single organized Progressives for Obama actual group on the ground
doing anything? I'm forgetting from Carl's report.)

5. Independently as part of an ad hoc groups established to fill gaps in the
effectiveness of the official campaign (as we did in Michigan and Ohio, mainly in Ohio,
with www.concerneddemocrats.org).

6. Within other local campaigns that were truly supporting/coordinating with the top of
the ticket OR within state/county/local Democratic parties, which may have printed and
distributed as many yard signs as did the campaign (I'd like to see the data on that.)

As we answer the question, What Next for Progressives for Obama, it would be valuable to
try to ascertain to what extent each of us in Progressives for Obama as a whole did one
or more of these 6. And then and only then to answer the question of what next based on
that analysis. Why not throw up a quick survey of members of Progressives for Obama to
see what people did then and what people think now?

I'll start with myself, commenting on each of the above:

(1) Within the campaign: I did as much as I could as an individual donor and volunteer
within the campaign, given I live in and work in two states and do a lot of commuting.
Also, donated 500 buttons and bumper stickers to the Cleveland State students for Obama
group and another 500 to the East Cleveland campaign operation, since they had few/none
of their own!

(2) Within the campaign in the website's P4O group: Made a big deal out of when I joined
P4O of the need to belong to both the within campaign and independent grouping, so I
cross posted my postings including my Open Letter to Democratic Candidates which I also
send out on various list serves calling for more support for the top of the ticket by
Democratic candidates. I also posted my work on the nature of progressive pragmatism
(see the Nation's Christopher Haye's analysis at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/hayes, and see the widespread consternation and
confusion on left list services since the election, as a liberal pragmatist
President-elect with progressive leanings takes office). See by campaign blog at
http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/private. Carl was nice enough to become my
friend, thanks Carl! But despite posting a picture of myself and Giselle, I was flop in
the social networking category. Also, I found that no matter how hard I tried, my nearly
$1500 in donations in like 20 different efforts wouldn't seem to aggregate to the P4O
group or even count for myself, which I attribute to confusion over the MI and OH
varieties of me. But P4O did as a group raise $24 and had 110 members.

(3) Within established independent groups: I avoided Move-on as I felt that it could hurt
Obama with it's self-serving promotion of its own name on its bumper stickers and signs;
it might play in Ann Arbor but not in Adrian, and I actually joined PDA formally but
didn't get active; I was also supported DSA endorsed House candidates in Michigan,

(4) Within our P4O: I was active with the Progressives for Obama, becoming a monthly
sustainer to support Carl's work and endorsing the call and I was active on the list
serve, which I noticed attracted quite a few folks who seemed more critical that
supportive of Obama, I guess reflecting the tradition of "critical support" from the left
for Democratic candidates,

(5) Within ad hoc groups: Founded Concerned Democrats of MI and OH, which advocated with
local and statewide candidates and party leaders to do more to ensure that grassroots
Democratic candidates supported the top of the ticket. We did individualized emails to
all Ohio state House candidates, follow-up calls focused on rural and suburban candidates
who weren't incumbents, and did a mailing of a couple of thousand buttons and bumper
stickers directly to the candidates, which was well-received. Tactic: asking the
candidates to wear the Obama buttons 24/7 from then until election day "except when you
are in the shower",

(6) Within local campaigns or DP: Door to door work supporting a DSA endorsed House
candidate in Michigan; supported my own MI House candidate, distributing Obama buttons
along the way, joined the Ohio DP and renewed my dues to the MI party (the least I could
do in that they listened to my/our concerns about lack of support from some candidates
for the top of the ticket.

In the process I neglected much else in my life in order to make good on my pledge to go
"all in between now and election day."

What next? Why not consider the fate of the same 6 approaches?

(1) Within the campaign, it seems to me that if the campaign is truly interested in
keeping volunteers together and having an ongoing operation, there is some value in
responding positively when there are calls to do house meetings, attending meetings,
etc.. Haven't done it yet, didn't on 12/13-14 but probably will. I remember well from
work to re-elect Dutch Morial in New Orleans in the early 1980s how fiercely the power
structure could re-unite to prevent the re-election of the first African-American to hold
real power in national office. I've spoken to some former and current staffers and
volunteers and they are very positive about the need to hold things together. It's a bit
confusing with the proliferation of websites but worth the effort. I still feel as a
matter of principle if we are really P4O we should respond to Obama's early call not to
operate unnecessarily through independent groups. As a matter of fact, if our P4O were
really diverting serious energy outside the campaign, I wouldn't have supported it, but
it was clearly mainly a discussion group that (as one Obama staffer a-n-d one P4O leader
consulted for advice said about our Concerned Democrats operation, it "couldn't do any
harm."

