In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Strategery

I’ve been thinking for a long time about what would be most effective in helping us make progressive change.  There are probably a lot of answers to that question, but lately what keeps coming up for me is this: we need to start getting strategic.  No, I don’t mean strategic like Linda “won’t somebody think of the rich white women?” Hirshman suggests.

What I mean is, we should be taking a scientific approach to progressive organizing—discarding tactics that have proven ineffective and using those that generally work. The trouble is, we didn’t learn about organizing strategy in school, unless we had one-in-a-million amazing teachers like Karen Salazar. We learned the history of the powerful. As Utah Phillips once said when speaking on this topic, “Well of course that was deliberate, wasn’t it?” If oppressed people knew the history of successful anti-oppression movements, they’d be acting very much like Salazar’s students are right now.

There are lots of books that outline what works. The Midwest Academy Organizing Manual is pretty good. A shameless plug: Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER) has an entire 100+ page manual devoted to effective strategy for anti-violence activists on college campuses. There are sociological studies that look at what has worked for social movements and what hasn’t. Personally, I’ve found histories of people’s movements and autobiographies of their leaders to be very useful.

We can also look to the opposition for tips. Brownfemipower recently posted about Ralph Reed, who truly is a strategic genius. Karl Rove is brilliant. These men should be carefully studied by progressives. There are also tons of conservative leadership training programs (which I encourage you to infiltrate—I learned conservative media strategy from GOPAC. It has come in handy). The Leadership Institute, Young America’s Foundation, GOPAC, and others have learned that training and mentorship to help young conservatives develop tactical skills are key to the strength of the conservative movement.

I think that we should really take some time to study this stuff if our situation allows it. For one thing, our opposition is doing it, so we’re hopelessly outgunned if we don’t. For another, without it we’ll make the same mistakes that have been made by earlier organizers without even knowing it, which is a total waste of time.

Of course, there are some aspects of social change that can only be learned by doing. That’s where activism at the local level, where you personally actually have the potential to measurably change things, comes in. You can write an email to your Senator about FISA (please go do that) and work for the presidential candidate of your choice (do that too), but it won’t teach you half of what forcing your local school board to implement comprehensive sex education would.

Big-picture goals are necessary, but the great thing about studying strategy and then using it to move toward our own concrete, measurable goals at the community level is that we can all have those big-picture goals that we sometimes get together and work for, without giving up the specific issues that matter most to us. As a bonus, we’ll be more effective at moving toward broader goals, because we’ll have some collective organizing savvy.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, or even a small portion of the answers, when it comes to building an effective feminist/progressive movement.  But what I do know is that if we don’t make a conscious effort to place our actions in a larger strategic framework, we’re totally gonna get our ass kicked.  And I’m getting pretty tired of seeing us get our ass kicked.

Posted in Uncategorized

19 thoughts on Strategery

  1. but it won’t teach you half of what forcing your local school board to implement comprehensive sex education would.

    Ah. That was what I was looking for. I’m so focused on the Big World that I’m missing on things I can do locally, and I was really struggling.

    Thank you.

  2. Excellent point. I’m not even deeply invested in “making progressive change.” But, I find progressive arguments to be more compelling than the alternative on many issues (such as the ones you mentioned above), and I get frustrated with their lack of success in winning the public battle. Often, it seems, the message come across as pedantic due to the messenger’s choice of tactics. And lamenting the “unfair tactics” and “attack machine” of the other side is simply just making excuses for getting beat.

    Plan for the dirty tactics and shine a light on them; unmask your opponents mean-spiritedness for what it is, and I believe public opinion will turn the way of progressives [see: California, State of, gay marriage].

  3. I don’t have any answers at the moment, but I like your strategy idea. One thing I did today was talk and make my point the best I could. The issue was my opposition to women changing their names when they get married. The person on the other end of the diatribe was my mother, so the worst she could do was disown me. However, she appreciated our discussion because she said it kept her brain synapses functioning. So keep talking and shouting when you know you’re right. The doofuses at Fox News keep shouting when they full well know they haven’t a leg to stand on.

  4. I hope you don’t mind my jumping in with both feet.
    “I find progressive arguments to be more compelling than the alternative on many issues… [but] …I get frustrated with their lack of success in winning the public battle.”

