How to Suppress Discussions of Campaign Mismanagement

Tired of discussions about whether progressive campaigns are "working" or not? Worn out from the protests of would-be progressive activists who feel like their commitment has been disrespected and soured? Exhausted by the effort of having to respond to each new argument carefully and with consideration for what could be done better?

We can help!

We'll teach you how to suppress discussion of campaign mismanagement in eight easy steps. Soon suppressing discussion will be so easy, you'll never again have to actually think about the way your campaigns are run!

Especially designed for your online needs!

Maybe you're experienced in this sort of thing through face-to-face arguments. (You probably know, then, how easy it is to deal with such a situation: question your opponent's commitment to the cause, say "I just don't think you're a good fit for this campaign," and get them outta there!) Maybe you're new to the online world, and baffled by this chaotic new medium. This guide is just for you! Whether you're a baby troll or an experienced flame warrior, we can teach the best way to make your online environment a safe, friendly, hierarchically-stable place. Soon the World Wide Web will be your home away from home — and like your home, the people who run your campaigns will be totally unaccountable for their actions!

It's easy!

Just follow the steps below in order.

Introduction
Today we will share a few simple techniques that you can use to suppress the discussion of mismanagement in progressive organizations. (This pamphlet will be specific to the recent PIRG/Fund/GCI discussions, but it can be easily extrapolated to other organizations!) As you read, keep in mind that your goal is not to learn or to educate, not to listen or be listened to, and certainly not to increase your understanding of difficult issues. Your goal is to make discussions of management, campaign work and organizing tactics so difficult and unrewarding that not only your opponent but any witnesses to the discussion argument will never want to hear about management or campaigns or organizing tactics in public again.

Ready?
Let's get started!

1. Control what your audience sees.
Successful suppression starts with the choices you make before you even begin to write. Don't allow your opponent to set the terms of the discussion. Make sure your response does not actually reference the discussion that you are trying to suppress. The last thing you want is for readers to judge your opponent's words for themselves.

So: don't link or refer in detail to your opponent's argument. Many of your readers won't even realize they haven't read the original post, just your response to it. Even if there is already a link in the discussion, so many people never bother to click on links that you're reasonably safe as long as you don't quote your opponent's words in context. Remember: you're not responsible for backing up what you say--other people are.

2. Blanket dismissal.
Whatever the audience has just read, you can easily question its validity. Remember, this is an open forum. Your opinion cancels out your opponent's opinion, no matter what your opponent has said.

3. Attack the person, not the argument.
Personal attacks end the discussion before it even starts! If you can accuse your opponent of "paranoia," "spoiled brattiness," "naivete," "whining," "histrionics," "axe-grinding," "ulterior motives," working as undercover Republican agents, or "taking things too personally," you don't need to bother addressing the content of their remarks. This will save time and energy that you can then devote to happier pursuits like TAKING BACK CONGRESS.

*Hot Tip!* - Question your opponent's credibility by asking how many grassroots campaign organizations they've founded and run. If zero, challenge them to start their own organization and prove that it's better. Plan to resume the discussion then.

4. Argue against straw men
A "straw man argument" occurs when you misrepresent your opponent's position so that it's easier to refute.

Remember: Responding to what your opponent says should always be a last resort. To do so requires the extra effort of reading someone else's words and considering the implications of unfamiliar or uncomfortable thoughts. The discussion will go much faster if you just assume your opponent has said what you want to argue about and respond to that instead.

Here are some straw men you can use almost any time someone criticizes management in a progressive campaign.

1. "Why are you asking for a raise? You should be happy to get paid at all!"
2. "It's hard work! Sounds like it just wasn't for you. Time to move on!"
3. "According to you, campaigns shouldn't have to be managed at all and we should all just do whatever we want!"
4. "We shouldn't spend our time trying to destroy organizations that are working to help us. Why not be part of the solution?"
5. "Canvassing works!"
6. "You think every progressive organization is awful."

5. Deflect attention away from the specific criticism.
Remember, your goal is to avoid having to focus on what your opponent has actually said. We've compiled a list of helpful phrases that deflect attention away from specific discussion of campaign mismanagement. You can use them to respond to almost any discussion of mismanagement, regardless of the content.

We recommend you mix and match responses, but be careful not to use all the responses at once, or else your opponent may notice that you are contradicting yourself.

1. "Why are you complaining about PIRG/Fund/GCI instead of Republicans/Bush/corporations/the oil companies/the media/genocide/climate change?"
2. "I was in [PIRG/Fund/GCI] and my experience was fine."
3. "My friend is [in PIRG/Fund/GCI] and his/her experience was fine."
4. “PIRG/Fund/GCI is the biggest organization in the progressive movement!”
5. “PIRG/Fund/GCI is really not such a big deal!”
6. "Haven't you ever been on a campaign?"
7. "It's just a campaign!"