(2) Within the campaign's P4O list: I'm told these lists will remain active; there is
still lots of discussion on Social Workers for Obama, started by my NOLA friend Russ
Henderson, but I don't see much activity on the campaign's P4O list, nor was there much
interplay between the official and unofficial P4O groups, and I think that's a shame. I
doubt anyone's interested in submerging ourselves, but personally if we are really for
Obama and the campaign wants ongoing groupings, I don't see why we shouldn't take
seriously the possibility of moving into and operating out of that list. Less grandiose
perhaps, but one way to stay active and less likely to attract the left fringe who wants
to spent its time attacking Obama.

(3) Within established groups: I do think PDA is an option; I get it's OH postings and I
like the idea that it is a real group related to a real party. In OH, the state party
Chair seems very open to independent groupings. Doing this even en masse wouldn't be the
worst thing and reminds me of a couple of key historical events on the left. In the
1950s thousands of leftists who had decided that support for groups like the Progressive
Party hadn't proved effective joined none other than the Cold War liberal influences
Americans for Democratic Action and by the 1960s and 1970s ADA has very real influence on
the Democratic Party and the nation. I think that such a strategy might be in order now,
and PDA would be an effective vehicle; if there are things we don't like about it, why
not change it? Clearly, some counterweight to the DLC is needed. It goes within saying
that we should still be active in various other large issue oriented groups and groups
within professions and unions.

(4) Within our P4O group: That, of course, is the question. I do see the value of
keeping some kind of network together. I'm not about to cut off my monthly sustainer
just yet, and truly appreciate the role Carl and others have played in this. It's been
wonderful how many of us who haven't seen or communicated with each other in years have
been brought together in part by P4O. I'm the author of a distributed but like many
things unpublished piece on the fate of social movement organizations. I contend that we
have what I call "paired fates." We tend to choose two of the following fates and
ambivalently swing between some two of them. The fates are:

Dispersion - P4O dissolves in one way or another, either from organizational death or
from merger. It's members most likely lose any sense of cohesion or identity based on
the previous P4O affiliation.

Density - P4O stagnates, throwing off folks at its periphery and failing to attract other
members, but retaining enough members committed to survive one way or another. It
focuses on ensuring a common political outlook to the exclusion of eclecticism. The
membership would be dense in the sense that there are rather long-standing and close ties
among the remaining members. But the organization would not play a major role in any
sense due to its small size and increasing isolation.

Drift - This metaphor is perhaps one way of describing a process consistent with the
semi-permanent network option. To understand and consider this option, it's important not
to see the word drift in a pejorative light. Historically, folks on the left have often
committed the voluntarist error: a view in the world as something our organization could
change, and to the extent we still hold to such a view, we may see the very word drift as
distasteful. Using the "drift" metaphor, the organization would still be P4O in a formal
sense, with a website, a discussion list, and perhaps even formal dues, which actually I
would favor where it to continue, and with one list restricted to formal members.
Members of P4O would also be active in other groups throughout the spectrum of the above
table, but our main contribution would be not as an organization but as individual
activists in these other organizations and causes and to each other as members of this
network, through interpersonal relationships, education, and limited recruitment and
socialization into our tradition. We would n-o-t see ourselves as an coordinating group
and certainly not as any vanguard. We would all commit to reading every word of each
other's long postings! (:}

Dynamism - This is a direction in which P4O grows and flourishes and truly becomes
something akin to the maximum version of what Carl and Bill proposed. But essentially it
would mean that we find a way to grow and be more formal and play a serious role.
Ambitious.

Of the four options, I tend to ambivalently swing between drift and dynamism, and to
dislike dispersion and density. But when asked to choose, I tend to favor drift, as I
think that it is the fate which leads to organizational survival. If we could live to
fight again, even if just in 2012, I would be happy to continue to see that happen.

