How to Strategize in Times of Crisis?

Sunday, January 18, 6pm

In his Washington Memo, 2 Years After Campaign Began, a Different World, David E. Sanger reflects on the major changes that have happened since Obama declared his candidacy and wonders: 'So while the world has changed, Mr. Obama has changed with it. But how much?'

He quotes G. John Ikenberry, a leading scholar of international relations, who co-authored a study of the national security agenda facing the next president:

He’s facing the classic problem of having to handle a number of crises before he’s really got time to set out a long-term architecture.

Madeleine Albright expressed a related view, when she recently compared Obama's task to

redesigning the airplane while you’re flying it.

Indeed, the argument is frequently made that politics basically always takes place under time pressure, all the more under crisis conditions, and there certainly is no shortage of crises facing Obama: From Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to the global economic crisis and the twin problems of peak oil and climate change.

Hence the crucial question: How do you develop a coherent strategy, much less a grand strategy, if the environment in which you want to implement it constantly changes and the future is fundamentally uncertain and unpredictable? In these circumstances, instead of making predictions, the best you can do is think systematically about the basic issues and trends and their strategic implications.

Still, politics in general and crisis management in particular, tend to be rather reactive - simply because political systems are forced to respond rapidly (just take the current economic crisis as an example), and always under conditions of less than perfect information concerning the situation, preferences, likelihood of outcomes, etc. But reacting to events and developments is in many ways the exact oppposite of acting strategically, which aims precisely at shaping the environment in which actors operate.

Given the many differences between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, it will be very interesting to see how much their strategies will differ in response to the challenges they face. Of course, the very challenges administrations choose to face are the result of their hopefully more rather than less strategic assessments. For example, while Bush ignored climate disruption, Obama has vowed to make it a priority.

And yet, given how much politics is about having to react to developments that are oftentimes largely out of control (including the unintended and unforeseeable consequences of deliberate policies), and within tight political and material constraints, it is understandable why many practitioners and theorists question the usefulness grand strategy under these conditions.

Analogously to Gandhi's famous response to a journalist's question of what he thought of Western civilization, some might be tempted to respond to the same question about grand strategy identically: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

Politicians such as long-term German chancellor Helmut Kohl, who was in power for 16 years, gave 'muddling through' ('Durchwursteln,' in German) a good name, and it certainly served him well, if not necessarily his country - an assessment which of course depends on your point of view.

Obama can only serve for eight years. If he should - and many hope he will - this will at least in part be due to his political strategy. The big question is, whom that political strategy will serve better, him or his country? After all, Bush also served for eight years ...

Given continued functional differentiation, can these two very different, and in some ways opposed political logics still be reconciled? And can a political strategy, can any political strategy, bridge the gap between one political strategy that focuses on gaining, maintaining, and expanding political power, and another, while also wanting to build power, does so in order to 'do good,' or at least to reduce harm?

On the eve of Martin Luther King Day, and two days before the inauguration of the first African American president, it seems appropriate to recall King's quote, which serves as the motto of this blog:

Power is the ability to achieve a purpose. Whether or not it is good or bad depends upon the purpose.

Yes, we have come a long way; and yes, we still have a long way to go. Where will, where can Obama lead us, and with what kind of strategy? What is the purpose of his power?

"New and Not Improved"

This is the appropriate title of today's editorial in the New York Times, criticizing Obama for his reversal on several major issues since winning the primary:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Since winning the primary in early June, Obama has indeed repositioned himself on major issues in significant ways: Fundraising; public-finance; interest groups, for now in the form of faith-based initiatives; and illegal wiretapping. The Times also expresses its dismay with his position on gun control and the death penalty.

While it is typical for Democrats to tack right after the primary to resposition themselves to win the general election, the debate about Obama's reversal is more heated than usual since he portrayed himself as a new type to politician who would transcend the old ways.

But his shift in positions so far suggests that he might actually be what some were worried about he was all along: A centrist camouflaged as a transformational politician, and not the other way around!

Also see yesterday's post on this. This is a debate that will go on for a long time as people try to figure out who Obama "really" is. There can be no doubt that he is new; but is he really different? Or perhaps better: How different can a candidate for the US Presidency in 2008 really be?

Perhaps he could allow himself the 'luxury' of portraying himself as being 'above' if not 'beyond' politics-as-usual only during the primary; or perhaps he even had to in order to win it. Be that as it may, it is more than ironic for such a shrewd politician as Obama to pretend to be post-political. To be political means, among many other things, to take a position. One can be as little post-political as one can be post-positional, as it were.