    George Lakoff in “The Political Mind” NYT review

    “[Liberals] think they can win elections by citing facts and offering programs that serve voters’ interests. When they lose, they conclude that they need to move farther to the right, where the voters are.”

    Lakoff’s prescription: “In a “New Enlightenment,” progressives will exploit these discoveries. They’ll present frames instead of raw facts. They’ll train the public to think less about self-interest and more about serving others.”

    Or in other words, change the narrative. It isn’t so much that conservatives are idiots immune to reason, we all are to a degree. Rather, we need to change the dialectic to one that is more in our favor.

    “What? You’re against a sustainable economy? Why do you want an unsustainable policy that is guaranteed to fail?”

    See also: George Lakoff on how to argue with conservatives from some time ago, but apparently these lessons have gone unlearned.

  5. Ralph Reed, who truly is a strategic genius. Karl Rove is brilliant.

    I don’t know much about Reed’s career (aside from his reputation as a shameless huckster) but for the 1,000th time can we give up the notion that Karl Rove is (or was) a “brilliant” strategist? Rove stumbled on the oh-so-Earth-shattering notion that if you eschewed any semblance of ethical behavior and shamelessly pursued maximum political polarization you could scrape out 50+1% victories. And only for a very short while, as it turns out. If November goes as well as it’s looking like it might, Rove’s lasting legacy might be that he consigned his party to minority status for a generation.

    Certainly, progressives need to be able to think strategically, but we need strategies that lead to lasting change and a healthier body politic. The only reason we should “study Rove” is in order to learn what not to do.

  6. The only reason we should “study Rove” is in order to learn what not to do.

    I think this illustrates some of the problems that progressives have had strategically–specifically our failure to focus on actual concrete things getting done when it comes to measuring success. Karl Rove created the strategy that allowed neoconservatives to ram through huge parts of their agenda. A Democratic majority in November isn’t going to reverse many of the things that were changed, and they won’t be able to remove the permanent court appointments.

    Rove’s problem is that the neoconservative worldview is fundamentally flawed and leads to disaster, which is why things will (hopefully) change in November. The Republicans will lose because of their policy, not their strategy. They still surpass us strategically.

    So keep talking and shouting when you know you’re right. The doofuses at Fox News keep shouting when they full well know they haven’t a leg to stand on.

    I agree, and I agree with a lot of what Lakoff says too. But while I think it’s an aspect of our responsibility, I also think it’s important to recognize that educating ourselves about issues and arguing with friends about politics won’t make a specific, measurable change.

    I tend to separate progressive work into a few different categories: consciousness raising (for example, reading/writing this blog, or organizing a V-Day), work within existing systems of power (for example, running for office or gaining a position of power at your workplace, and using that power to implement a strong sexual harassment policy), and work that creates new systems of power (for example, building a grassroots group to pressure your mayor to implement city-wide recycling).

    In my experience, progressives tend to have a very difficult time with the last two, especially when it comes to setting a specific goal and building power to organize people around it (i.e. “Force the administration to fund a rape crisis center at my college,” “Elect a progressive candidate to my school board,” “Make that bank stop redlining,” “Convince the local church to make a statement in favor of same-sex marriage.”)

    Once you’ve set those goals, that’s where issue framing comes in.

  7. Forget Karl Rove – BFP mentioned Ralph Reed here, and he’s the guy that we should be emulating, if we’re talking about movement-building from the ground up as opposed to electoral strategy.

  8. One of the things that we can do online is to not refer to the right as “The Right” or even “rightwing”. Since that implies their policies are correct. I’ve been trying to use extremist but notice how that feels like it isn’t enough. We need to change that so when people hear “extremist” they think of what we call “rightwing”.

    Organizing is naturally going to look different for progressives than for authoritarians. I think we should take from Reed or Rove those things that work for us and leave the rest. They tend to work out their differences privately in e-mail while we are more public. That allows them to present a more unified front, but it is just a front. We tend to conduct our disputes out in the open. That sometimes looks bad but I think in the long run it’s better that way, though I can’t prove it.

