A thoughtful post yesterday inspired me to write this. It’s main point was that what Clinton supporters don’t get about Bernie supporters is that this isn’t only about electing Bernie, but it’s about building a movement.
And that got me thinking last night. First, let me say that I am an undecided Democratic voter who lives in Virginia, so I have a month and a half before I have to decide.
I certainly don’t want to get into the squabble between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters. But I do want to respond to this notion that we should be building a movement through an election, which strikes a very discordant tone to me. I actually think this kind of thinking is not very productive in terms of movement building and here are my reasons.
First, elections are not about movement building, they’re about winning. I realize there are some fine lines and important distinctions here. Yes, through a political campaign, you want to develop policy platforms that reflect the consensus views of your supporters and take those ideas to the American people. And yes, in a campaign, you want to inspire people to believe change of some kind is possible. So, candidates and platforms are important elements of any campaign.
But elections — especially presidential elections — should not be about movement building. They’re about taking delivery on the grassroots support and the issues you’ve been building all along. And the goal of elections is to win a political battle and put someone in office who reflects your values.
This is something I’ve thought a lot about since 2000. I remember some very difficult and depressing conversations with close friends who were all in for Nader. Gore was a corporate sellout and there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Voting for Nader was supposed to be a way to build a movement and challenge the centrists in the Democratic party. We all remember those conversations. But I remember talking with a friend of mine, an activist from Nigeria, who made a very important distinction. He pointed out that the problem with Nader is that he was not a politician. He’s an activist. And you run into trouble when activists try to be politicians because politics is about compromise and governing and activism is about being uncompromising and pushing out on the margins and making the politicians notice your cause.
I think we’re running into something similar here. The difference of course is Bernie is a lifelong politician, though one who has been more of activist politician than a “let’s cut a deal and move policy forward” kind of politician. I don’t mean that to be dismissive of him. I applaud the role he has played over the decades. And perhaps his blend of politics and activism is the right blend. So, I’m not talking about Bernie as much as I’m suggesting we as activists should take note of the difference between activism and political campaigning.
The other problem I have with movement building through elections is what we saw after we elected Obama. He was supposed to be the leader of our movement. He was supposed to champion the progressive cause. And I frankly think when we look back, he’s gotten a lot of good things done.
But, when you movement build through elections, you run into the inevitable problem that the person you elect will always disappoint you on something. So winning the election feels like you’ve won the war, and come to find out all that energy was spent on just one battle. And then what? All that energy that went into the election dissipates and you find out after the fact that so much energy went into electing the person that you have lost some of the energy around the issues.
But perhaps the biggest problem I have with using elections to movement-build is the risk you run doing it, especially at the presidential level. In order to be elected president in 2016, you’re going to need to win close to 70 million votes. You’re going to have to reach soccer moms and office park dads. You’re going to have to turn out 18-year olds and 108-year olds. You have to win over veterans and peaceniks, southerners and northerners, elites and line-workers, lawyers and teachers, investors and regulators. Most of the 70 million voters you need aren’t ever going to be interested in your “movement.” These are mainstream voters who don’t live and breathe politics every day. They may have a set of issues they believe in, and maybe feel as passionately as all of us do on some things. But after election day, most voters will go back to their lives and hope the country doesn’t fall completely apart as they try to save a bit of money, pay for college for their kids, help an elderly parent, etc.
My final thought brings me to Martin Luther King, whose legacy we celebrate this weekend. King was a world class, all-time great movement builder. He had a lot of help. But he approached politics with his eyes wide open. He was not a member of any political party and he never endorsed a candidate. He built a movement around an idea and kept that ideal out of the gutter of elections and politics. That ideal was the noble goal, and yes he had to work with politicians to pass laws and see that they were enforced. But I think it’s important we understand that the separation of movement building and political campaigns was an important part of what worked in the civil rights struggle. It was not a partisan thing, it was a human rights thing. And I think that’s an important point to make as we all assess whom we’ll support and how this campaign will shake out.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you’re for Bernie, great. I may vote Bernie, too. But I just think it’s a mistake to treat elections as a vehicle for movement building.