organizing

Bill Maher's recent comment that "Twitter didn't save Iran. Iran saved Twitter" has sparked some debate about the use of social media and its relevance to important issues and events.

Personally, I don't think Maher's comment hits the mark. Twitter wasn't a service that needed saving, nor is it alone responsible for helping promote Iranian protests. It would be more accurate to say that Iran helped the general public realize Twitter's potential, and that Twitter is one component of a new media toolset that is enabling activists in oppressive regimes to communicate where state-run media dominates.

The situation in Iran shows the world that the communications game has changed. It isn't Twitter or Facebook specifically, but the general principle of online and mobile communication.

Mashable created a social media timeline of the Iran Election crisis. It shows how a wide range of online tools have played a role in getting the stories of Iranian protesters to the outside world. These tools range from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to Flickr and even Wikipedia.

The essence of the matter is that previously if a country expelled all foreign journalists and had a state-run media, the world would have no way of knowing what was happening within its borders. The emergence of online and mobile technology has turned every person with a camera, cell phone, or computer into an amateur journalist; on location and with unfiltered access journalists have never truly enjoyed.

While it may be a while before these new media tools can change the game everywhere (Africa is still largely left behind, and they could use it the most), the Iran election protests have shown the world what online organizers have known for some time now: social media has fundamentally advanced the way we communicate and coordinate.

Clay Pope is the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, and has been severely impacted by the lack of organizing both online and off in his state. Great to have him guest post to motivate folks! --Sarah

Want to make a difference? What are you doing about it? Really, what are you doing?

I think it is great all that is going on in with young voters twittering, blogging and all; but at the end of the day, how can we continue to push that into offline actions?

It is easy to get caught up in the world of the web, cell phones and virtual interaction; too often we let ourselves get caught up in the conversation among our friends, talking in a virtual echo chamber where we really don’t have a true discussion, we simply get our preconceived notions reinforced by like-minded people with an occasional interruption by someone who holds a directly opposed opinion and only enters the conversation to upset those of us on the other side.

Bottom line, are you putting your beliefs in practice? If so how? Are you volunteering in your community? Are your friends? Are you engaging in conversations with people in your neighborhood, your community, your town and seeing what the views of the people in the non-virtual world are? Do you work in a Church, Temple, Mosque or Synagogue? Are you volunteering in a city campaign this Spring? Have you ever thought about running for office?

Have you talked to your member of congress? Yeah, I know you e-mailed about that issue last week, but have you actually gone and seen your member of congress when they are back home in their district? Have you visited your state capitol? Have you watched your city council or county commissioners do their work? Have you raised questions with these folks directly?

I know it is a lot more fun to get in a chat debate about the wisdom of the AIG bailout with someone in LA, but is that really going to influence the opinion of the person who will actually vote on this issue in your name? And, if you are focusing on issues like the debate on the national economy to the exclusion of all else, you are not paying attention to the sales tax increase in your local community to pay for the bridge being built by the Mayors son-in-law. Do you know what your state legislature is doing (or not doing) for the environment if you are only following the debate on global climate change in Washington D.C.? Who will you have more influence on, the state representative who will be personally knocking on your door next election year or the Congressman who will campaign through mail pieces and TV ads?

The electronic universe is great. We can talk to each other and reach out into a world wider than our parents and grandparents could have ever imagined, but as state legislatures are finalizing their work this Spring spend some time talking in a personal way to your elected official. As city elections approach don't forget to vote and take your friends to the polls.

We can quickly and easily make a huge difference on policies that have a faster and more direct impact on our lives. As they say – all politics is local.

Frances Moore Lappe wrote a piece on Huffington Post amid the inauguration festivities this week asking whether "service" is really the best word/tool to use when intensifying national civic engagement efforts.

My own hesitation about the service frame is simple: If I serve, someone else is being served. If I serve, I act, but the other -- the beneficiary -- does not. Making ourselves servants, we might also ignore our own legitimate needs as well as be tempted to imagine we already know what others' needs are. In any case "service" seems to create two classes: the givers and the receivers.

And that's a big problem. Doesn't this dichotomy help blind us to the reality of the human condition that Martin Luther King, Jr. called us to see? In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he wrote, "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."

Lappe goes on to point out that serving is about more than the "helper's high" that 95 percent of volunteers reported feeling in a recent study, as a result of helping others. Creating King's "network of mutuality" leads to developing a "liberation of talents," that, once relieved from oppression, can bolster our society.

