« Dripping to the End | Main | Against Unity » Food for Thought09 May 2008 09:06 am Ambinder says that Barack Obama's fifty state voting drive is more than a voting drive: "On election day, Obama might have more than a million individuals volunteering on his behalf. That should scare the beejeesus out of the McCain campaign and the RNC." One incredibly interesting question is to what extent the organizing tools Obama has put to good use thus far in the campaign can be made to work as tools of governance that put pressure on congress and so forth. Comments (17)
One incredibly interesting question is to what extent the organizing tools Obama has put to good use thus far in the campaign can be made to work as tools of governance that put pressure on congress and so forth. I'm very skeptical about this, but I do hope we get a chance to find out. 
He has talked about this and I've seen video of a town hall on YouTube. I hope Congressional representatives like the idea of getting several million emails if they vote against a popular piece of legislation that Obama supports, at the very least.
The existence of Obama's campaign organization is the main reason I favor him over Hillary. An organization that big has the potential to make things very, very uncomfortable for established power -- unfortunately, the campaign and organization have pretty consistently pushed togetherness and ending divisiveness and "reaching across the aisle". I doubt that Obama is going to call on his organization to come to DC to confront institutional power in a really threatening way -- e.g., a call for 250,000 people to set up camp on the Mall until Congress does x, y or z. But there's a small chance that the organization will go off program and do it anyway -- that they'll turn on Obama (who, once he's elected, will represent institutional power) along with the rest of the establishment. Who knows how likely that is? I'd guess there's about a 1 in 50 chance. Very unlikely, but not infinitesimally small.
You just don't want to admit that this is a giant campaign to convert elite and creative class young people into Muslims who will blow up buildings for the Weather Underground.
Deval Patrick has offered an example, of sorts. His campaign was similarly designed and similarly won - defeating the white, insider candidate after being threatened with a kind of symbolic "explosion" (in his case, writing letters on behalf of a convicted rapist) through an extensive grassroots network. Since his election, folks like me who volunteered or signed on get updates from his campaign about his policy initiatives, and several events, including his inauguration, have essentially been open-to-the-public organizing efforts to continue the organization. While Patrick has been a mixed bag from a governance point of view (he's failed several big tests in terms of policy and politics) I think that this strategy, of using the organization to work "around" the traditional channels of political communication, has probably helped support his flagging numbers. With that said, it isn't a perfect model, as (imho) Patrick started campaigning for an Atty General job the minute Obama won Iowa and so the serious policy initiatives are on the backburner.
El Cid wins the thread.
I'm from Argentina. One word 4U: Peronism.
I see a few options:
If Obama got elected and "didn't* use is grassroots network to pressure Congress at certain times, wouldn't that make much of his rhetoric empty? If you think about it, it's amazing that we have nothing but vague guesses on the extent that Obama would use the bully pulpit and public pressure as tools in his Presidency. His style of governing is fresh, exciting, and mostly a mystery.
" Obama has put to good use thus far in the campaign can be made to work as tools of governance that put pressure on congress and so forth." thanks god. we could have things like UHC 20 years ago if 2 million people had surrounded the capital and demanded it. it's about time we made them all accountable to something beyond corporations.
I'm not sure why it's necessarily more disturbing to have a President with a large number of poor supporters who help him than to have a President with a small number of rich supporters whom he helps.
BubbaDave's comment makes me giddy.
So Obama is now simultaneously too weak for the mean ol' Republicans but is verging on being a Peronist dictator populist? OMG he iz also sekrit Moozlim who goz to uh Blak Radkal Chrch.
Well of course it can. He will basically be able to credibly threaten any person in Congress with an extremely well-funded and well-organized opponent in their next primary or general election (depending on the party of the person in question). Of course some people in Congress are so safe they can probably take that risk, but Obama just needs to get working majorities in both houses. And in fact at that point the "safe" people may not be so safe, because part of what makes them safe is the power to get things done for their states/districts. And if they are frozen out of the working majorities in both houses, then they lose much of that power. So, even many of them might be willing to play ball at some point. Generally, I've always been a little surprised more people didn't get this. In a nutshell, the people who mocked Obama for wanting to negotiate with oppositional politicians and interest groups apparently didn't get that what he wants to negotiate is essentially the terms of their honorable surrender.
"I'm not sure why it's necessarily more disturbing to have a President with a large number of poor supporters who help him than to have a President with a small number of rich supporters whom he helps." because as johnson saqid, 'liberals are never so happy as when they are unhappy.'
"Well of course it can. He will basically be able to credibly threaten any person in Congress with an extremely well-funded and well-organized opponent in their next primary or general election (depending on the party of the person in question). Of course some people in Congress are so safe they can probably take that risk, but Obama just needs to get working majorities in both houses." Very true. Think of the message if Obama wins: "This organization took on both of the Clintons and won nationwide. It took on McCain and the GOP and won nationwide. Can you really stand up to it? Give me what I want, bitch, or feel the burn." In addition, Obama will likely be able to win Latinos in huge numbers. That's going to make Georgia, Texas, Arizona and a few other states very purple instead of solidly red in a few years if we can make sure we get Latino support as Latinos become richer. It will also be great if the organization is able to also fight and win local battles in communities as well.
Comments closed May 23, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've been using this analogy for awhile, "Imagine if in '63 the President had introduced Civil Rights legislation that had stalled--so he called for the March on Washington and it happened. That would scare the bejeesus out of Congress. And, of course, he's gonna do it in their districts, too."
Mass movements have been around for the better part of 50 years, but they've been weakened b/c the powers that be have figured out how they work and how to marginalize them. This would be something totally new in the US (a President who can organize and direct mass protest? The hell?), and it would be exceptionally powerful. It would be a turning point like FDR figuring out the power of radio with his fireside chats, Kennedy/Reagan figuring out the power of TV, etc.
Posted by anonymous | May 9, 2008 9:23 AM