What Makes Effective Activism?
What makes effective activism is a question I roll around in my mind quite a bit. There were a few incidents at the Netroots Nation conference that made me think about it. In one incident, there was a panel called “What To Do When The President Is Not That Into You” that featured several controversial panelists – Lt. Dan Choi, Jame Hamsher and John Aravosis.
Lt. Dan Choi, who was discharged from the military for running afoul of its anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, provided a visual when an Organizing for America volunteer stood up and asked him to support Obama in 2012. The man said he did not support gay marriage — “civil unions?” he offered weakly — and Choi promptly ripped up an Organizing for America flyer he had been given and threw it back in the man’s face.
The four panelists — Choi, immigration reform supporter Felipe Matos, America Blog writer John Aravosis and Fire Dog Lake Founder Jane Hamsher — said they are planning to hold the White House’s collective feet to the fire for its decisions on civil rights, whether it would hurt Obama’s reelection chances or not.
Is this effective activism? What do we mean we say effective, anyway? If the idea of activism is to get attention to your cause, I would say this was very effective. All the major news organizations led with this story. In fact, THE story from the conference was that the left is disenchanted with Obama despite the poll results showing 80% approval from conference attendees (almost identical to approval numbers from the Democratic party as a whole). If the idea is to persuade people to your side, perhaps not.
Another incident involves Michele Bachmann at the Right Online conference (held in the same hotel as Netroots Nation). An LGBT activist attempted to “glitterbomb” Bachmann as she was walking off the stage.
Would you call that effective activism? Watching the video I didn’t understand what was happening and wouldn’t have except for the accompanying story. Did the activist get attention for her cause or did she generate sympathy for Bachmann?
In my opinion, activism needs several ingredients to be effective:
1) It gets attention to the issue
2) The message must be clear and concise
3) It must convince people to join your cause
It’s that third one that is very tricky and the hardest part. Let’s talk about some real successes – like the NRA, LGBT marriage rights and the Tea Party. These three groups all have something in common, they fight the long game. The NRA is probably the most powerful lobbying group in the nation. They do this by exercising political power – money & voters. In other words, they participate in the political process. They keep track of votes in Congress and issue ratings to lawmakers. Many lawmakers (especially Republicans) are desperate to stay on the NRA’s good side.
The LGBT marriage rights activists also exercise influence through money and voters. They’ve also unleashed a very powerful campaign for marriage rights by showing sympathetic people and the struggles they go through that others take for granted. So here we see the power of messaging.
The Tea Party is a bit different. I wouldn’t say they had a clear and coherent message. However, they directly took over the machinery of the dispirited Republican Party and quickly became a power player in that coalition. They also exercised their influence by running candidates in elections and winning. Taking out a few incumbents (like Mike Castle) really helped them as well.
There really is no one way to win, there are many. I think the things that the effective groups had in common was doing the hard work. Working phones, giving money, going to meetings are all hard work and not glamorous. Influencing politicians involves both carrots AND sticks.
Tags: Activism, Netroots Nation
The NRA has become the nation’s most powerful long-term lobby, at least in part, by its electoral support policy. NRA has an “incumbent friendly” policy. They have a five-item checklist of issues, and if you score highest or tie, and you are the incumbent, they endorse you–no matter what your party is. So for a challenger to win an NRA endorsement the incumbent essentially has to consciously forfeit it. A lot of conservative Democrats benefit from this, because if you qualify for the NRA endorsement but don’t want to use it actively, the NRA will abide by your wishes; you benefit because then the NRA won’t help your opponent make gun rights an issue in the campaign, either.
Granted, gun rights are a functionally different kind of issue than LBGTQ in that they are potentially more non-partisan (in terms that its easier to find pro-gun Dems than pro-gay GOPers) but the process itself is really well thought out.
The thing that effective groups seem to have in common is ‘heat’ and the narrow focus.
I agree Jason, narrow focus is key. It’s much easier to sell and you need to build an audience for your cause.
I often (but not always) adopt a ‘if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all’ approach, where I spend time helping people and causes that I support, and let others draw conclusions from those I don’t promote (I let my silence speak for itself).
EqualityDelaware, in its successful promotion of DE’s civil union law, used a ‘respectful engagement.’ There were no ‘gotcha moments,’ and no mudslinging (or glitter slinging). Testimony in Dover was reasoned and yet passionate, in sharp contrast to the ‘end of the world’ testimony by opponents. Calls and letters to legislators were calm. This was effective.
One SINGULAR event is all that’s needed to bring attention and converts to your cause.
Think of what one BUDDHIST monk did in Vietnam to focus the attention of the world on what was happening in his country.
His self-immoliation was seen and began the conversations that ultimately ended in our departure from that unjust and unwinnable war.
I would add to Jason’s list stamina as an essential part of effective action. If there is an issue that you are interested in, you need to be willing to push and savor small victories along the way.
You also have to figure out the right carrots and sticks. For the people who already support you, for those that may be persuadable and those that you hope to push to your side. The same approach with all of them isn’t a good idea.
Which is why it can be hard to even pay much attention to what those on that panel are trying to say. Everything seems to be a nail to them. This list from Bob Cesca’s place shows the LGBT-friendliness of this administration. Go over and take a hard look at that list —there is very little of those actions that will be preserved under a GOP administration OR of the GOP captures both houses of Congress .
Which isn’t to say that there isn’t A Whole Lot of Work Still to Do. There is, but this is an administration that is working (within their span of control) at being as LGBT-friendly as they can. Obama is on record as not being in favor of gay marriage, but I’d bet a very great deal of money that he would sign a gay marriage bill if one got to his desk. Because the thing he *would* respect is the political cover that activists would have given him — by getting enough support in Congress to send it to him. And (go back and look at it) the list of what has already been implemented gets alot harder to undo then. Obama isn’t the one who needs to be shamed — people in Congress do.
Don’t let the other side define you or set up a false choice. E.g., jobs vs. the environment. That’s not a real choice. Develop your own defining meme. And I agree that EqualityDelaware got it totally right. I truly thought we were 10 years away from civil unions in Delaware. They are textbook. Whatever their strategy it worked for Delaware.