Inside/Outside

Christopher Maag does an interesting piece for Time magazine on the contrast between the Clinton campaign organization in Ohio -- dominated by the patronage networks of state and local officials -- and the Obama organization, which is an impressive quasi-spontaneous grassroots phenomenon carefully cultivated by the Obama campaign. The basic frame of the piece is that Obama's approach is better, but since the voting's not done yet, Maag's careful to include a hedge:

"I only started calling my people last week," said State Senator Dale Miller, a Democratic stalwart on Cleveland's west side. "In retrospect, if I had started a week or two earlier, we would be better off now."

Miller's organization remains formidable, however. He spent the last few months calling hundreds of supporters, asking them to volunteer for Clinton and tracking those who seemed responsive. He visited every neighborhood Democratic club in his district at least once, filling his clipboard with new volunteers. "The people I know may not be huge in number, but they are the people who are the most active in their neighborhoods," says Miller.

Clearly, I think, either approach could work. But what I think is interesting is the different implications for governing. If a President Clinton wants to pressure some Ohio members of congress into casting a tough vote they don't really want to cast, she has a lot of tools at her disposal for bringing them to heel. One thing she can't do, however, is generate pressure based on her local political organization in Ohio. After all, it's not her organization, it belongs to the state and local elected officials and she just borrows it from them. Obama, by contrast, may have that option. And what's more, it's a technique that can work "behind enemies lines" as it were, against Republican members of congress whose districts don't include any entrenched incumbent Democrats with their own organizations.

Will Obama in fact find a way to extend his campaign tools to the art of governing and political pressure? There's no way to tell. But he might. And much like his approach to campaign, it'd be a huge game-changer. On some level, after all, it's sort of irrelevant whether or not Obama's outsider organizing methods are actually superior. He didn't have the option of being the establishment candidate. What we know is that his organizing methods were effective enough and, at the end of the day, much more effective than the organizing methods of any previous presidential candidate.

Comments

I hope you're right about the governance implications. If progressives want Obama to accomplish the progressive parts of his agenda, we have to stay fired up after he's elected, and keep turning up the heat on recalcitrant members of Congress.

Something like MoveOn's Call for Change, maybe?

Posted by Ted | February 26, 2008 8:30 PM

But, but, how will the main governing priority for Democrats remain keeping Democratic policies away from the crazy extreme fringe-y ultra liberal nuts known as the grassroots, if they've gone all crazy with their Obama-cultic "empowerment"?

Posted by El Cid | February 26, 2008 8:31 PM

Will Obama in fact find a way to extend his campaign tools to the art of governing and political pressure? There's no way to tell. But he might. And much like his approach to campaign, it'd be a huge game-changer.

President Obama needs to copy Governor Schwarzenegger: Schwarzenegger's Radical Volunteers

What we know is that his organizing methods were effective enough and, at the end of the day, much more effective than the organizing methods of any previous presidential candidate.

I disagree. Obama's organizing-intensive campaign strategy is almost a literal replay of the McGovern playbook. The McGovern '72 primary campaign was the single greatest primary campaign of all time. Primarily because it was the closest any Democratic presidential campaign has come to being a truly organic, up-from-the-grassroots movement. And they didn't have the benefit of being flush with cash from Day One or having a candidate with Hollywood-class looks. Winning in the 1972 field would be like Obama not only beating Clinton and Edwards to get the 2008 nomination, but Kerry, Gore, and Dean too. So, IMO, Obama's organizing effort was not the best ever.

Posted by dry_fish | February 26, 2008 8:32 PM

Has no one yet said that Obama has "open-sourced" his campaign? Someone must have, right?

Posted by Jon Phillips | February 26, 2008 8:40 PM

The "bottom-up" structure is the governing principle for Obama, if his speeches are to be believed. One of the less-discussed aspects of his stump speech is the high emphasis on grassroots mobilization and civic involvement. Compared to Clinton, who speaks of herself as a hard-working bureaucrat with the knowledge to pull all the right levers (if only voters will let her), Obama's governing vision is coalition-based, based in no small part on the continued watchdog role that ordinary citizens are supposed to play. He talks about a "working governing majority" and the need for people to stay involved in politics, as a constant pressure group that will force politicians to resist the influence of lobbyists.

A less charitable reading suggests that Obama thinks he can single-handedly render the collection action problem obsolete. A more generous view holds that Obama's rhetorical gifts will give him the unique ability to summon voters to overcome certain entrenched interests (which connects to a previous Yglesias blog post discussing whether Obama will use or squander his gift of persuasion).