One idea: I presented a workshop on grassroots organizing in 1992 in Berkeley, at which I
presented an idea I've since tried to implement but haven't had a chance to do on
anything other than an experimental small scale. It's called Pairing and Intentional
Leadership Development. The idea is that you build or rebuild the organization, formally,
with a unit of organization that is not the individual, but the diverse pair. 2, 4, 6,
8, you build the organization based upon pairing. It helps if the founding pair is
diverse. In this instance, Carl and Bill are a diverse pair; what if we re-built P4O
from the ground up as a diverse membership organization based upon the pairing principle.
I've written a draft of a paper on this which I could share with anyone interested and
have done some preliminary database work within Filemaker Pro which I think shows how it
is possible to build an organization that could have the pair as the membership unit and
still communicate effectively with each pair. There are lots of issues about this issue
of pairing and in my own organizing I've done some consultation and have some anecdotal
organizing examples I could share. The opportunity to implement the pairing principle in
re-building P4O would motivate me to be involved, for sure.

(5) Within ad hoc groups: A couple of us who have been involved in Concerned Democrats
have talked about whether we should fold it up. We probably will largely due to some
personal/political points I make below. But thinking back to another historical example,
I recall the Reform Democratic clubs of NYC in the 1970s. They played a very positive
role in supporting the election of progressive candidates like Bella Abzug, early gay
candidates, and in supporting important causes. President-elect Obama has spoken
recently of the distinction between people who go into politics for service and the
others. I think it would be valuable to form Concerned Democrats or Reformed Democrats
clubs at the local or state level that would work within the Democratic Party. One good
example has been Progressive Democrats of Washtenaw County, one of whose founders, Tim
Colenback (who is a fellow member of Social Welfare Action Alliance) was later elected
Chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party and recently stepped down from that post. I
seriously think that if there were clubs that had serious codes of ethics and worked for
ethics reforms including truly serious ethics requirements for candidates endorsed by the
DP, more serious than any law that is in effect or might be put into effect, that it
would do wonders to advance progressive political action. Let's face it, the corrupt
regulars and opportunists and what's in it for me folks are still major forces in
Democratic Party politics, and it doesn't have to be that way. If in addition to groups
like PDA, there were such semi-independent clubs of dues-paid DP members in major cities
and states, they could have a real impact, as did the Reform clubs of the 1970s.

(6) I plan to keep up my dues in the DP's of MI and OH, continue to selectively support
elected officials in my districts and elsewhere, and to support DSA endorsed candidates
and belong to DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). My analysis of what I saw happen
in MI and OH is that as effective as the Obama campaign was, the DP stepped up to the
plate, buying huge quantities of bumper stickers, buttons and yard signs (especially yard
signs) from www.demstore.com and other outlets. In some areas of OH, rural DPs banded
together to buy them since they couldn't get them from the campaign. In some large
counties in OH, county parties saved the day with these purchases. This is an untold
story of the campaign if you ask me; the role of the Democratic Party leadership in
stepping up to the plate nationally and locally; Dean himself hasn't gotten enough
credit. The leaderships both nationally and in the states were well aware and when
pressed admitted to problems with candidates not supporting the top of the ticket and did
much to try to counter that but put their $$ to work making sure that lack of O/B
materials wasn't the excuse that could be used to distance oneself from the top of the
ticket. This was particularly apparent in the last 2 months of the campaign.

This said, in addition to talking about what's next, I think it would be helpful to talk
about next time (2012).

Next time, we may not be able to count on the Obama re-election effort to be as
grassrootsy and effective as it was this time, and we should make efforts to ensure that
there are contracts and plans in place to make absolutely sure that if David Plouffe or
whoever is still of the view that visuals don't count there are plans in place to make
sure we mass produce magnetic car signs, buttons, 8"by13" window signs of the size that
would fit within the typical vertical rectangular window pane area and which I think are
easier to distribute and harder to steal than typical yard signs), etc.. We shouldn't be
dependent upon the Obama campaign for these materials but they should be authorized
materials; the Obama campaign was notoriously late in delivery, and I wasted several
hundred $$ on materials that arrived literally days before the election that were ordered
6 weeks earlier. The campaign did deliver 1000 buttons on time at $.35 apiece as
advertised; www.demstore.com was quicker but late on one order for bumper stickers. In
general this problem of shortages of materials has to be planned for next time.

Nuff said.

