MoveOn.org and food for thought

[DancingBear]

from Counterpunch - full article here at: http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh06032006.html

(Personal note: I have been railing at MoveOn for months now, asking/pleading/begging/yelling as to why Iraq wasn't front and center in their efforts. I never got any responses back, but when I found this article (at another website, in the intertest of full disclosure) it dovetailed with a lot of my concerns. I would be very interested to see if anyone else is wondering if perhaps MoveOn is playing things a bit to close to the middle of the road vest).


Stooping to New Lows to Sabotage the Antiwar Movement

MoveOn Rigs Its Own Vote; Betrays Its Membership

By JOHN WALSH

The first email.

On May 17, I received an email from MoveOn.org signed by Ben Bradzel, Matt and Eli (Pariser) inviting me to a "trial" house party to begin creation of a "positive agenda" for 2006. The house party was the very next day, May 18. According to the email, the "positive agenda" to be created had to come "from the grass roots." While the email suggested that we could decide on anything that we liked ("The sky's the limit."), it named three possible elements in the "positive agenda": "universal health care" (not specified as single-payer), "clean energy," "publicly financed elections." (Remember these three.) Later in the email it was made clear that there should be 3 points to the new agenda."

It was striking to me that there was no mention of the war on Iraq or Iran in this email

<snip>

I was curious but unable to attend that "trial" house party, but the following week the real thing emerged. The next week on May 22 another email appeared, announcing a series of nationwide house parties on May 24. I decided to go. But I was disappointed that once again there was no mention of the war in the email. So I decided to call a staff contact that we were given. She was young, enthusiastic and dedicated but inexperienced. I asked her why there was no mention of the war. I pointed out that a clear and ever growing majority of voters were for that. And I informed her that Karl Rove essentially conceded that the war was Bush's Achilles heel. So if MoveOn wanted to defeat the Bushies, why not raise the war? Silence came over her. She then said, as if recalling something, that opposition to the war was "negative" and we had to have a "positive" agenda.

<snip>

The third email.

On May 30 came another email, giving the top 10 choices from the house parties from which 3 were to be chosen by an online ballot. Again there was no mention of Iraq. The choices were "the top 10 most popular ideas from last week's house parties." Apparently other house parties did not think to bring up Iraq, because it was not offered as an alternative, or else the MoveOn bosses did feel inclined to include it. Of course MoveOn is far from transparent, so we cannot know. What we do know is that the number one issue on the minds of Americans did not emerge in the top 10! Quite amazing! (The 10 "most popular" choices were: "A living wage for all; Global leadership through diplomacy: Verifiable accurate elections; High quality education for all; Balanced federal budget; Health care for all, Publicly funded elections; Preserve our natural resources; Energy independence: clean, renewable sources; Restored constitutional rights".

<snip>

The final email.

Finally, the results of all this emerged in the last email on June 1 in which "the whole MoveOn.org Political Action team" triumphantly announced the top 3! And the winners were: "Health care for all. Energy independence through clean, renewable sources. Democracy restored." Damned close to the three suggested at the outset in the very first email - before any voting at all - as you remember from the first paragraph above: "universal health care" "clean energy," "publicly financed elections." The MoveOn bosses turned out to be remarkable seers.

[Betsy Ross]

1. I cut them loose a long time ago.

Tired of the barrage of useless email. I support a "positive" agenda. I am positively for getting out of Iraq. Fair elections is also at the top of my list because without them, all other causes are hopeless.

[meganmonkey]

2. This is vital information, Dancing Bear

There is a feeling we get by participating with groups like MoveOn...online petitions and emails to our representatives, donating money to their campaigns... It gives us a feeling that we are doing something - because we all want to DO SOMETHING!!!! - to stop the madness and darkness we are confronting.

But in reality, I think it is backfiring. By relying on this online version of activism, we are concentrating less on real life. To paraphrase a fantastic and inspirational article I read ( http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0305-29.htm ), would Gandhi have been successful in his efforts to drive out the British rule had he used an email campaign?

Granted, there are benefits - with the local groups, 'house parties' and stuff - we are meeting real people in real life, making connections that might prove to be useful in the real life fight we are in.

We need real people in the streets, people having a presence and making their voices heard in their communities. We have to grasp by now that the online petitions and emails seldom have any effect (with a few exceptions, of course) and that the people in Congress don't care what we say anyway (again, with a few exceptions). We need to bypass the broken system to get anywhere. We need to be in the streets. It's the only way anything gets done.

