Howard Dean's "You did your job" is the wrong message.

[ProSense]

Dean: ""You did your job...You elected Barack Obama. You elected a Democratic Congress. You elected a Democratic Senate. And now it's time for them to behave like Democrats if they want to get reelected. They have forgotten where they came from -- and they haven't been here that long."

We have a Congress that includes Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. They were also elected.

"You did your job" is the wrong message.

Look at the California results

Jane Harman 58.8%
Marcy Winograd 41.2%

Voters approve Prop. 14, open primary measure

We're talking California, not Arkansas.

The only way Democrats are going to remember who elected them is to remind them, not to sit around and wait for the next election. Many Democrats (like Webb and Tester) elected during Dean's reign as DNC chair have been disappointments on some level.

Deepak Bhargava

Progressive Strategy in the Obama Era

Some 500 days into the new administration, progressives are souring on President Obama's leadership on a range of issues from jobs and energy to immigration and foreign intervention. Paradoxically, it is this precise moment when I propose that the progressive movement turn this disappointment into a reflection on our selves rather than merely on a single political figure. Much of the criticism from left against the White House, has been in my opinion, over the top (This coming from someone who has been a harsh critic on jobs, immigration and was arrested outside the gates of the White House a few short weeks ago).

Yet, in some sense, blaming a politician for being a product of a broken political system which gives too much weight to the powerful interests of the status quo begs the question of how we counter the forces which obstruct the hopes of millions of people. Great changes in our history have always come through mass pressure from the outside combined with receptive leadership in positions of power. Presidents don't create moral urgency; social movements do and Presidents respond.

The central lesson of American history is that it takes social movements to get big things done. Abolition, women's suffrage, and the reforms of the New Deal and the Great Society were not fast or easy wins, nor were they brought about by a single election or by a President handing change down like manna from heaven. The passion and the power for big change came from below in each of these instances.

As we look at the next two years and consider the changes we'd like to see, we need to realize that the important question is not what the Obama Administration does or does not do. The important question is: Are we capable of mounting the kind of mass movement that can create a cycle of transformative, progressive change in the country. Whether President Obama turns into FDR or LBJ, or Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, is only partly about what he does. I'd argue that it's mostly about what we do.

So far we have not done enough. Since the 2008 election, the only mass progressive movement has been the immigrant rights movement, and this absence is worrisome particularly in light of the biggest economic crisis the country has seen in many years. There have been some very encouraging signs of life over the last few months with protests at Wall Street and here in Washington, but in the populist uprising on economic issues, it has really been the Tea Party movement that's held sway in the debate.

<...>

Let me give a historical example from the civil rights era about the power of movement:

As senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson did everything in his power to water down the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This legislation was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction, proposed by the Eisenhower Administration and vigorously opposed by Southern Democrats, which would have placed the federal court system in charge of protecting voting rights nationwide. Thanks to Johnson, the version that eventually passed the Senate bore no resemblance to that original goal. Johnson made sure the Judiciary Committee, chaired by a segregationist from Mississippi, stripped away any real enforcement of voting rights by federal judges. He saw to it that any state-level enforcement would be decided by jury trial rather than a judge's ruling, recognizing that no Southern jury would return a verdict in favor of black plaintiffs. He defeated an amendment to give the Justice Department enforcement authority to sue for school desegregation.

more

"You did your job" is the wrong message.

[groovedaddy]

1. Obama never was very keen on checking the corporate system of governance. He knows where the real

power lies. The way things were in 2008, and still are for that matter, any candidate bucking this system doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

[ProSense]

2. "any candidate bucking this system doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell."

Yet many pretended that Sestak was such a candidate.

[zipplewrath]

3. So is "fall in line"

Which is basically what ya get out of OFA. The organization that was created between 2004 and 2008 was predominately around a party structure. That structure is falling apart. It's no surprise that nothing has risen up immediately in its wake. Especially considering the economy.

[ProSense]

4. Is that what you take away from the piece in the OP?

It makes no such point.

[zipplewrath]

6. It decries the lack of organizeed opposition

His point was that the attitude could not be "we did it". It can not also be, "fall in line".

The organized opposition rose up and formed itself around electing folks. Remember, it had just come out of 8+ years of hell. The organization was established around getting folks elected to office so that there was a chance to advance some of these agendas. Unfortunately, the structures were around organizations like OFA, which is now working against many of the issues. It will take some time for folks to get RE-organized. Remember, on immigration, the organization he admired so, they had active influence within the ruling power of the time. McCain, even Bush, were sympathetic to the larger issue.

In the '50 and '60s, there were existing, and sometimes LARGE democratic majorities. The organization that got many of those bills passed did not have to "begin" with getting democrats elected. They grew up over decades, knowing that they would have democratic congresses with which to work. They'd have to push, yes, but yet they had access to power.

It's a bit unfair to be "blaming" the victim here. The people to whom he is addressing his comments have worked hard for the last 4 years or so to create the current environment. Yes, they'll have to reorganize a bit to advance some of their agendas, but only because the people they worked so hard to get into office in the first place, are now trying to advance agendas that work against the goals of many of their supporters. And they have leveraged the existing organizational structures to do so.

[ProSense]

7. He is talking about organizing.

"Remember, on immigration, the organization he admired so, they had active influence within the ruling power of the time. McCain, even Bush, were sympathetic to the larger issue. "


Remember when the media ignored the war protests? Remember how the protestors didn't back off and the 2006 elections became a referendum on the Iraq war?

The point is that organizing around a message and a cause, not just criticism, is more effective when it comes to forcing change.

The financial reform bill is in conference and there has been little organizing around a message. Climate change is hanging in the balance and will likely emerge with the members of Congress negotiating among themselves.