All of this is complicated by the fact that I claim to have retired from organizing after
40 years to focus on my writing and teaching, to which some reply, "fat chance, it's in
your blood.") I guess it depends on the meaning of the word organizing. If it means
trying to get other people to do what you think should be done by making phone calls,
organizing meetings, sending out mailings, participating in committees, initiating
grassroots outreach, etc., I'm still on the wagon since 11/4. It's hard, but I'm trying.
Would this posting be a relapse?

I did say I still want to write. And if someone else organizes something I might show up
and do something. Volunteering and even joining are things I still want to do. But no
hard stuff. Although I had been radicalized and become active as early as the Fall 1966
editorials I wrote as a freshman Michigan Daily writer against the Vietnam war, it wasn't
until the assasinations of early 1968 that I fully dropped out and entered into the cause
with all my efforts. And although there are some on this list who top 50 or more years
of activism, I think that 40 and out wouldn't be the worst thing.

I've recently stepped back from all but being co-treasurer of the Social Welfare Action
Alliance, the radicals in the professions group for social workers and other human
service workers which I helped found in 1985. I suppose I could always come out of
retirement later. I certainly will plan on playing a role in 2012, and would love it if
we can find a way for a sane and committed P40 group to be held together in the meantime.
Knowing this was possible would do wonders to permit me to enjoy my retirement....

Michael A. Dover, MSW, Ph.D.
Ann Arbor and Cleveland
(734)645-6261
mdover@umich.edu

Open Letter to Democratic Candidates

Michael A. Dover — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:23:19 EDT

Concerned Democrats
1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office
October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:

We are writing you as Democrats to another Democrat. As a Democratic candidate for office in this historic year, you are in an unique position to help Barack Obama and Joe Biden reverse our nation's priorities.

Unfortunately, the combination of the Obama/Biden campaign’s practice until very recently of de-emphasizing use of traditional visual materials such as yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons and the natural tendency of local candidates to be focused on their own races has resulted in a repeat in 2008 of what has been a longstanding problem in Democratic campaigns during Presidential years: uneven levels of coordination between local campaigns and the top of the ticket in many areas and inadequate support for the top of the ticket.

True, there are many areas in which there is strong support for the top of the ticket and vice versa. That may very well be the case in your area. But this Open Letter stresses the importance of supporting the top of the ticket in very simple ways, such as wearing Obama/Biden buttons, putting Obama/Biden bumper stickers on your car, putting an Obama/Biden sign in your own front yard, trying to get Obama/Biden yard signs up where your own supporters have yard signs, etc..

Concerned Democrats was formed with goal of raising consciousness among candidates for office about the importance of the use of such Obama/Biden materials, in order to send a symbolic but important message to everyone who sees you that you support the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.

Although there are many logistical causes of lack of coordination, lack of support for the top of the ticket also has political roots. It has manifested itself most often when there has been a liberal candidate for President, such as in 1972, 1984, and 2004. This year Barack Obama has articulated a uniquely pragmatic point of view. Barack Obama realizes that the social problems facing rural, suburban and urban American can’t be solved in isolation from each other.

Senator Obama is the real maverick in this race. He has worked successfully across party lines on nuclear proliferation and other issues. He defied the odds and ran a tough primary campaign during which he and Senator Hillary Clinton made history together. But their efforts and those of their supporters will be nullified if we don’t unite to elect Barack Obama as President, Joe Biden as Vice-President, and Congressional and state candidates across this country and state.

This makes it particularly important that all Democratic candidates unite to show the flag for the top of the ticket. That is the best way to build the turnout needed to win up and down the ticket. This year, undecided rates are still at a high rate, according to recent polls, and many voters are looking for guidance to those persons in public life they know and trust. In your area, that would include you!

You are in a good position to help voters in your area realize that our local problems can’t be optimally addressed without a change in administration in Washington. However, if voters don’t see consistent and visible evidence of your support for Barack Obama, they may mistakenly conclude that you are actually distancing yourself from the top of the ticket.

Thank you for hearing our concerns. Please feel free to call contact us at any time at mdover@concerneddemocrats.org. We are especially interested in hearing unique ideas as to how you have improved coordination and generated momentum in your area. We will then collate these ideas and share them with you in a follow-up email just prior to election day. We will also share them with the Democratic Party and the Campaign for Change, although I want to make it clear that Concerned Democrats does not represent either of these entities.

From preliminary conversations, one idea has already arisen, and that is for each candidate to say at every possible opportunity, "If you are supporting me, I would strongly urge you to also vote for the Obama/Biden ticket on election day."