I think it is vital to be critical of these organizations we are relying on to essentially lobby for us. They speak for us, in a sense, they are our public voice. If we cannot be critical of them or question them, then do we really want to be represented by them? Are they listening to the voices of their members much more than the congresspeeps are listening to theirs? Maybe they aren't. And even if their intentions are good, are they effective? By thinking they are speaking for us, does that make us less likely to speak for ourselves? These are questions that need to be discussed.

Thanks for posting this. :popcorn:

[katinmn]

4. You know, I used to spend HOURS each day online signing petitions,

voting in polls, sending letters to legislators using the programs offered by sites like MoveOn, and of course, giving money.

The result has been ZILCH! The message of so many groups, including MoveOn, is a watered down version of the Dem platform - safe and aimed at broad appeal.

Now I believe my time is better spent going to street protests, working on real issues like ending the war, demanding universal health care, election reform and media reform, with like-minded people in my community. I still occassionally write letters to my legislators but it's basically to work off steam. They are not listening to us on the issues we care about.

If we don't demand anything, we get nothing.

[leftchick]

18. well said kat

zilch indeed!

[leftchick]

3. interesting

I have inquired to move on as well after a house party and never got a good answer. Since the Clinton folks are involved with Move on I guess we know why they don't touch it.

[WilliamPitt]

5. They are an appendage of the Democratic Party

and right now, there is no consensus anywhere within the Democratic Party as to what to do about Iraq. The Dems came out with their '06 platform, and the word "Iraq" was nowhere to be found.

So I'm not surprised MoveOn isn't touching it. They don't know which way to go, which idea to support, because the Dems themselves can't get their rudder straight on a consensus decision about what to say and/or do.

I'm not defending them, but I am also not terribly surprised. MoveOn takes their lead from the Dems, and the Dems haven't given them (or us) a decided direction yet.

[LWolf]

6. I don't think I ever asked the Democratic Party to give me a direction.

Isn't that the tail wagging the dog, so to speak?

Shouldn't the members be giving the party a direction? Could it be that the reason why there is no clear direction is that the Democratic voters are too divided to provide one?

That's the distinct impression I've gotten at least since 2000. The party seems divided between those who just want to get rid of the current administration and win the house and the senate at any cost, damnit, and those that still think issues matter and should play a part in the process beyond lip service.

While I want to evict the right wing/corporate/fanatical fascist bunch as much as any thinking person, I don't intend to throw the baby (progressive issues and concerns) out with the bathwater. I'm not going to "shift," "move to the so-called center," "hold my nose," or any of those other lose/lose propositions to do so. I'd like to see my party be courageous enough to stand on liberal/progressive principals BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. The truth will out, given half a chance.

MoveOn, as an organization who has decided to follow the suicidal path to moving on over to the right the party seems to have chosen since the 2000 selection, and yes, before that as well, lost credibility with me some time back.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Ditto PDA

We do what we do, but MoveOn does what they do, and they usually do it following the lead of the Dem leadership. Unfortunately, the leadership hasn't established a coherent or cohesive policy regarding Iraq.

[meganmonkey]

9. And the whole 'move to the center'

or 'don't shake things up' mentality is absurd, IMO. Why focus on the 5-10% of "swing voters" who seem to waffle between the parties when practically half the population doesn't vote because neither party represents them...shouldn't we go after those people - not only because there are more of them, but because it's the right thing to do in a democracy - represent the people?

Makes you wonder if, as Will says, they really are listening more to the party leadership than the people, and in doing so they are working against the people and perpetuating the current deMOCKracy we have? It seems the 2 parties benefit from the disenfranchisement-by-irrelevancy system going on.

The Dems and their so-called 'grassroots' organizations are pushing the independents away - the very independents who voted for Kerry because of the true grassroots efforts of every Dem activists in 2004. The very independents who are throwing in the towel on the 2-party bullshit again.

Frustrating.

[LWolf]

14. You nailed that one.

"deMOCKracy," lol.

Who benefits when so many people are disenfranchised, and not represented by any party? TPTB at the top of both organizations.

The sad thing is that so many independents, and 3rd party members, would be willing to vote for a true progressive Democrat. If the party supported a candidate who stood for the people, rather than the franchise, they would garner willing campaigners and voters, to the enrichment of the party.

Instead, the party disenfranchises its own, relegating those on the fringes of "mainstream" to irrelevancy.

[leftchick]

7. Grassroots?

It is my understanding that they PORTRAY themselves to be "grassroots" - at least that's what they tell me when they want money.