The only message being imparted is cynicism. How is anything going to change when people throw up their hands and cry doom?

[zipplewrath]

8. We were organized

And got the first AA president in history elected. It's going to take a tad bit of time to get RE-organized to make him do the things he advocated.

[ProSense]

9. "It's going to take a tad bit of time to get RE-organized to make him do the things he advocated."

Well, there has been a lot of complaining about his actions in the first 16 months of his term. How long will it take to get reorganized?

Also, what about Congress? There was some pressure on Congress toward the end of the health care debate, but that was largely after the bills were in their final stages.

Financial reform and climate change legislation in now in Congress' hands.

[zipplewrath]

10. 2-3 years

We have day jobs. And we don't have corporate america behind us. And they can change the "issues" faster than we can organize. It's why labor unions are useful, they are "pre-organzied". But million man marches don't just spring up out of no where. It takes time to build the structure, and leaders.

And we were constantly getting punked on health care reform. Public option was in, well it's in but not as robust, but the president says it's a must, except well, maybe he didn't mean it, sorta, unless there are exchanges, or the possibility of exchange like strucures.

And let's not forget that one of the organized groups was literally arrested trying to get into a hearing. And they were there VERY early.

And we have the White House working against us. So we need to build power within congress with people that see us as their strength, and can face down an oppositional White House. Which means backing candidates like Sestak and Halter, as well as others. At that point you have people that will tell you where the lies are, and where you are being sold out.


It's a long process, and blaming the victims isn't part of it.

[ProSense]

11. "It's a long process, and blaming the victims isn't part of it."

You keep saying that. Which victims? Voters are not victims. This is a democracy, protests like elections are key to the process.

The health care bill is a perfect example. There was a push toward the end. People demanded that their reps support the bill. Hell, even Michael Moore was threaten Congressional Dems if they voted against the bill. Remember, the unions' push back against Lincoln solidified when she opposed the public option.

"It's why labor unions are useful, they are 'pre-organzied'. But million man marches don't just spring up out of no where. It takes time to build the structure, and leaders. "

Yes, and also activist organizations. Where are they? These issues didn't pop up overnight, and now that a Democratic President is in office, why the lame push on many issues?

People are spending more time complaining that signing petitions, let alone actively engaging their own reps.

[zipplewrath]

12. the people who voted for "no mandates"

The folks that voted for candidates that said one thing, and voted another way. Did you read why EMILY's list didn't back Lincoln a second time?

People voted for "no cadillac taxes", public options, the withdrawl from Iraq in 16 months, DADT in 100 days, Gitmo being closed, not just a change in address, and all manner of things. And those are just the KNOWN issues when they vote. Then their are all the issues that will pop up in 16 months. As their leaders tend to cease to represent them, one must give them some time to reorganize. They can't be particularly blamed for the failings of the leaders they elected a scant 16 months ago, especially when those leaders actively work to get folks re-elected they don't want nor like.

[ProSense]

13. Unless you missed it, not everyone is up in arms about the mandate.

"People voted for 'no cadillac taxes', public options, the withdrawl from Iraq in 16 months"

Didn't the unions negotiate the tax on these plans and end up endorsing the final version?

The timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq was announced soon after the President took office.

Still, how exactly does this make anyone who is critical of these positions victims?

[zipplewrath]

14. Are you really arguing against the semantics?

"Still, how exactly does this make anyone who is critical of these positions victims?"

It's a simile. Just as victims of crime often are "blamed" for actions they took (or did not take) which could have made the crime difficult or impossible, the article suggests that the "blame" here lies with people who voted for one thing, and got another. Here, they "blame" the progressives and others for not having the large organizations in place to influence the politicisans. They aren't organizing fast enough to force the candidates to do what they campainged upon. It takes years to assemble "movements" which can move congress with large protest marches. It takes weeks for industry lobbiest to put together lobbying strategies. Populist movements will always lag behind the politics.

[ProSense]

16. Are you really arguing about a 16-month versus 19-month withdrawal from Iraq?

"It's a simile. Just as victims of crime often are "blamed" for actions..."

It's a flawed one. Voters are not a monolithic bloc. You are not a victim because you disagree with an elected official's position on an issue.

[zipplewrath]

17. And you really think voters are saying "we did our job"?

We are not a monolythic bloc. So of whom is Dr. Dean discussing? What attitude or action is being discussed here. You think maybe "we did our job" is a metaphor for a larger attitude?

[ProSense]

5. No other comments? n/t

[KonaKane]

15. We progressives have failed in a few areas.....here are the top two

in my ever so humble opinion:

1. Failure to create a public dialogue about these prevalent issues.
Deepal Bhargava was correct, nothing major changes without a mass shift in public consciousness - and that only happens when a public dialogue is initiated and sustained. Progressives have for the most part failed to seize and manipulate the agents of public dialogue, most notably, the press. The press is still dominated by conservatives and centrist Democrats who are often indistinguishable from each other. That leaves Progressivism out on the fringes of the infosphere, which also gives the public the impression that we are fringe thinkers.

2. We lose the big picture too much, and micromanage pet issues.
We get too particular about sidebars, personal issues and pet causes, and all too willing to eat our own and forget what solidarity can do. This isn't just a Progressive problem, by the way. It's a problem of the Liberal Left and the Democrats in general.

So what do I personally do about it?

I try, every day, to engage those in my daily life into these subjects, in some way. Keep them alive in the mind, make them a daily concern. Stir the pot.

I get involved in local public forums as often as possible, and speak to a progressive plank. Most importantly, I do my best not to jump on and attack a fellow progressive or a liberal (who are most of the time our allies) even if I do not agree with every speck of their argument. I look for big picture stuff, and for any opportunity to support them. Solidarity is more important than a fragile single ego, at the end of the day.