Whether you like it or not, and whether you know it or not, you are always already positioned, simply by virtue of being in the world. One cannot not have a position. We all occupy a location in space and time, and more importantly in society and culture, including the economy, politics, law, education, what have you. More often than not, it seems that where we stand depends on where we sit ... - but that is, I was going to say, a different debate, until it occured to me that it actually is quite relevant.

In order to win the presidency, there is a certain number of things you have to do. But by doing all these things, chances are you come to conform almost totally with the system. Perhaps the system has come to function in such a way that it only allows those to run successfully who don't fundamentally challenge and threaten it, as commentators such as Alexander Cockburn have suggested. It should come as no surprise that candidates such as Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich never make it very far. But if the contemporary US political system operates in such a way that it almost automatically and necessarily co-opts the candidates, how can it be changed? How can you lead if you have to follow the demands of the system most of the time? How can you change the system if even trying to do so is precisely what will make you loose?

In any case, if you don't assume and defend your positions, especially in politics, others will do it for you - and that's of course the last thing you want to happen, especially in the midst of a campaign. So whenever you communicate, make decisions, take measures, allocate resources, vote, etc., you position yourself, for everyone to see in bright daylight. And now we can see how Obama is repositioning himself. Do actions still speak louder than words? And what is the relationship between rhetoric and action, between slogans and decisions, between words and deeds? Does it still make sense to talk about 'integrity' in this context?

Are Progressives Lacking Courage or Power?

This past weekend at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association in New York City, Canadian author and journalist Naomi Klein, who is close to the so-called 'anti-globalization movement,' gave a speech entitled 'From Think Tanks to Battle Tanks,' which appeared to be based on her new book which will be published this September, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

The theme of the ASA conference was 'Is Another World Possible?' It explicitly refers to the motto of the World Social Forum, 'Another world is possible.' Klein criticized the timidity of the conference's title. It seems like she would like to add several exclamation marks to that slogan and emphatically emphasize the 'is.' The motto of the first US Social Forum in Atlanta at the end of June was 'Another world is possible. Another US is necessary.' So how can progressives make the necessary possible, which is, after all - at least according to some - what politics as the art of the possible, is all about?

For Klein, the problem seems to be essentially a moral and perhaps a psychological one, and her solutions appears to be similar. Essentially, she wants to encourage and build the confidence of progressives by reminding them of their history. The main problem for progressives is not a lack of ideas or money, but a lack of confidence, courage, and passion. If only progressives had more of it, they could 'scare' elites into progressive action. This discouragement stems from the conviction that progressive ideas have already been tried and turned out not to work. However, the opposite is true: They did work and were popular. Understanding that progressives 'never lost the battle of ideas' but instead were crushed is the best way of building the confidence necessary to succeed.

The real problem, I want to argue today, is confidence, our confidence, the confidence of people who gather at events like this under the banner of building another world, a kinder more sustainable world. I think we lack the strength of our convictions, the guts to back up our ideas with enough muscle to scare our elites. We are missing movement power. That’s what we’re missing. “The best lacked all convictions,” Yeats wrote, “while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Think about it. Do you want to tackle climate change as much as Dick Cheney wants Kazakhstan’s oil? Do you? Do you want universal healthcare as much as Paris Hilton wants to be the next new face of Estee Lauder? If not, why not? What is wrong with us? Where is our passionate intensity?

While she mentions 'movement power' once, she does not further explore this. This is unfortunate since according to many, the key problem for progressives is not a lack of confidence and courage, but a lack of resources, infrastructure, and power, and the lack of a strategy that would allow progressives to more effectively put these pieces together and build power in the long term. In short, the main problem for progressives is not moral but intellectual, material, and organizational. For power is concentrated in organizations, which bundle resources, and are the most effective social actors since they are most capable of collective decisions and collective action.

Mark Schmitt on How People Can Organize and Aggregate Power

Yesterday, Mark Schmitt commented at TPMCafe on two other posts, one by Nathan Newman on campaign finance reform, and another by Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party on fusion voting (The Working Families Party is also included in our report on contributions to progressive strategy, "Finding Strategy").

He is not just agreeing with both of them, but uses his commentary to argue that they represent an important and new way of

thinking about the political process, and steps toward reform, that puts people back in -- people, and the possibilities of organized power.

His emphasis on how to enhance the capacity of people to organize and aggregate power is very relevant for our project. The question of how to aggregate power is of particular interest for our project, because most strategies rarely address it. How can progressives accumulate power over time?

I have included the below excerpts to illustrate his approach, and have annotated them from the perspective of our project:

Money, organization, collective debate and action is not bad for democracy but precisely what makes it work:

It's the fundamental hostility to politics that reformers of democracy are prone to. They tend to hold an implicit view of democracy as a process of isolated rational decision-making that must be shielded from bad influences -- money, organized groups, passion.