One day, years from now, all of us who are active in this election will be asked by people close to us, "What did you do to help elect Barack Obama as President in 2008?" As a Democratic candidate for office this year, you will be able to proudly point to your candidacy and its important contribution to change in your area. However, I am writing you to ask that you also be able to say that you did whatever was in your power to be help elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden!

Sincerely,

Michael A. Dover

Concerned Democrats

Concerned Democrats
1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office

October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:

Sincerely,

Michael A. Dover

Concerned Democrats

New Website for Concerned Democrats

Michael A. Dover — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:39:00 EDT

See www.concerneddemocrats.org.

While I respect the campaign's wish that folks not operate independently, in addition to working within the campaign, I must do so. We'll be distributing 2000 buttons, 1000 bumper stickers and 2500 lapel labels directly to rural and suburban House candidates in Ohio and Michigan and seeking their pledge to more actively support the top of the ticket in the weeks again. The Obama/Biden campaign's stubborn failiure to listen to the people coming into the office asking for materials to distribute to neighbors and friends (due to David Plouffe's faulty and mistaken belief that visual materials don't matter and his over-reliance upon email, text messaging and TV ads) has combined with the intentional and unintentional failure of local candidates to show the flag for the top of the ticket. This 'perfect wave' is threatening the election outcome in Ohio and Michigan. When rural and suburban voters don't "see" visible support by their local candidates for the talk of the ticket, this lack of 'visuals' makes them think that these candidates aren't supporting Obama/Biden, which is very often not true. I'm hearing one story after another from these candidates about how hard a time even they have getting materials! So we're sending them on our own one candidate at a time.

Mike Dover, mdover@concerneddemocrats.org

Going All In Between Now and Election Day: An Urgent Appeal

Michael A. Dover — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:52:42 EDT

Going All In From Now Until Election Day: An Urgent Appeal (Pass the Word)

It happened in 1972. It happened in 1984. It happened in 2004 and it could happen again. It happened to McGovern, it happened to Mondale-Ferraro, it happened to Kerry and it can happen to Obama-Biden. What happened was that in those years there was widespread failure on the part of candidates for state offices and for Congress to support the top of the ticket. And there was insufficient coordination by the presidential campaign with the candidates for local office. It contributed to the losses in those presidential races and losses in local races. If we want to bring change to the country this time, we’ll need to make some changes in how we go about it.

First, what can be done:

1. Turn your house, glove box, trunk, and office drawer into a repository of campaign materials for the top of the ticket and for your favorite local candidate. Official materials can be obtained from: http://store.barackobama.com/ or from your local Obama-Biden headquarters. To find the nearest headquarters, visit: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mioffices and substitute your state initials for “pa” before “offices” at the end of the URL. While visiting the Obama-Biden office, sign up to be a Obama-Biden campaign volunteer. I have, and you can to.

2. Request a meeting, a conference call or a phone conversation with your state or local party chair. Do the same with local or statewide Obama-Biden office staff. And do the same with local and Congressional candidates you are supporting. Discuss your observations about coordination and support for the top of the ticket, both positive and negative. Discuss solutions. Ask how you can help, both with any perceived problem and in general. Build unity by pointing out that this is a problem which has developed over the decades and isn’t unique to this year. You can do this and if you don’t want to do it solo, ask some friends to help raise the issue along with you.

3. Pass the word for unity, coordination and support for the top of the ticket. Do everything in your power between now and election day to make sure that this historic opportunity for change is realized. Let’s not get discouraged, let’s get determined. Pass the word. Forward this message.

4. Donate to both the Obama-Biden campaign and the local campaign. You can donate to many local campaigns via this website: http://www.actblue.com/directory. After you donate, send the candidate a message with a plea for better support for the top of the ticket. You don’t have to give much, but every bit helps.

5. Work to ensure that candidates for local office and their supporters are wearing Obama/Biden buttons, mentioning the top of the ticket in phone calls, and helping to distribute Obama/Biden yard signs and bumper stickers. Work to ensure that local Obama/Biden offices are making such materials available for free for use by official representatives of local campaigns as well as providing additional materials on consignment for sale to the public at local campaign offices. The best way is to call the candidate and visit the campaign offices and get involved.

6. Campaign websites need to be updated urgently to include prominent links to www.barackobama.com as well as statements and photographs showing that the local candidate is fully supporting the top of the ticket.

