Progressive Democrat Issue 38: THOUGHTS

Something has been coming up in discussions I have been having with people over the last couple of months. It came up in discussing development issues in NYC and it came up in comments a reader from Tennessee sent me. It comes up in some ways in Daily Kos diaries from time to time. The basic problem is this: these days the left tends to mostly REACT to what the right does. We REACT to statements made by Karl Rove. We REACT to Fox News stories. We REACT to something a company does that we don’t like. In terms of development issues, local neighborhoods REACT to a development plan that a private developer comes up with and tries to impose on the neighborhood.

Do we need to be more PROACTIVE?

Of course we HAVE to react to what the right does. And what the right does is so egregious that we find we have things to react to ALL THE TIME. That means the right defines the debate. That is one of our main weaknesses. It is time for the left to develop more proactive plans and start defining the debate the way we want it.

How to do that? I have no really good answer, but I can share something that we are doing here in NYC that could serve as a model not only for dealing with development issues, but for defining ourselves and our proactive political agenda.

For some time Joy and I have been hosting meetings at our apartment where organizers from various progressive organizations such as Democracy for America, former Kerry organizers, and New Democratic Majority get together and discuss things. Sometimes the discussion is free form and is more of a therapy session for frustrated progressives. Other times we discuss collaborations, strategies and upcoming events. We jokingly call this meeting our “Cabal.” This alone has been useful for forging connections and starting an ongoing dialogue among progressive organizations in NYC. And this alone is part of what I am suggesting as a model for the grassroots nationwide. In a moment I will get to a more detailed description of a proactive plan, but first I want to see if I can inspire progressive Cabals elsewhere in the nation.

The meetup has in some ways changed grassroots politics nationwide. Meetups are used by groups like Democracy for America to bring progressives together to discuss issues and plan strategies. This is the first level of organizing that I suggest is needed for progressives to be proactive. Before we can be proactive, we need better organization and for us that means grassroots, local organization. I am always urging folks to join their local Democratic clubs and DFA meetups and Drinking Liberally groups. I cannot emphasize enough that this is the future of the left if we have a future at all. That doesn’t mean that the top-down structures like DNC and DSCC are obsolete. They still have their role. But it does mean that to be taken seriously, the grassroots left has to be organized and together on the local level and it is the DFA meetup and the local Dem clubs and, in a much more casual way, the Drinking Liberally groups that provide this local structure. If the local grassroots don’t have this structure then, at best, we will continue to be subservient to the national, top-down Democratic structures that, while necessary, have failed to provide a winning strategy on their own. At worst, without a local structure, the grassroots left will remain pushed aside, fringe and irrelevant. Why? Because we won’t be able to deliver the petitions, the votes, and the volunteers in enough numbers to influence elections or debate. So join your local meetups, and if there are no local meetups, find your fellow progressives and create a local group. Even if it is just 6 people running a raucous Drinking Liberally group at a local bar, it is a structure that can be part of local politics. I should point out that this is important even in solidly red districts. Among my New Jersey readers are organizers of the Democratic Club of Long Beach Island—a very solidly red area. By organizing they actually got media attention because of their guts to take the fight deep into red territory. And don’t forget that getting more Democrats voting in a red district still helps state-wide and national candidates (Senate, President…).

Then comes what I call the Cabal level. Small, local meetups are critical. But too often the left remains divide among several local groups (clubs, meetups, whatever) that either ignore each other or actively are rivals. The purpose of our Cabal meetings is NOT to make all local groups agree and do the same thing. The purpose is to provide a forum for an ongoing dialogue among progressive groups so different groups can cooperate when they want, can compare notes and, in general, can work more effectively together even when they are backing different candidates or different sides of an issue. We don’t have to agree 100% to sit down and talk. We have enough in common that we can focus on those common goals when we sit down together. The Cabal meetings generally are for active organizers from various organizations, though, of course, anyone can come as long as they bring ideas or are ready to be sounding boards for ideas. Generally we have representatives from 3 groups attending regularly with organizers from other groups coming from time to time and keeping abreast of what we do trough a Cabal email list. I think this can be a model of local cooperation among progressive groups that would be a real relief from the divisive rivalries that I too often see dividing the left. I should emphasize that I am not really an organizer from any particular group. So ANYONE can play host to a Cabal meeting. In fact, it is best if the host isn’t a major organizer from any one group because then, if necessary, the meeting can be seen as being on neutral territory. Alternatively (and perhaps better) a Cabal could be structured around the Drinking Liberally model where 2-4 people from different organizations co-host a drinking liberally group at a local bar (or coffee bar, tea house, juice bar, whatever).

So what does all this have to do with being proactive? Simple. Without this kind of bottom-up structure, how can we be effectively proactive? We don’t have as many think tanks, the tame media and the money to have the proactive top-down structure that the Republicans have. So we need a proactive, progressive, grassroots bottom-up structure, starting with the meetups and moving up to the Cabals and then…on to bigger and better things. This structure also can be, if you like, a grassroots, decentralized think tank where we get our ideas. Which leads me to the Livable NYC Initiative.


Our Cabal meetings have produced just such an idea, largely thanks to members of New Democratic Majority, but helped by many people. This is he Livable NYC Initiative. This initiative grew from a vague idea I and another Cabal attendee had. We discussed the idea with each other and with the Cabal group as a whole and now an actual ambitious project is taking shape.

The basic idea, perhaps a nascent "mission statement" if you like, is to create a mechanism for all members of a community to proactively define a vision for their community. The context for this includes, but does not have to be limited to, development issues. One powerful reason why this is needed is in the context of eminent
Domain and the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private citizen to another private citizen: if eminent domain can be invoked to allow development “for the public good,” then who defines the “public good?” Right now it seems primarily to be the developers and, at least in NYC, the mayor’s office. When a development project is proposed, the community is generally not involved until the plan is well advanced, making the community’s role largely reactive and usually taking the form of neighborhood organizations that are defined too much by their opposition to an existing developer’s plan. Often these neighborhood groups come up with excellent plans as alternatives to the developer’s plan, but again, this is usually in reaction to the developer’s plan. We would like to create a mechanism by which neighborhoods can define their vision and create an intra-community dialogue before a developer puts forth a plan. This way the COMMUNITY can play a stronger role in defining the public good. Community stakeholders could include labor, neighborhood organizations, community leaders (including political and religious leaders), small business organizations and progressive organizations. In NYC there already is a system that formally does this, the 197-a plans, but in reality the system makes it difficult to produce such a plan and these plans are ignored by the city in many cases. So a proactive community organization to support a community-produced vision for development is also needed.

I describe this project because I think it is a model for grassroots organizing. Representatives of several grassroots organizations getting together, developing an idea and, we hope very soon, start implementing it. If we are successful, we will be imposing a bottom-up, community-based vision on a city that, more than any other city I have lived in, allows the mayor to call most of the shots. If we succeed, and I should note that Austin, TX already has a similar project already active, we will be exerting the power that Howard Dean reminded us that we have in a democracy.