So, instead of "serving" others, which continues the oppression of the receivers' skills, Lappe argues that we should be sure that a partnership exists that uses the talents of all stakeholders -- group problem-solving instead of service.

Lappe cites Obama in this post, given his example as a community organizer with an affiliate of Gamaleil, a large Chicago-based advocacy network, supporting activist leaders of low-income communities. What's intriguing to me is that I saw Obama's experience with this approach come into play when he was in Erie last April.

A gentleman asked Obama a question in the town hall portion of the event in which he laid out the problems he was having in his life and essentially asked, "What are you going to do for me?" Instead of providing a litany of policy prescriptions, Obama first asserted that the appropriate first question was, "What are you going to do for yourself?" and then he went on to speak about responsibility, much like he did in his inaugural address.

In a world with rapidly growing technology that breeds an efficiency-first approach, Lappe's argument and Obama's philosophy reminds us that even though fixing another's problem might make us feel good, it doesn't do anything long-term for society. We should be doing all that we can to collaborate, pool resources, skills, and gifts, and tackle our challenges together.

Looking to get involved in progressive youth organizing?

I got a lot of emails from folks looking for job candidates, pimping conferences, and scouring or interns. It seemed to make sense for me to put out a call and compile as much as I could into on place. So here's a fairly comprehensive listing of all the jobs, internships, and conferences that can help you do it.

I hope folks find this valuable. Also, I'm pretty appalled that there is no central repository for stuff like this. There are places to go, sure - NOI's job boards, Idealist.org, Democratic GAIN, etc. but all of those seem somewhat incomplete and are hard to navigate. Building a real "youth movement job board" isn't at all a bad idea and it could probably be done super cheap if it was all done wiki style.

Job listings in the extended entry. Please spread widely.

Zack Exley has a must-read piece posted to Open Left about how the campaigns - specifically the Clinton campaign - is grooming the next generation of field organizers.

Seriously, this is mandatory reading.

It took me a while to pick up on this whole Facebook business, but when I finally did... WOO what a blast! While it lasted anyway.

See, not so long after I logged on for the first time, Facebook shut down my account.
But I don't hold it against them. I wasn't playing by their rules -- it's fair, and it's square.
So I got some explaining to do.

Now, I was virtually dragged into Facebook--and when I finally joined it, it wasn't just to post silly pictures and update my status. I joined to organize.

I was organizing a group of people who have been institutionally exploited for years, but who have not previously had any viable way to speak up for themselves. This group is comprised of young, progressive activists--fellow veterans of the Fund for Public Interest Research, Public Interest Research Groups, and Grassroots Campaigns Incorporated.

SOME BACKGROUND!

The Fund, PIRGs, and GCI are interconnected organizations that run fundraising canvasses for a huge chunk of the progressive world. Veterans of these organizations have taken to the internet before to call for change to their notorious labor conditions, and there were a number of groups on Facebook that had already been started in protest of their policies. But these were just scattered outbursts of frutration leading nowhere. The organizers needed organizing.

If I may say so myself, I was good at organizing my fellow veterans. I have many years of experience as an "organizer" for the Fund and GCI; I'd worked in every town, I'd worked on every campaign. I'd trained hundreds of people and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, lied to my staff about how our campaigns worked, fired people for any old reason just to get rid of them, and taught young idealists to think about grassroots activism in terms of cold, inhuman numbers. And when the situations arose, I busted up the early formations of what could have become a...shhh...union. Eventually it all reached a certain point when I stopped to think about it all and decided that no, this isn't how a progressive movement is built, and yes, I was finally pissed off.

Yes, I announced on my new Facebook profile, I am still pissed off. There's a lot to be pissed off about.

See, over the course of the second half of 2006, I'd watched with budding interest as some of these GCI and Fund veterans turned to the blogosphere to expose these practices and explain how they are harmful to the progressive movement. I'd watched with even more interest as they were dismissed, derided, and demeaned by defenders of the Fund and GCI. But the defenders always lost the argument. Many of them even ended up agreeing with the protesters in the end. I did as well. The point was very much made: these organizations, the ones I'd sacrificed years of my life for, were hurting the progressive grassroots. Not because they were staffed by bad people; but because they were being led by a handful of prideful, fearful, haughty leaders who retain power under the dangerous condition of being simultaneously out of touch and wholly unaccountable.