And if you pay close attention, you'll find that this vision is tied to government transparency, one of Obama's longstanding obsessions. Remember, transparency is meaningless if the electorate is apathetic. A web site that shows where all the earmarks go is useful only to the degree that there are engaged citizens who actively care which projects are being funded by their tax dollars. In a way, Obama's vision sounds quite Tocquevillian: there's a sense in which civic engagement is the highest virtue.

Of course, he trail is littered with the battered corpses of process-oriented reformers who couldn't catch on. Obama's that rare reformer who has married theory and practice: he's actually now built a grassroots organization in furtherance of this vision. Whether he can sustain this level of civic engagement if and when he becomes president remains to be seen, but there's no question he will continue to stress policies and introduce media technologies that will make it easier and more likely that Americans remain engaged.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 26, 2008 8:40 PM

The thing about McGovern, though, is that it was a total pyrrhic victory, and this was obvious already by the time of the convention. He won only by completely alienating party regulars, and thus guaranteed himself a trouncing by Nixon in the general. He was also helped by Wallace getting shot, probably. Wallace did remarkably well in 72. If he'd not been shot, he'd have done even better, and there would've been heavy pressure on the non-Wallace candidates to come together and agree on an anti-Wallace. Said anti-Wallace would not have been McGovern.

But yeah, it was an impressive achievement.

Posted by John | February 26, 2008 8:50 PM

I think the name or example ought not be McGovern but rather Sol Alinski, a sort of famous Chicago organizer, something to do with housing, if memory serves.

Posted by t. jasper parnell | February 26, 2008 8:53 PM

I'm new to the ins and outs of this political organization building process, but it seems pretty straight-forward to me that the tools that Obama's team has equipped these grassroots organizers with aren't going to suddenly evaporate, and that he - being no dummy - is going to squeeze all of the governing leverage out of it he can. He has said all along that he plans to do this, so it stands to reason he'd leave the machinery in place to do it -- the fund raising channels, the communication with precinct captains, the rapid response messaging, the tie-ins with other online orgs like MoveOn, etc. His management style shows a careful, forward-looking and strategic application of resources and time and effort, and like any good Midwesterner he's not going to throw that away all that hard work. I would also expect the "campaign" to continue and extend to other down-ticket races in these areas where there was no Dem presence before -- Obama lending "his" organizational connections and structure to help further strengthen the Dem party in pushing a progressive agenda at the local level and consolidate and strengthen his network of political loyalties like the Clintons have done over the last 20 yrs (difference being that his organization would have a lot more activist stakeholders and not just party insiders).

BTW, there's a great peek into the intimidating efficiency of his operation in TX on DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/122346/110/347/464432

Posted by Paul Moment | February 26, 2008 8:55 PM

This is a great article about how Obama organized in Iowa and South Carolina.http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_year_of_the_organizer

Now I don't know if he is doing the same thing as George McGovern,given that we have internet and text messaging, and all, but I would like to learn more about what McGovern did.

Posted by Micheline | February 26, 2008 9:02 PM

This is a great article about how Obama organized in Iowa and South Carolina.http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_year_of_the_organizer

Now I don't know if he is doing the same thing as George McGovern,given that we have internet and text messaging, and all, but I would like to learn more about what McGovern did during the primaries.

Posted by Micheline | February 26, 2008 9:02 PM

John, valid point about Wallace. He had the potential to have prevented McGovern from incorporating enough blue-collar whites into his coalition to take the lead, giving a boost to Humphrey's efforts.

Ultimately, party regulars divorced themselves from McGovern because they didn't like McGovern's (admittedly, in some cases radical, even for 1972) policies or the outsiders who fueled his movement. McGovern didn't set the fire to the bridges...the establishment did.

Posted by dry_fish | February 26, 2008 9:11 PM

The meme that Obama would be a great president because he's running a successful primary campaign is starting to sound silly. He hasn't exactly been running against great candidates. Remember the big three?

A mostly Mexican-American governor with so little charisma that no one cared about his ethnic diversity story.

An unctuous Southern trial lawyer who got $400 haircuts while running as a populist.

A shrill former First Lady disliked by half of the Democratic electorate to begin with.

Obama is obviously a great speaker and a smooth campaigner, but this has been a weak field.

And as for the Schwarzenegger comparison, once Arnold decided to abandon the attempt at conservative reforms, he was able to bypass state GOP reps by relying on referendums. No such thing at the federal level, unfortunately.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 9:20 PM

It's worth noting that Obama has a very sophisticated "CRM" type of computer system that centralizes all contacts and touchpoints with citizens. I'm not sure what Clinton is using, but I was extremely impressed with how the Obama campaign was using technology in the "back office."

Posted by Michael J. | February 26, 2008 9:22 PM

Deval Patrick positioned himself to do this in Massachusetts. He built a huge grassroots network around the state, and then shortly before being sworn in he let it be known that he would keep this network active and use it to help move his agenda forward.