So NOW they're an arm of the Democratic Party?

If so, and they're going to play "which way does the wind blow" then why don't they just get Hillary to sign the e-mails and get it over with.

Or maybe have Biden talk for 45 minutes and not say anything.

Or perhaps try and show a shred of honesty and admit that they take their marching orders from the little gnomes with the DLC blazers on.

"Grassroots" my ass.

[mom cat]

10. Thanks for the info.

[Armstead]

11. I'll sorta defend them on this

MoveOn isn't perfect, but I think they're getting a partially bum rap here.

I actually agree with the premise that we need a positive agenda. I think beyond the war it's important to offer peopel a real choice between two visions of America, and a concrete counterpoint to the right-wing corporate agenda that's been shoved down our throats since the 1970's.

As for Iraq, don't forget that MoveOn was one of the leaders of the charge to try and prevent that war. It's not like they echoed the Democratic Centrist views on that.

I would guess that they are trying to push politics beyond the notion that our side can win just by opposing the Iraq War. The idea of counting on Bush's failure to ensure victory is a dangerous one....And, face it, the opponents of the war have won, in the sense that a majority of the public nopw agrees that it was wrong.It's now up to the larger public to push the politicians to do something about it.

I'm not negating the importance of the war. But MoveOn is correct in trying to make the political field larger, and really aim at issues that affect all Americans.

Those ten finalist positions are the keys to what we need to offer, and to draw sharp contrasts -- "A living wage for all; Global leadership through diplomacy: Verifiable accurate elections; High quality education for all; Balanced federal budget; Health care for all, Publicly funded elections; Preserve our natural resources; Energy independence: clean, renewable sources; Restored constitutional rights".

It's true that they are not specific enough but those -- and the finalist three -- do at least offer a container to counter the platitudes of the right wing and corporate oligarchs. They are also rather revolutionary in these times. That's a necessary step.

[meganmonkey]

12. Then my biggest concern is

why pretend to do surveys and member polls to determine their issues if they aren't going to follow up with what the members want? Because that's what this article is implying, and that, to me, is kinda fraudulent :shrug:

[Armstead]

13. Possibly -- I'm not a MoveOn insider so I don't know....

If they did rig the ballots, then that would be wrong. But I don't see anything wrong with them presenting sugessted lists of ideas, to keep the discussions managable.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on an article in Counterepunch.

Trying to keep an organization based on the grassroots is not an easy job. I'm just saying we should give them some slack, unless they truly do betray the principles they supposedly stand for.

[DancingBear]

17. Here are a couple of issues to think about

1) For being a supposed grassroots organization, they NEVER repsond to questions, construtive criticism, or anything of that sort. I have in all seriousness) been asking them for months why they do not bring Iraq to the fore.

2) The "house parties" (and if you have never been to one, you might think about attending) are more often than not fait accompli as to what is to be "decided." I will say that a "progressive" voice at one of these, or (heaven forbid) an angry voice will just not be listened to. I will qualify this by saying this has only been my experience, but I have come to the conclusion that their course of action (signing petitions and form letters) is about the safest thing they can do, and about as useful as the proverbial tits on a bull.

3) They were almost useless when it came to Bush-Kerry (I should know, I was a Precinct Captain for them in Ohio, which may very well damn me as well), but I chalk that up to literally flying blind, as many of the leaders were college students who, while motivated to the nth degreee, really didn't have the political knowledge to get things done, and were bringing knives to a gun fight.

Just as an aside, do you have a problem with Counterpunch? It's co-run (I believe) by Alexander Cockburn (frequent contributor to The Nation) and I've always found it to be a good source. Have you found differently? If so, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[Armstead]

19. I don;t have anything against Counterpunch except....

they do have a tendency to be dogmatic and into ideological purism at times. Nothing wrong with that, and it's an excellent investigatibe mag/site. But it does cause me to take some of what they say with a few grains of salt.

I have been to some Move On events, but none where these types of decisions decisions were made.

As I noted above MoveOn is not perfect, but they have done some good things, and anything that can help to pull together thge left side of the spectrum is a good thing IMO. They've also been there when few others were.

[God Almighty]

15. Moveon does nothing for getting most Democrats into office

They are grandstanding for their organization and have let down a lot of liberal Democratic candidates - such as Steve Young in OC.

[Coexist]

16. at the house party that I hosted - those three items

WERE in our top ten.

8 of our Top Ten were represented in the final vote. I have to think that maybe the results were accurate. I certainly feel so.