Almost every single person I knew, inside the organization and out, had been personally burned by this crisis of leadership - whether they were willing to admit to it or not. Now that it was all being blogged about in public, people openly wondered whether anything could ever be done to fix the system.

Eventually, the blog posts died down. My friends in PIRG and GCI pretended they didn't exist any more. If the posts were ever brought up, they were quickly dismissed as the delusional rantings of a rabid few losers in pajamas.

And yet, the unrest continued to brew. People kept reading the blog posts and spreading the word among themselves. This year, a group of canvassers from the Fund filed a class action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid wages. A group from GCI sought to do the same thing. They needed to spread the word and recruit others.

And so I was selected to go to the place where the people were: Facebook.

So today I want to riff a little on numbers 35-39 of my youth vote theses:

35. Culture is a progressive's natural advantage.  We should use it.
36. 95% of the people in these constituencies won't ever care about politics as much as you do
    
37. Asking them to participate in hard core political actions (canvassing, phone banking, etc.) as their first introduction to politics is doomed to failure and low conversion rates.
    
38. Politics must be made relevant to the life of a person if you want them to participate and make civic participation a habit.
    
39. This means there must be a ladder of participation providing substantive involvement for people at multiple levels of engagement.

Culture is a progressive's natural advantage.  From Hollywood to Madison Avenue, the creative class leans heavily democratic.  Most often, that translates into money for campaigns, or a pretty face on the trail.  Rarely does it mean employing the natural talents of that segment of the base.  We see it when campaigns hire political consultants to manufacture stale, uninspiring ads while guys like Bill Hillsman get locked out.  This is as true on campus and among young professionals as it is among the "adults." Yet if you look at the work of someone like Michael Moore, or watch An Inconvenient Truth, creative use of media (old and new) can be one of our biggest assets.  Considering their media consumption habits and the growth of new outlets for that creative energy online, this is doubly true when reaching out to young people.

I don't mean to traffic in stereotypes - there are certainly exceptions to what I'm about to say - but in general, political involvement on campus and among young professionals typically draws membership from a specific type of person: (ex)poli-sci majors and aspiring politicians/staffers/policy wonks.  The volunteer and leadership opportunities in youth activism are similarly limited: donate money, canvass, phone bank.  

I fully understand that democratic youth groups are under enormous pressure to justify their existence to the party and to political operatives.  That means they need to quantify their work and produce tangible results: voters registered and GOTV'd; doors knocked and phone calls made.  Volunteer efforts are generally focused like a laser on producing the highest numbers possible in those categories.  But that leaves a lot of people who (understandably) don't want to participate in those activities out of the Party.

It doesn't have to be that way, and I worry that by not reaching out and involving these folks while they are young, we're making more work for ourselves (and shooting ourselves in the foot creatively) further down the line.  These lost volunteers have a lot to offer, and Democratic youth groups, and the progressive movement generally, need to make an effort to expand the scope of what it means to volunteer to include the types of activities and talents that these other people who are left out can offer.

As I work on my book, I'm writing about the many new organizations run by and for Millennials that have sprung up over the course of the last four years. Usually that means that I'm writing about how and why those organizations got started.

For instance, Drinking Liberally got its start because Justin Krebs and Matt O'Neil wanted to integrate their social lives with political discussion. They knew lots of folks in creative fields and in politics, and thought that the two crowds could learn a lot from each other through informal discussion over some pints. No organization existed to make those social ties, so they created one themselves. Music for America began because myself, Dan Droller and Franz Hartl saw first hand how traditional political action - protest - failed to stop the march to war. We were all avid music fans and concert goers and we all thought that Rock the Vote was a failure in mobilizing those communities. So we set out to mobilize them ourselves on behalf of Howard Dean, the credible anti-war candidate.

Campus Progress, Young People For, Oregon Bus Project, National Hip Hop Political Convention, The League of Young Voters, The Roosevelt Institution, DMI Scholars, Forward Montana, New Era Colorado, Punk Voter . . . the list of new organizations that were either started by Millennials or created for and primarly run by Millennials could go on, and each would have a similar story.

In each instance, I've focused on the how and why each organization started - where the funding came from, what hole the org filled in the larger progressive movement, etc. But there's another why. One that goes deeper than the strategic failures of existing organizations or the gaps in progressive youth infrastructure. Why has all of this social entrepreneurialism emerged from the minds and actions of young people?