7. State parties, unions and PACs who assign staff and volunteers to help elect a local candidate should instruct them to work actively to ensure coordination of the Obama/Biden campaign with the local campaign and local campaign support for the top of the ticket.

8. Candidates interviewed on radio, TV and in the newspapers should go out of the way to stress the need to elect Biden/Obama in order to ensure a national leadership which can respond to local problems.

Why we need to do this:

The problems of lack of coordination and of insufficient support for the top of the ticket are endemic problems historically and in many states. They are not new this year, and this must be stressed. This concerned Democrat and longtime activist works in one state and lives in another and has made it his business while driving back and forth, talking on the phone, visiting websites, and showing up at campaign offices to observe local, Congressional and presidential campaigns. There were clear signs there is a serious problem of lack of coordination from the top of the ticket and lack of support for the top of the ticket.

Next, I solicited reports from longstanding friends and fellow activists around the country. These included reports from Louisiana (“It’s happening here”), Ohio (a half-hour long radio interview with a Congressional candidate who doesn’t mention the presidential race, despite the fact he’s a progressive candidate whose own website has a link to Obama/Biden) , and Pennsylvania (where Progressive Democrats of America members have complained about a Congressional candidate not openly supporting Obama/Biden). Reports have also been received from members of Progressives for Obama in Oregon, from the relative of a union activist in Washington, from Social Workers for Obama, from candidates for local, statewide and Congressional offices, from Obama-Biden campaign volunteers and staffers including veterans of Hillary’s campaign, and from Democratic Party officials and staffers.

True, these are anecdotal reports. And there as many examples of excellent coordination and support for the top of the ticket as there are reported problems. But it appears that this longstanding problem is developing once again in 2008. And it threatens the outcome of the election. It’s not all problems with the candidates and their campaign organizations or the Democratic Party. In some cases unions, 527s, professional organization PACs and other independent groups are focused on Congressional or gubernatorial races to the exclusion of the top of the ticket.

It might seem like there is little the everyday activist can do between now and election day about the attitudes about race or the opinions about progressive ideas which we may be seen as the central factors that will determine the outcome of the presidential race. But there is something we can do about this problem of lack of coordination or support for the top of the ticket. We can do “whatever’s in our power” to overcome it as in step 2 above. And if we do so along with continuing our everyday activism so that we can have a real impact, as in step 1 Above. We can put our money where our mouth is as in step 4 above. And we can pass the word as in step 3 above and compare notes about this problem in the hopes that there can be an upsurge in unity in the weeks ahead.

More on the problem....:

If you are already convinced, no need to read on. Yes, there are great examples all over the country where coordination is already working. Let us now praise good examples, and collect suggestions and ideas other than those here. But there are also places where this is not happening. In some cases it’s unintentional, in that both the presidential campaign offices and local candidates are naturally focused on electing “their” candidate. In media interviews, local radio, TV and newspapers reporters are often assigned to get the angle on the local race. But that doesn’t prevent a candidate from sneaking in mention of the need to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States of America and articulating the reasons why that is relevant to the local race and local issues.

True, in some cases, the problem of lack of coordination is due to continued logistical problems, such as lack of funds by relatively poorly funded local campaigns to purchase Obama-Biden materials or shortages of those materials on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign. It is urgent these problems be overcome on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign. The Obama-Biden campaign should schedule meetings with state and local parties and candidates devoted to a single issue discussion of improved coordination and support of the top of the ticket.

Unfortunately, in other cases, there is a problem of foot dragging by local candidates as to their support of the national ticket. This is an endemic problem historically and one based upon a faulty logic. Typically, the view is that the top of the ticket is too liberal for the local area, and that being identified with the top of the ticket will hurt the local candidate. But if the local candidate is a shoo-in for re-election, this doesn’t apply. And if the local candidate is hopelessly outvoted, it surely doesn’t apply. But what if it’s a close race? It doesn’t apply then either, for the following reasons. Yes, there may be some local voters who will be turned off by such a candidate’s support for the top of the ticket. But there will be many more local voters who are more likely to be convinced to turn out to vote in the most important presidential race since 1960 than there are who can be convinced to turn out to support a local candidate. Put another way, there are many more local voters who haven’t always made it to the polls in the past but who are more likely to vote this time due to a high profile presidential campaign than there are non-voters who can be turned out for a local race on the ballot.

