Too many groups? Your thoughts?

[crispini]

Here's my story. Our county DP is not that organized (there's politics involved). So in our town, a grassroots "Kerry" campaign grew up. We had no funding at all and no official standing with the Kerry campaign but all of the activists paid for things out of our own pockets. We built a killer website, and so we got a LOT of the volunteer energy that might have otherwise gone to the local DP, because they had NO web presence and they did a really piss poor job of communicating with volunteers. Basicially, not calling them back, etc.

So we did all kinds of stuff. We did voter reg drives, we did precinct walks, we did a HUGE debate watching party. We built a 2000 person mailing list.

So, post-election, we're trying to find our stride. I am trying desperately to persuade this group to merge with another group. If not the local DP (see above political reasons -- we're trying for an overthrow of someone rather instrangiant) then perhaps Democracy for America. They have about 20 activists here but they mostly connected people with campaigns, etc., didn't do the kind of grassroots activism that we did. The jury is still out on this idea.

TODAY, I find out that MoveOn.org is starting local groups. And I got an email from another activist telling me that Code Pink is starting up in my city as well.

I am really encouraged by this blooming of the grassroots, but I'm really, REALLY frustrated by all of the duplication of effort. It seems to me that rather than starting organizations all over the place it would be best to unite as much as possible. We HAVE to pull together! How are we going to do this as much as possible?

I guess I'm just frustrated. Anyone out there who has been doing this longer than I have, I welcome your thoughts, suggestions, and consolations.

[NMDemDist2]

1. actually I think many small groups who coordinate is the best

the bigger groups get out of control and to "impersonal" too fast

stick with a small group of like minded people who keep in touch with other groups of the same for coordinated activities when needed

[CitySky]

2. All I can say is,

if anyone can do it, you can! You are the best.

Maybe talk with one or two of the more active/influential people in the other groups and plan a get-together? Doesn't have to be an official "merger discussion" but some kind of event where people will get to know each other & exchange ideas... it seems in the short run it would be helpful for everyone to communicate at least by email, so that the whole "active progressive community" can be alerted to important events & actions, etc.

[crispini]

7. we're thinking along these lines,

the problem is that I live in a major metropolitan area.

so when you say 'all the groups' ..... it's a BUTTLOAD. I was at the DFA meetup tonight and we named about 25, including but not limited to:

- DFA
- About 10 different Democratic clubs
- the peace center
- about 15 different environmental orgs
- everyone left over from the campaigns
- Stonewall D's, HRC, etc.

Sigh.... there are SO many of us, we really have to develop a sort of progressive nerve center to transmit messages out to everyone who might be interested!

[ChiciB1]

3. DFA

I live in Repuke country... the DFA is VERY timid! I signed up with them, but I think I'm too liberal for them. I will try to stay with them, but I live in Florida and some of the older people just want the "brunch and babble!"

I will be much more activist and have been since the election. I really don't think I'll stop for a VERY VERY long time! I haven't shopped at Publix, Home Depot or Walmart yet! Wonder who hurting more???

But have also stopped watching CNN, but do watch Keith. Tweety has been off my list, so don't know what he's up to. Has he "switched" again?? He so likes to be "popular!"

For Christmas... Blue Lights, Black Ribbons. Everyone should do this!! I think the message has gotten out because it's hard to find blue lights these days!

[necso]

4. I believe that we need an (overall) organization

as a focal point for our efforts. And I fear that without such an organization, much of the current activism will wither over time -- or will work at odds.

There are many potential benefits that a large organization has. To name just a few: superior money raising capabilities; the potential to quickly organize large efforts; the "clout" that a large organization has in the reform effort (when you can promise and deliver money and volunteers, people tend to listen); "national notice"; and, frankly, "safety in numbers".

There are good reasons why this organization must be something other than the Democratic Party (although it must also be able to work within the Democratic Party). Again, here are only a few: the existing "power structure"; existing personal interests; the campaign and candidate orientation of the Party; and, frankly, the fact that the Party hasn't been doing a great job.

Building on an existing organization has certain advantages, particularly where that organization has a nationally recognized leader, many dedicated activists and some record of success. And there is no reason why such an organization needs to be single minded -- within the Republican Party, for example, there are various groups with their own goals and interests -- although insofar as the neo-cons "rule", this example has its flaws (but we should we able to avoid the counterpart problem).

I don't think that we should rule out DFA -- at least not without serious consideration. I have looked around the DFA site and DFA seems to be open-minded in scope and intentions.

Here are a few quotes:

"...Democracy for America (DFA) is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government—from school board to the presidency. DFA fights against the influence of the far right-wing and their radical, divisive policies and the selfish special interests that for too long have dominated our politics.

DFA has a long-term goal that looks past November 2004. This organization will rebuild the Democratic Party from the bottom up—it will take time, but we must start building a base now for the future. "

I see nothing wrong with this. -- And more:

"What can I do to participate in Democracy for America's mission?

* Find a local candidate and volunteer your time or make a contribution to their campaign

* Host an event for supporters in your area (voter registration, house party, visibility, etc.)

* Attend or host a Democracy for America Meetup in your town

* Volunteer at Democracy for America

* Students can apply to be a Democracy for America intern"

I see nothing wrong with this either.

DFA seems to have a strategy of working both within and outside of the Party (although DFA members would know better than I do) with the goal of reforming the Party... and this is most wise in my opinion. It is also something that does not need to have a single, uniform face -- what works in Virginia might not work in California.

Now, that we (if we someday do) have an organization, this does not mean that we cannot work with other organizations (MoveOn, the Greens, or even Nader), but rather that we will have a group dedicated to Democratic interests and Democratic Party reform. -- Indeed, I believe that we must be open to working with other groups (where this is in the common interest) and that this is the future of activism, diverse groups working together, when and where they can find common interest.

It would be nice to have a group of our own to bring to this struggle -- it might also keep us from losing activists to other groups.

[ChiciB1]

5. OKAY...

I can agree with all that you said and will attend the meetings. I suppose one could liken it to the Gingrich Movement of sorts. It's just that it's so tame WHEN I want ACTION. You look at places around the world, Ukraine comes to mind, WOW did they ever get organized PRONTO!

Here we are 1 month from what I feel was a scandalous election, and what do we have. A BIG ZERO! I will remain active, but I've written so many officials and yatty, yatty yatty and what I get back are "auto-responses!" This makes me sooooooo angry!

But I HAVE to do something because I simply Won't Back Down!

[necso]

6. Well,

keep in mind that I am not a DFA member and they may well have somewhat different views. And if your current DFA group is not "up to snuff", then you could bring in some fellow thinkers and create a core group of "more active activists". An organization need not be monolithic in everything, and organizations can be changed over time.

And who knows, if you bring up some practical ideas, maybe you can rally broad support. People often tend to move slowly in new directions, and new ideas sometimes take their own good time.

As regards the Ukraine, there is a great deal of foreign support (and ethnic identity -- from what I have read and heard -- but I claim no special knowledge, insight or understanding) behind the "opposition's" efforts, and there are other reasons not to hold this up as an "ideal"... or as a practical measure here (sadly). What do you think would happen if we tried to (effectively) shut down the government here? -- More of those fabled "rose petals"... or bullets, batons and other forceful means?

Besides, there is much else that we can do in the short term, from using our economic power, to disseminating factual information about the actual state of affairs, working to ensure a transparent and accurate vote (and vote count -- both now and latter), and conducting peaceful protests that don't cross the line into serious civil disruption.

We have to work harder now than ever. If DFA is, or can become, a vehicle that we can effectively use, then I have no great problems with this.