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out this way. His first year in office has basically been an extended session of the legislature teaching him who's boss.

Posted by Andrew | February 26, 2008 9:33 PM

Speaking of Deval Patrick, when do we get a post about his and Obama's shared Karl Rove figure, David Axelrod.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 9:44 PM

Has Deval Patrick been a disappointment as Eliot Spitzer?

Posted by Micheline | February 26, 2008 9:59 PM

For those too young to have heard much about the McGovern '72 campaign, the classic Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72 is a useful and amusing start.

I was 12, but my social worker mom and USMC careerist dad were quite vocal during that whole stretch. Still together, I should point out.

Posted by cmholm | February 26, 2008 10:18 PM

Speaking of Deval Patrick, when do we get a post about his and Obama's shared Karl Rove figure, David Axelrod.

Gee, Fred, why didn't you just go for it and call Axelrod his Joseph Goebbels? Couldn't spell it? Don't know who Goebbels was?

Anyway, wake me when Axelrod turns the Justice Department into a tool for prosecuting his political enemies.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 26, 2008 10:53 PM

I want to echo -- loudly -- Andrew. Looks can be very deceiving, as we've learned here in Massachusetts. Governor Patrick -- whose campaign was, as has become crystal clear, a test run of the Obama campaign -- took office pretty much threatening the state Legislature that the masses would descend on the Statehouse in all their Righteous Fury if lawmakers failed to pass various of Patrick's proposals.

Well, it's been over a year, and Patrick's legislative proposals have withered on the vine, as our powerful House speaker, Sal DiMaisi, taught the young gov a thing or two about power on Beacon Hill -- and the masses haven't showed. (Indeed, Patrick's masses may not even be his anymore now that he has become Governor Slots, as The Globe's Steve Bailey calls him.)

Moreover, and somewhat unfairly, the lion's share of the unhappiness with this state of affairs has hit Patrick because of the juxtaposition between his campaign trail promises of quick action and decisive change and the reality, in office, of legislative stalemate.

The past is not necessarily prologue. But there is a feeling in Massachusetts that we've seen this show before, and the ending was a letdown.

Oddly enough, Patrick may be hurt by the Democratic Party's monolithic dominance in state politics. With so little of the partisanship that would come if the Bay State had normal two-party politics, all the blame accrues to the Democrats -- and, since Patrick is the state's top Dem, he looks even more ineffectual when he complains about the Legislature, overflowing with Democrats, not giving his ideas a fair hearing. (And DiMasi may not mind that much. Since the Democrats' veto-proof majorities allow House and Senate leaders to pass anything they like, and override almost any gubernatorial veto -- see Romney, Mitt -- that makes the top legislators de facto co-governors when there's a Republican in the top spot.)

Needless to say, barring a congressional landslide of jaw-dropping proportions, Obama would not face that particular problem.

Posted by Ted | February 26, 2008 11:40 PM

I want to echo -- loudly -- Andrew. Looks can be very deceiving, as we've learned here in Massachusetts. Governor Patrick -- whose campaign was, as has become crystal clear, a test run of the Obama campaign -- took office pretty much threatening the state Legislature that the masses would descend on the Statehouse in all their Righteous Fury if lawmakers failed to pass various of Patrick's proposals.

Well, it's been over a year, and Patrick's legislative proposals have withered on the vine, as our powerful House speaker, Sal DiMaisi, taught the young gov a thing or two about power on Beacon Hill -- and the masses haven't showed. (Indeed, Patrick's masses may not even be his anymore now that he has become Governor Slots, as The Globe's Steve Bailey calls him.)

Moreover, and somewhat unfairly, the lion's share of the unhappiness with this state of affairs has hit Patrick because of the juxtaposition between his campaign trail promises of quick action and decisive change and the reality, in office, of legislative stalemate.

The past is not necessarily prologue. But there is a feeling in Massachusetts that we've seen this show before, and the ending was a letdown.

Oddly enough, Patrick may be hurt by the Democratic Party's monolithic dominance in state politics. With so little of the partisanship that would come if the Bay State had normal two-party politics, all the blame accrues to the Democrats -- and, since Patrick is the state's top Dem, he looks even more ineffectual when he complains about the Legislature, overflowing with Democrats, not giving his ideas a fair hearing. (And DiMasi may not mind that much. Since the Democrats' veto-proof majorities allow House and Senate leaders to pass anything they like, and override almost any gubernatorial veto -- see Romney, Mitt -- that makes the top legislators de facto co-governors when there's a Republican in the top spot.)