Supporting the top of the ticket is the best way to maximize overall voter awareness and turnout. And it is that turnout that has the best chance of producing victories in close local races, even in less than liberal areas.

Let’s eliminate the bottlenecks and the excuses and make this work. Where there is a will there is a way. A rising tide lifts all ships. But if ships are crossing in the night they might not reach their destinations.

Signed, A Concerned Democrat and Long-Time Activist

Richardson for VP and a Remembrance of 2000

Michael A. Dover — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:42:39 EDT

To follow up on Dorinda Moreno's posting, since Iowa I've been convinced that Gov. Richardson is the best VP candidate and am still convinced. It's simply a matter of who has the best judgement and the best experience. It's not what part of the country they are from, what states they can bring, what demographics are needed. And it's not about having a Governor on the ticket. It's who inspires trust. And, yes, name recognition is important, and Richardson has that.

What is really amazing is how none of the media mention him, as if two people of color on the ticket would somehow sink it. I don't agree. It's not just change people want. It's honesty and fairness. To deny the VP slot to the clearly most qualified potential candidate because he would be person of color #2 on the ticket would not be fair.

I recall well the Democratic convention which nominated Sen. Lieberman. It was electrifying that a Jew had been nominated, but what was clear to me from the TV version at least was that the most electrified delegates of all were the African-American delegates! They were clearly inspired and excited by the realization that once the religion barrier had finally been broken (first a Catholic, now a Jew and now doubt one year a Muslim such as the Representative from Minnesota), the race barrier would also soon be broken. I recall well and have an MP3 of the very moving concluding prayer from that convention, by an African-American pastor from Arkansas, who went out of the
way to include ecumenical content with a strong focus on Old Testament conent. I've posted this at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mdover/website/benediction.htm

The phrase "in the City of our God" refers to Los Angeles...

As we ready ourselves for the 2008 convention and consider our political commitments, regardless of our religious views I think it is helpful to hear this.

Now we are on the verge of breaking that very race barrier to the Democratic nomination. Nominating Gov. Richardson would not be about further breaking that race barrier. It would be about selecting the best candidate. But imagine the degree to which people of any religion or any culture or "race" would be electrified by the realization that the political process in this great democracy is potentially open to all.

Michael

Impossible Dream? Banning the Bomb, Starting in Britain, France, India and Pakistan

Michael A. Dover — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:01:44 EDT

Remember when banning the bomb was the fervent hope of the peace movement throughout the world? The post-boomers in the US whose inspirational leadership is bringing the hope of change via the Obama campaign may not have lived through those years, but I'm hoping that an Obama administration can take not just nuclear proliferation seriously (an issue that Senators Obama and Lugar have addressed) but nuclear disarmament seriously.

We need bold proposals for change. Here is one. When India announced it had the bomb, Arundati Roy wrote an eloquent article in The Nation about the bomb and its relationship to Hindu nationalism, despite the bomb's contradiction to the precepts of the Hindu religion. But at the risk of stereotyping religions, I'd like to make a point here. There was already a Christian bomb, and it was exploded twice over Buddhist and Shinto Japan. There was already an Atheist bomb, and it had been wielded in Cuba. And there was already a Jewish bomb, which again, speaking as a Jew, is contrary to everything Judaism stands for, first and foremost life. But, you see, everyone was convinced that the bomb was necessary to preserve life and prevent war. Their lives and their God needed the bomb.

It was only a matter of time until there was an Islamic bomb, and predominantly Sunni Pakistan was first. Then there was the North Korean bomb, which I can't even try to typologize. Now, as Benny Morris pointed out in his New York Times column, most intelligence services are convinced Iran plans its own, Shiite Muslim bomb. Wonderful, what's next, a Shinto bomb emerging from a thankfully not yet resurgent nationalism Japan? A Buddhist bomb courtesy of rogue rulers in Burma? And, of course, foremost in the minds of many is the Terrorist Bomb, courtesy of a theft from one of the stockpiles or a do-it-yourself project that is less likely to come from some cave than from the private estate of some wealthy would be totalitarian theocrat seeking to impose his way on the world or protect his people, his religion from the threats he perceives.