    What is the big lesson of Rove? Substance counts. No matter how ruthless and cut throat you are, if your people are incompetent and your policies delusional you’re success will be short lived. At least I hope that’s true.

  9. Thanks for your post. I really appreciate your arguments about the need to strategize and to consider analyzing strategies that work from some of ‘the enemies.’ I think we need to remember though that people like Rove have the corporate media in their pocket and their ability to manipulate the conversation is very powerful. I also am wary of adopting strategies simply because they work — I know the notion of the ends justifies the means, but if we end up like neo-cons by adopting their strategies of disinformation we have not really won the battle.

    I also really like your point about ‘measurable goals.’ I am a big fan of everyday activism and doing things each day towards the big goals of eradicating racism, sexism, classims, etc. I posted on this today at
    http://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/what-if-i-still-want-to-be-an
    -activist-after-i-graduate/

  10. They tend to work out their differences privately in e-mail while we are more public. That allows them to present a more unified front, but it is just a front

    not really. if you pay attention to the evangelical community, they’ve been having some serious conflicts for about four or five years now–and most of those conflicts are directly related to GW being elected president. Listen to your local religious radio station or pay attention to the messages that ‘leaders’ like dodd and robertson are sending. there is a serious break about to happen in the evangelical community right now because obama is seriously mobilizing the community. Obama, unlike most progressives/radicals or even liberals, is not assuming that ‘evangelical’ means one thing (anti-choice, pro-individual, white, heterosexist, male, etc). There are vast swaths of evangelicals that are incredibly concerned about the environment and poverty and even more so, are disgusted with the ‘war on terror’. and interestingly, on a local conservative evangelical radio station, the host was going on and on about how “the environment is not as important as a little tiny unborn life.” although he never stated, “leaders are worried about the presence of obama and how he might be influencing those who are discontent with the current state of evangelicalism,” he was *absolutely* addressing that tension, very clearly reminding people what the “real” issues for evangelicals are.

    There are fractures in the evangelical movement, they’ve been playing out publicly for a while–but the one who is actually exposing them is obama.

    btw. Karl rove is a great strategist, but what he did was harness the grassroots movement that Ralph reed had spent the previous 10-15 years organizing. Don’t forget that the work of grassroots mobilization takes a long time–and the evangelical movement has been around since before the first bush elections. The evangelical movement almost got Robertson the presidential nod over the first bush, which shows that it had been mobilizing for years before that (specifically, since barry goldwater).

    the fact that the first bush “played dirty” to silence the will of millions of evangelical voters is probably the root cause of the inherent distrust many evangelicals feel for bush 2–the first bush was called the anti-christ by a huge population of believers and many evangelical voters were not happy in the slightest to have bush 2 running for office because of his connection to the anti-christ.

    also, keep in mind that Reed “reframed” (aka stole) his strategies for grassroots mobilization from the civil rights movement–specifically, there was a book written (can’t remember by whom, I think it might have been coretta scott king, but I am probably wrong) that detailed how to organize leftist movements using grassroots mobilization strategies, and Reed drew very heavily from that particular book along with many other on the ground strategies that he saw play out in real life.

    What reed is so freaking successful and amazing at is recognizing the incredible classism within u.s. culture and how the subtle forms of racism can be manipulated to confront that classism without actually confronting it. So in other words, he talked directly to the “white trash” that, even today, gets mocked and humiliated through classist means by ‘liberals’ in the north. he reframed classism as ‘racism’–arguing that ‘christians’ (which, in his framing meant white, southern, lower economic class and religious) had been forced to the ‘back of the bus’ and discriminated against based on *religious* “values” (which were actually seeped in *racist* values–mandatory busing laws and school integration were actually two of the big issues the grassroots was built up around–the third was removing prayer in schools). but he didn’t just manipulate an easily fooled group of stupid rednecks (as many people would argue) or use nasty strategies to herd the sheep–he actually did the work of getting into communities and talking and organizing and going door to door and organizing picnics etc. He turned the strategies of the civil rights movement against itself to mobilize the same masses that, because of *classism*, were not only rejected but mocked and actively distanced themselves from.

    so I would be careful to not reject the actual process of grassroots mobilization because “they” did it–his ideas around grassroots mobilization are actually fundamentally sound and used by movements throughout the world. also, he remains *committed* to the grassroots (even 50-60 years after it started), as was seen in the Jon Stewart clip–something that NO grassroots movement in the U.S. has done, IMO.

    he offers a lot for those interested in progressive/radical movement making on the left to (re) learn–how to respectfully reach out to existing communities, how to connect community issues to more overarching goals, what grassroots base building even is, how to sustain it over decades rather than political cycles, etc.

    see here for some great examples of women of color doing grassroots community centered base building.

