In her book Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatley discusses the ways in which organizations that are most open to their environments, most flexible, adaptable and responsive while also staying absolutely true to their core identities are those that are most robust, most successful and most long-lived. She observes:
When an organization knows who it is, what its strengths are and what it is trying to accomplish, it can respond intelligently to changes from its environment . . . The presence of a clear identity makes the organization less vulnerable to its environment; it develops greater freedom to decide how it will respond. (pages 85-86)
Wheatley defines the three key things any organization needs to know to succeed - who are they, what are their strengths and what do they want to accomplish.
There's a seeming paradox in Wheatley's theory. As organizations become more in touch with their environments, they are less susceptible to changes in it - if, that is, they have a clear sense of who they are, what their strengths are and what they're trying to accomplish. Self-knowledge grounded in identity, resources and goal, allow organizations to respond to their environment effectively and quickly - because they possess a clear sense of self, they are less threatened by the environment, more adaptable to it and of course, more responsive. Organizations with a poor sense of identity tend to wall themselves off from their environment in an attempt to safeguard themselves; such actions usually result in disaster.
Republicans, whatever else you can say about them, have mastered their core identity - they know absolutely who they are and so have no problem shifting, almost immediately, from one set of tactics to another. Filibusters a heinous breach of all things civil when Republicans held the majority in the Senate are suddenly normal and acceptable when Democrats have a majority, not because Republicans are hypocrites (although, there is that) but because they have no qualms about using any and every tactic to pursue their agenda and shifting circumstances require shifting tactics. Republicans are so clear about the three answers to the key questions that they pursue their ends no matter what. In contrast, I think most Democrats would be hard pressed to give coherent answers. We find ourselves in a situation in which goals and values that some people believe are absolutely core values and goals are abandoned without a moment's hesitation and almost no consequences by elected Democrats; the pursuit of compromise and bipartisanship become primary goals rather than tactics to achieve larger goals. The Administration, for example, seems to regularly sacrifice what should be essential goals in the name of compromise without getting anything in return because they have no clear sense of who they are, what their strengths are and what they're trying to accomplish.
A recent post at Mydd refuting the notion the President is playing rope-a-dope reads in part:
. . . Obama hates risk. Even his most ardent supporters will tell you that he does not like to take big risks. He thinks it is imprudent. They see that as one of his strengths. McCain was a wild gambler, Obama was a cautious and smart poker player. That's why he won the election.
But would a man who dislikes risk that much risk his entire presidency on a strategy where he gets pummeled for three straight years and then finally comes out swinging at the very end? No way. That's a tremendous amount of risk. I don't mind taking plenty of risks and I wouldn't do anything half that crazy.
No, the answer is much simpler. He doesn't realize he's getting pummeled. He thinks this is all still a genius strategy to capture centrists by compromising on every single little thing. He is not trying to put on an appearnace of weakness to lull his opponent into a false sense of compacency. He doesn't even realize he is being weak. He's the one with the false sense of complacency. As he's getting knocked around the ring, he thinks he's winning . . .
There is no secret, brilliant strategy. This White House is in a bubble. They think they're winning when the roof is about to cave in.
Emphasis added. The point of the post was that the administration is not playing some game of eleven dimensional chess because they have no clear answer to the key questions. They're clueless about the impact of their actions on the public and are acting as if their strategy is winning because they're less unpopular than other branches of government; they're not playing to win, they're playing to not lose. If the administration's identity is that they post-partisan compromisers who always find the middle ground, if their strength is their ability to compromise and find middle ground and finally if they are trying accomplish compromise then their actions make sense. Time and again, they'll interpret Republican refusal to compromise as a failure on the Administration's part in finding a true middle ground - after all, a real middle ground would bring Republicans to the table and allow them to compromise. It also speaks to a fundamental misjudgment about their political opponents and their allies. The administration's frequent statements about Congress being the problem make sense if one of their primary goals is to rise above partisanship - Congress is a hotbed of partisanship. FWIW, I think the President holds truly progressive values - but his political instincts drive him in very different directions when it's time to fight for policy. Bridging that gap means having ready answers to the three key questions.
Who is the Democratic party? What are the party's strengths? What are we trying to accomplish? Who is the Obama administration? What are their strengths? What do they want to accomplish? Another way of delving into these questions is to find out: What are the Democratic party's core values?
I know the old canard about "ten words" and how we live in a world too complex for ten word solutions; that's true. But can you give an elevator speech about what makes you a Democrat? Can you say why you'll vote for Barack Obama not whatever wingnut the Republicans nominate? Right now, I'm not sure I can. "Barack Obama's not as nuts as Palin/Bachmann/Perry" is hardly a winning motto.
So who are we? What are our strengths? What are we trying to accomplish?
In Bill Scher's book Wait! Don't Move to Canada he proposes a simple, easy to remember values statement for progressives - we support government that is representative, responsive and responsible (i.e. it represents all Americans, it is responsive to our needs and concerns and it is responsible in how it uses resources). I'd argue Scher was updating the mid-twentieth century's "good government" liberalism - which was concerned with making government work and work well, making it a tool for doing good in America. Scher's three R's of liberalism make a concise summary of what we want to accomplish (I'll touch on a longer version later) but it leaves the first two in doubt -who are we and what are our strengths?
Who are we? In far too many ways Democrats have long defined themselves as "not the Republicans." We aren't Christian conservatives, we aren't Chamber of Commerce, we aren't the teabaggers (aka angry disenchanted deeply confused white people). Then who are we? I'd offer a simple sentence - the Democratic party is made up Americans who can sign on to JFK's definition:
. . . someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
I'd also offer up FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights":
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
This economic bill of rights can be summarized:
Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
This who we are - the people who believe and fight for these things. That bill of rights can also be what we want to accomplish - and we'll use whatever means can get us there.
There's nothing wrong with adopting FDR's language or ideas. The man is a liberal icon for a reason - he was a pragmatist who evolved into and idealist, a man whose policies helped the poor and working poor, whose vision of American greatness can inform our battles today. There's a reason the Right wants to roll back the New Deal; rather than defending specific policies or programs, let's be the people who believe in the greater vision. It's not about "social security" the program, it's about social security the political, cultural and economic value. It's not about the WPA or the CCC, it's about the right of every American to a good job that pays a living wage. It's not about obscure battles over hyphenated legislation, it's about the right of every business person to be free from unfair competition and monopolies. It's not about Medicare or Medicaid, it's about the right of every Americans to have access to medical care.
We are the people who believe that society is stronger and better and more stable when we as Americans recognize and act as if we're all in this together. It's about making a society that recognizes that we succeed or fail as a nation, we rise or fall as a nation, we prosper or suffer as a nation.
Finally, I come to the one aspect I have the hardest time defining - what are our strengths? We have history on our side, we have rightness on our side. We have powerful, authentically visionary speakers on our side. And if you trust the polling, we have majorities of the American people on our side. We can raise money and we can rally hundreds of thousands, even several million, volunteers to knock on doors and talk to people and to work to elect better politicians who can fight for who we are, who can fight for what we want to accomplish.
All the ingredients are there and we can win; we have to decide we want to win. We've been playing to not lose long enough. It's time to play to win.