What is the way out? I think the way out is to go back to the roots of war and nuclear weapons before WWI. Back to the roots of colonialism. Two colonial powers, Britain and France, have the bomb, while other colonial powers, Japan, Germany, and Italy, were defeated and don't have the bomb. The key to nuclear disarmament is in Britain and France and their relationships with the previous colonies of India and Pakistan. President Obama should work with Russia and China and come to an agreement that they agree to a massive cut in their weapons stockpiles contingent upon the following: Britain, France, Pakistan and India would disarm entirely. This would free up the tremendous sums these nations now spend on nuclear weaponry. The peaceful intentions shown by the three superpowers would help convince India it is safe from China, the source of its primary concern historically. The most important threat of nuclear war, which is in my opinion between India and Pakistan were there political instability, would have been eliminated. Tremendous pressure would have been put on Iran not to arm, but there is a need for continuous pressure independent of such an initiative to prevent Iran from arming to start with. But if there is no Sunni bomb, it is my belief that there would be much less pressure for a Shiite bomb. I think we can leave Israel out of this, but once it was accomplished and an Iranian bomb was prevented, and there was a state of peace between Israel and Syria, it is my belief that for its own economic and humanistic and religious reasons, Israel would disarm as well. None of the existing nuclear powers are threatened by Israel's bomb and it shouldn't be the red herring which would prevent the kind of progress discussed above.

The key is Britain and France. Why do they need the bomb when there is no Soviet threat, no Russian threat, and they are adequately protected by the US nuclear umbrella and NATO's conventional forces? India and Pakistan would never disarm as long as their former colonial power, Britain, had the bomb. But if Britain and France were willing to disarm, I think there would be tremendous pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm. Well, in a nutshell, that's my impossible dream.

Obama's trip to the Middle East

Michael A. Dover — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:27:47 EDT

I just read Ilana Hairston's blog: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ilanahairston/gGxPGg

And I replied as follow: Thanks for your comments, Ilana. I have hope that this visit by Barack Obama will lead to a more enlightened discussion of the issues in the region. Given Benny Morris's column in the Time's predicting an Israeli attack on Iran, we need to change the discourse from one of "war" to advocate for not only peace, but nuclear disarmament. First, Obama should stop referring to the Iraq "war". It's not a war, it's a UN authorized occupation. Bush likes to portray it as a "war", and Obama should start talking about it for what it is. On the hand, there still a declared state of war between Israel and Syria, and in the Korean peninsula. The first priority of Obama, the very first, should be to work to end these states of war and bring a peaceful settlement between Syria and Israel including settlement of the Sheba Farms dispute involving Lebanon. This would bring intense pressure on both sides to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mike Dover (mdover@umich.edu)

See my post on my impossible dream?

Progressives for Obama within the Obama '08 Campaign

Michael A. Dover — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:39:40 EDT

I joined the independent Progressives for Obama group and signed the ipetition available from the link at http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/ Along with many veteran activists of the 60s generation, I've never given up the ship for progressive social change. But although I have supported some Democrats in the past, it has been rare for me to actively work for them (Jesse Jackson in 1984 in Louisiana; Dutch Morial's re-election as Mayor of New Orleans). Sometime just prior to the Iowa primary, I began paying attention and am convinced that while not dropping all of our other activism, progressive social activists should support and work hard to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. However, we also need to utilize this opportunity to re-think some of what we mean by progressive, and what being a progressive pragmatist means. So here is how I joined the independent group and above is how I'm blogging here. Glad to be aboard in this way and not just to donate as I have on numerous occasions.

"While the mantra of independent political action is one I have long supported,
we have seen some of the damage which ill-considered independent
actions on behalf of Obama and in other electoral contexts can do. A
forum for discussion and well-considered action is valuable, but I
have been and plan to continue to be active directly within the
campaign and its many sub-groups such as social workers for Obama. I
might ad that those of us on the left are also part of the very "old
politics" which Obama is trying to move beyond. Somewhere along the
way since glasnost, the promised "new thinking" never happened. We too
need to re-think the nature of the alternatives to neo-liberalism we
put forward, lest they be more or less the same. Also, generationally,
young activists are clearly thinking differently about all sorts of
things we don't "get", such as the relationship of activism to
volunteerism, just to give one example. What is progressive at one
point of time is not necessarily progressive at another point of time,
since the nature of progressive politics is historically contingent.
If radical pragmatism isn't what progressives for Obama want out of
President Obama, we should get in for a rude surprise, as I suspect
that's what we are going to see, rather than the kinds of prototypical
ideologically suggested responses and positions. Pragmatism is never
popular, as it gores all sorts of sacred cows."