  11. I think we need to remember though that people like Rove have the corporate media in their pocket and their ability to manipulate the conversation is very powerful. I also am wary of adopting strategies simply because they work — I know the notion of the ends justifies the means, but if we end up like neo-cons by adopting their strategies of disinformation we have not really won the battle.

    I should clarify… I didn’t mean that we should always emulate Rove’s strategy, only that we should understand it, and know how to counter it.

    Your point about the media is a really important one, because the powerful will always have the primary means of communication in their pocket. So how do we counter that?

    I think it’s important to remember that while the powerful will always have certain advantages because of their control of resources, we have a lot of tools too, most notably our ability to be extremely creative and change strategies quickly, which a highly structured system can never really do. Our tools are just as good. They’re just different.

  12. Forgive me, I’m going to sound very very ignorant, because I am.

    When people say “go door to door on this issue” – do they really? Like, go into apartment buildings and go door to door? Go down the street in their neighbourhoods? Or do they do things like send out pamphlets or leaflets?

    I’ve never had anyone knock on my door about an issue except the one time Joe Clark stopped by my parents’ place when I was a kid. Do people actually do that?

    I feel very naive for asking.

  13. Hey Anna,

    Yeah, people literally go door to door. I’ve done it. Once I was asking them to sign a petition, another time to get together a tenant’s union, and another it was asking them to vote for someone.

  14. bfp, you are a sight for sore eyes! (and yes, I’ve been lurking!!)

    I’d like to take something out of what you said and really put it out there for folks: Listen to your local religious radio station….

    There. Right there. Did you see that? Think about it. Bfp could say, “listen to you local religious radio station” because we all have one. At least one. If you live in the midwest, south, or west you probably have a boatload to choose from. That is a critical part of organizing—-owning your own media. Radio is great because it has far lower start-up costs than a newspaper or magazine (think of some of the great magazines that folded lately, like LiP or Clamor), and people can listen to the radio while they work, drive, wash the car, cook dinner, etc. Radio is huge. Imagine what we could do with some radio stations, people.

    When people say “go door to door on this issue” – do they really?

    They sure do, Anna! Over a decade ago, that’s what I did—some hotshot developer had a grand idea for blockbusting in my neighborhood, and he was trying to get the support of the City Council. I quietly attended a few meetings, picked up a copy of the preliminary plans, and then went knock-knock-knocking on people’s doors. That quashed shit in a big hurry. All the City Council could see was angry voters. There’s a lot of old folks in my neighborhood. Old folks vote and call politicians to chew their asses out. Always talk to old folks every chance you get—they are a national asset; a great antidote to revisionist history.

    And speaking of angry voters, what better opportunity than elections? Not just the big ones…..little ones, like school boards, county boards, park districts. Great place for a person to get her feet wet. That’s where the conservative movement concentrated their energies.

    Coalition building between organizations is another area to work on. My Local and the Sierra Club were at odds over the building of a new powerhouse, but were able to come together over a compromise involving the purchase of wind generated power and even tighter pollution controls in exchange for support for the building of the powerhouse. Now, we come together to fight for wind farms against NIMBY concerns—-jobs for tradespeople, clean power for everyone. Another example is the green-blue alliance meetings the Steelworkers have been having across the country—they held one tonight in Danville, Illinois, a rust-belt city with high unemployment.

  15. Grassroots organizing really just starts with talking to local people and politicians and becoming more aware of your own community. Once you start communicating with your neighbours then your neighbourhood becomes less scary, you start to understand the concerns and fears and can find common ground. This then can be a springboard to action on local issues and then on wider issues. It is amazing how many people are so focussed on the greater good that they totally miss the simple actions of talking and doing locally.

Comments are currently closed.