Needless to say, barring a congressional landslide of jaw-dropping proportions, Obama would not face that particular problem.

Posted by Ted | February 26, 2008 11:41 PM

Since others have raised it, here's an interesting op-ed on the Deval Patrick comparison that I caught recently:
Turning hope into action
By Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe, Feb. 21

----

Those of you who are so hopeful about the usefulness of the Obama organizing skills for the presidency, how do you square that with his seeming marked dislike of interest group activism?

He hasn't exactly shown himself to be a big fan of moveon.org, or DKos (would remind everyone of his "Tone Truth & the Democratic Party" lecture to the latter.)

I noted this quote from the Tomasky review of "Audacity of Hope" (which Yglesias recently recommended) about special interests with great interest:

....he seems to dislike powerful interest groups—particularly the single-issue advocacy organizations that vet candidates, dangling their endorsements in front of them—even more. "I've never been entirely comfortable with the term 'special interest' which lumps together the pharmaceutical lobby and the parents of special-ed kids," he writes. "I must have filled out at least fifty questionnaires" in 2004, he continues. "None of them were subtle."

Time dictated that I fill out only those questionnaires sent by organizations that might actually endorse me...so I could usually answer "yes" to most questions without any major discomfort. But every so often I would come across a question that gave me pause. I might agree with a union on the need to enforce labor and environmental standards in our trade laws, but did I believe that NAFTA should be repealed? I might agree that universal health care should be one of the nation's top priorities, but did it follow that a constitutional amendment was the best way to achieve that goal? I found myself hedging on such questions, writing in the margins, explaining the difficult policy choices involved. My staff would shake their heads. Get one answer wrong, they explained, and the endorsement, the workers, and the mailing list would all go to the other guy. Get them all right, I thought, and you have just locked yourself into the pattern of reflexive, partisan jousting that you have promised to help end.

There are two ways to look at this sort of temporizing. The first is to be disdainful. We are in an age, many liberals argue, that calls for political warfare. These are not the times to be acknowledging that conservatives may have a point or to pick quarrels with interest groups that, whatever their faults, are fighting the good fight.

Or remember this speech:

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

So far he's been good on activating everyone to support Obama, do anyone really know what else?

From what I've seen so far, I would make a big guess he's going to try to use the rhetorical powers and his most avid fan base to get loud public majority support for bipartisan bills and compromises he wants to go through when they are being stymied by left or right interest groups trying to pull legislation left or right, he's going to use it against special interest activist groups, not just AARP but very much including liberal ones, like um, "netroots."

Let me be clearer: I wouldn't at all be surprised if he tries to use this organization against liberal "netroots" special interests.

Posted by artappraiser | February 27, 2008 2:14 AM

"Gee, Fred, why didn't you just go for it and call Axelrod his Joseph Goebbels? Couldn't spell it? Don't know who Goebbels was?"

Congratulations! You've just demonstrated Godwin's Law in action, in record time. Where are you off to next? The Biggest Douchebag in the Universe contest?

Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 2:16 AM

In one of Obama's recent speeches (post Super-Tuesday, I think the one after Wisconsin), he pretty much said that this sort of "grassroots governing" is exacty what he wants to do. If it worked it would probably make him the most powerful president since FDR.

Posted by Adam | February 27, 2008 3:07 AM

My candidate in the past election frankly saw boots on the ground and local party organizations as vestigial trivia. The real action was in high priced consultants, TV ads and mega fundraising. Democracy dies when it's done that way. What Obama is after is a fundamental rebuilding of the political process, at least for Democrats. The Republicans understood this 40 years ago.

Posted by Dick Mulliken | February 27, 2008 10:23 AM

Interesting theory about how a President Obama might be able to pressure local politicians through a local political organization. I guess you haven't really thought about the implications of a President having local political organizations loyal to him and his political needs rather than the needs of the local communities and politicians. I don't know if it would really work all that well for him, but, gee, if it did it would certainly be a less messy form of democracy.

Posted by Phil | February 27, 2008 10:46 AM

Phil @ 10:46 AM,

Nice concise pegging of the scary side.

I am pretty sure the end game therein ain't going to happen because I believe (and have hope in :-)) the Warhol philosophy of cult of celebrity in this country: you only get 15 minutes. Think of any really great machine politicians in the past or even union leaders and how far they got before a fall. All the calling in of the chips only gets you so far, the people of this country overall just can't stay loyal, they are too diverse and too selfish, and I say: more power to that.

The quirky thing about Obama is that he is selling that, too:

....I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent....It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession....

Barack Obama, Sep 30, 2005

I am conjuring up the thought of a main criticism of his presidency by historians a quarter century from now as that he played to tyranny of the majority. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | February 27, 2008 8:23 PM