Cross-posted at Blue Commonwealth
Why do we political junkies spend our time doing this?
The vast majority of the citizens of this commonwealth do not spend much/most/any of their free time debating bills that may or may not come out of committee in Richmond during the 45-day regular legislative session, nor the implications of a low turnout special election for a (generally) safely Democratic Delegate seat in western Alexandria.
So, why the devotion/fanaticism to politics?
Well, while I might answer that question somewhat satisfactorily, I find that the observations, interpretations, and wisdom of a Frenchman wandering about antebellum America remain unsurpassed:
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Part II, Chapter 1, How One Can Say Strictly That in the United States the People Govern
In America the people name those who make the law and those who execute it; they themselves form the jury that punishes infractions of the law. Not only are institutions democratic in their principle, but also in all their developments; thus the people name their representatives directly and generally choose them every year in order to keep them more completely under their dependence. It is therefore really the people who direct, and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people can find no lasting obstacles that prevent them from taking effect in the daily direction of society.
In the United States, as in all countries where the people reign, it is the majority that governs in the name of the people.
This majority is composed principally of peaceful citizens who, either by taste or by interest, sincerely desire the good of the country. Around them parties constantly agitate, seeking to draw them to their bosom and to get support from them.
As it turns out, politics hasn't changed much since the 1830s. Indeed, for all the ways that technology, the press/mass media, political communications, and the mechanics of our democracy have changed since then, the art of politics remains, at its heart, the same as it has always been in America (and all democratic states) -- agitation by the few to attract the many to their message, their ideals, their platforms.
The other interesting encapsulation by de Tocqueville is his laser-like focus on partisan politics in his discussion of American democracy. Again, from the first paragraph reproduced above:
[T]hus the people name their representatives directly and generally choose them every year in order to keep them more completely under their dependence.
Implicit in this statement is the rather obvious fact that we only get the government and policies we want when the politicians are cognizant that their continued tenure in office is dependent upon them satisfying the desires of the agitators. This is in stark contrast to the wailing and moaning of the 'opinionated elitists' who make up the bulk of the voices that define our democracy in the organs of the establishment press -- those that attempt to convince the population writ large that partisan politics is an evil to be eschewed, that the country would be better off if only their enlightened centrism was properly followed -- that citizens are intemperate and spoiled when they actually agitate for the policies that they favor and speak out for their own well-being.
--
Paul Wellstone, the late Senator from Minnesota, recognized the truth in de Tocqueville's insights. He believed strongly in grassroots electoral politics as a means to make lawmakers accountable to their constituents. Because of this basic understanding of how a politics of conviction can inspire a polity, he was able to run and win as a fiery populist and unapologetic liberal in a classic swing state where the 'textbook' answer is for candidates to offer milquetoast policies that attempt to pander to all without offending anyone.
After he and his wife Sheila were killed in a plane crash during his campaign for re-election in 2002, Paul Wellstone's family, friends, and supporters decided to keep their memories alive by training a new generation of activists, organizers, and politicians. Wellstone Action! was formed to help organize the organizers, to teach tools and methods to those that seek to agitate for change, and to allow for networking in communities where these workshops take place. I was able to attend one such Camp Wellstone here in Alexandria in May of last year.
One of the main takeaways from this workshop is that progressive change is dependent upon three equally important ingredients -- progressive policies, grassroots organizing, and electoral politics. Dubbed the 'Wellstone Triangle', this encapsulation makes graphic the not-so-obvious points that you cannot achieve progress without all three components, and that each point of the triangle is intimately connected to the other points. That is, progressive policies cannot be passed and implemented without the agitation of the coalitions that are formed via grassroots organizing, nor without the election of officials that would sponsor and shepherd such legislation to completion.
--
In a political campaign, voter contact activities are called 'fieldwork', or 'field'. Most often, field is confused with Get Out the Vote (GOtV), a specific type of voter contact that takes place at the very end of the campaign to remind supporters to get to the poll and vote. In actuality, fieldwork is a method of organizing and interacting with fellow citizens to achieve change. Generally, there are five separate portions of fieldwork: A) (1)base building and (2)volunteer recruitment, which we can consider hallmarks of grassroots organizing, and B) (3)visibility, (4)voter contact/persuasion, and (5)GOtV, the hallmarks of electoral politics organizing. In Democratic districts, (3), (4), and (5) will be generally sufficient to win elections and keep Democrats in office. However, in swing districts and districts in which the citizens do not identify with Democratic ideals (or think that they don't), simply performing (3)-(5) will result in another loss (see, e.g., VA-10 and Frank Wolf).
While we are on the upswing in Virginia and nationally, progressive change is not inevitable -- at least, the change we seek isn't, even if the moral arc of the universe is long and bends toward justice. The progressive netroots are largely responsible for changing the national conversation -- by confronting the conservative establishment that was happy to aid and abet the Bush administration and Republican elites in bankrupting this country in so many ways; for democratizing the press; for democratizing participation in the electoral process and shoving aside the normal gatekeepers; for helping in messaging and in fighting for a politics of conviction; for informing the populace; for transforming the ways in which campaigns are funded; and for changing electoral communication techniques.
But, in spite of all these successes, there is still a void that the progressive netroots have not adequately filled. In spite of our successes, this still in many ways an ad hoc effort, one that is disconnected from the communities in which we live. While there are exceptions, the fact is that our grassroots organizing and community engagement in the real world lag far behind what has been accomplished in our virtual communities.
--
There is no better time in Virginia politics than 'now'. We are always in the beginning, midst, or end of one cycle or another, whether state or federal (or city or county). As we saw in 2008 in the Obama campaign, there is an appetite for grassroots organizing when it is done competently and for a purpose. Between the remnants of those campaign volunteers from Obama for America (and a now-evolving grassroots structure emerging from that campaign), our official state party and local committees, organizations like Democracy for America and MoveOn, and local coalitions and issue advocacy groups, there has never been a better time to try and harness political energy to create a better society and political commons.
One of the reasons I wanted to be part of this blog was to focus on this type of grassroots organizing and coalition building -- fieldwork writ large -- to fill a gap that exists between the netroots and the grassroots, and to encourage more folks to stop lurking and engage and get involved. I hope to write this column, 'the Virginia Field', a few times a week to focus on the nuts and bolts of coalition building and of planning and executing a winning campaign.
In 2009, I plan to focus entirely on efforts to retake the House of Delegates, and what organizing in these competitive districts might imply for our chances in 2010 to continue taking control of our federal Congressional delegation. While the executive offices are no doubt important, the fact is that we won't be able to implement the policies we desire if we don't win the House of Delegates in November.
However, most importantly, this project is meant to engage and cover organizing events and create energy for even more effective organizing. I want to learn from this community, just as I hope my experiences and thoughts might be useful to some in their quests to organize their own communities. Hopefully, we can start a conversation that will help to continue the momentum of progressives in Virginia, and continue to push the ball down the field.
The title, 'the Virginia Field', was heavily inspired by the work of Al Giordano over at The Field, and was taken with his blessing.