6. The mismanaged campaign, however bad, is better than nothing.

Sometimes, even when you do your best to suppress, your opponent is so persistent that you might be forced to discuss the mismanagement of progressive campaigns. Don't worry: it's not your fault and soon it won't be your problem.

In most of these cases, you can rely on a few handy responses that define mismanagement in a way that allows you to stop thinking about it, prove that mismanagement is not really so bad, or otherwise misdirect your opponent's attention.

1. "Can't this wait until after the [upcoming] election?"
2. "Focusing so much on mismanagement just shows that you're not dedicated to the cause."
3. "Everyone makes mistakes!"
4. "The people running this campaign are devoting their lives to it, they are heroes."
5. "You'd rather have campaigns with no management structures?"
6. "Everyone knows management is bad, so why waste time talking about it in public?"
7. "I'm sure that the management is working to solve the problem. Nothing more to see here."
8. "This is all distracting us from the hard work that needs to be done!"
9. "Your criticism is going to give comfort and ammunition to the Republicans!"

*Hot Tip!* Because your opponent has probably never run a campaign before, he/she needs to prove that the current campaign is being mismanaged. But simply showing a widespread pattern of mismanagement doesn't prove that the campaign is really being mismanaged. Demand that your opponent confirm how many votes got out/how many congressmen changed their votes/how many citizens were inspired to become politically active/how many careers were launched by the campaign. If they can’t prove these numbers, then it’s still safe to assume that everything worked!

7. Prove your opponent has misunderstood how campaigns are really run.

In the worst-case scenario, you may need to respond to specific points in your opponent's argument. In these cases, use anecdotes and assertions about how campaigns should run. If done right, this tactic combines the best of all tactics mentioned above.

Warning: Not all of the responses below will be applicable to all situations. Make sure that you only use responses appropriate for the current argument.

1. "Every campaign needs to have its workers cold-calling for eight hours a day. That's what community organizing is! Hard work!"

2. "It could be just a coincidence that you all had bad experiences."

3. "It's not mismanagement, people make mistakes!"

If your opponent objects to this, see 3a. Any attempt to question the means or the ends of the campaign should be countered firmly with "Go build your own campaign!"

4. "It's hard work and it doesn't look pretty!"

Because people on the bottom level don't have experience running campaigns, or at least have never built a campaign organization, they have no qualifications to be assessing whether a campaign is working. Lower level campaign workers are too naive or even stupid to know what's working or what's not--and they probably don't have what it takes to win. Middle- or upper- level managers who have left the campaign are similarly disqualified from being able to make assessments--they simply don't get it any more, since relinquised their credibility when they quit like whiny quitting quitters. Campaigns are run to win, and that's what the people running campaigns do: they win. Without them, everyone else is a loser.

5. "It's not mismanagement, there was [external factor] that messed things up!"

You do not need to consider the campaign management's reaction to the external factor. The factor absolves them of responsibility to act in any particular way.

6. "It's not mismanagement, it's 'tough love' management!"

Campaigns are like survival of the fittest. Everyone who leaves a campaign was weak and the campaign is stronger for carrying on without them.

7. "It's not mismanagement—in fact, the campaign was a total success!"

If pressed, say that you've seen "the internal numbers" yourself. Your opponent can't prove you haven't.

8. "It's not mismanagement, look how the managers themselves are so committed!"

If the campaign was mismanaged into the ground, you can point out that the managers themselves were working 20 hour days, seven days a week, for years or even decades. That kind of commitment doesn't make them extreme fundamentalists...it makes them extremely, fundamentally right!

8. Moderator!
***Caution: Only to be used in dire circumstances!***
In the undesirable circumstances that Steps One through Seven have failed, you're probably facing a situation in which you have mulitple opponents, and your opponents are organized. What to do? Well, the short answer is "silence" -- speak no, hear no, see no, right? But this *is* the internet, and other people will hear, see, and possibly even speak. To prevent the disgruntlement from spreading, this is a step of last resort, and may not even be possible.

Do you know the people in charge of the administration of the Web Site on which these criticisms are posted? Is one or more of those people really not all that crazy about democratic processes--at least not when it comes down to his or her processes? If so, great! He or she probably won't like all this organized hullabaloo either. Call in a favor: get the moderator to bump your opponents' posts out of the visible space in which others can see them.

Review
1. Control what your audience sees.
2. Blanket Dismissal
3. Attack the person, not the argument.
4. Argue against straw men.
5. Deflect attention away from the specific criticism.
6. The mismanaged campaign is better than nothing.
7. Prove your opponent has misunderstood how campaigns are really run.
8. Go to the new boss!

That's it! With these eight easy steps, you can make any discussion of campaign mismanagement so frustrating that your opponent will never bring up the subject again.

[This instructional packet is inspired by the equally-useful How to Suppress Discussions of Racism. It is brought to you as a collaborative effort by the folks of CGCI--come join our list!]