But those are the very things that make democracy work: participation, and the ability of people to exercise power collectively, to debate and act together. If you see the question in those terms, then things that enhance people's ability to organize and aggregate their power -- whether it is the Wisconsin Right to Life committee or ACORN or a union or the Sierra Club or a political party or moveon.org -- become the solution, not the problem.

Schmitt hopes that progressives will manage to build broader coalitions to move beyond "single-issue politics." But he cautions that such coalitions are fragile, whereas a party is "the ultimate coalition," with the ballot line being a key asset. Fusion voting appears to be an effective way of using that asset:

There will be issue groups, of course, on the right and left, trying desperately to use money and/or membership to be heard, and sometimes being effective. And there will be attempts at broader coalitions, like moveon.org and USAction, and I think (hope) the trend is toward broader progressive coalitions and away from single-issue politics. That's long overdue. But such coalitions, especially at the state level, are fragile, they demand continued energy and there are always as many forces pulling people away as pulling them together. But over time it becomes apparent that the ultimate coalition is a political party. A party is not a letterhead alliance; it's a substantive ongoing operation with a significant asset: a line on the ballot. With fusion, it can share that line or use it for its own purposes. The party can exist both within and outside of the other major parties, as the Working Families Party does in New York. It is a way of organizing people's political passion and power that, for a change, does not depend completely on money.

At the end, he makes a very important suggestion:

The first thing we should ask about any reform is, does it help or hurt the ability of citizens to organize themselves in a political context?

So the challenge for progressive strategy is to generate reforms that not only achieve their substantive goals, but do so in a way that enhances peoples' collective capacity for political organization. Strategy in this sense is as much about process as it is about objectives. This indeed appears to be crucial when it comes to aggregating power in the long run.

A Vision without Power?

A Response to Sally Kohn's Presentation of the Movement Vision Project
by Ben Healey, Network Organizer, Public Policy Institute


The core pieces of the vision Sally articulated – active (or radically participatory) democracy, an inclusive economy, and international justice – strike me as very smart and truly do capture a broad spectrum of what progressive activists are trying to accomplish, each of us within – and sadly rarely across – our individual issue "silos." The language she employs is powerful and motivating, the values are clear, and overall there's not much within those pieces with which I'd disagree.

Nonetheless, I do take issue with what I see as one significant gap in what Sally presented: there needs to be a much more central place for a theory of power in this work. And by that I mean two separate things: 1) power as the thematic and philosophical linkage between the individual pieces of the shared progressive vision we are working to describe; and 2) power as a strategic goal that cannot be decoupled from the articulation of that vision.


1. Power as a thematic and philosophical link

What underlays – and fundamentally connects – the three big pieces Sally laid out last week is a radically different vision of power: who holds it, how it can be wielded, and why. Deeper democracy, in all aspects of civil society and in our relationship to the state; greater popular (or community) control over the economy; and a neo-cosmopolitan, rather than a nationalist or imperialist, approach to international relations – all of these ideas spring from a left understanding of who can and who should hold power, based on a serious (but underdeveloped, in my opinion) philosophy of personhood. Therefore, as a movement that must be (and at least rhetorically contends that it is) concerned with power, we should not be trying to represent a Kantian, individually-oriented view of autonomy as the end goal. Rather, let us imagine together a community-oriented, heteronomous view that considers all of us to be both mutually interdependent and also fundamentally valuable, as individuals, acting within the various spheres of our lives – where we, as individuals, should have real decision-making power within structures of democratic collaboration.

I use as an example Charles Knight's comments that evening: "We could get 50 Israelis and Palestinians – all committed to peace as an end goal – in a room to discuss what the internationally 'just' solution to that conflict would be, and we still probably wouldn't come out with an answer." He's right. And so I offer up this point: while the solution to the conflict matters immensely, what matters even more – in terms of our shared vision, at least – is that one side doesn't have the power to blow the other up, and thereby dictate the terms of negotiations.

Thus, I believe that we should share this common goal on the left and articulate it whenever we discuss our vision: that we work to transform relations of power so that human beings, working together in democratic structures, determine together how best we can create healthy communities; productive, meaningful and sustainable economies; and an improved quality of life for ever-increasing numbers of people.


2. Power as a strategic goal

Dale Bryan mentioned that Sally left out "conflict" in her analysis. His comment sparked in me this complaint, which is that Sally's analysis seems to operationalize the "progressive vision" only in so far as it is about how we tell our story, how we frame it, and how we seek to authentically actualize it in our organizations' work.

Maybe I'm missing something – but that just ain't enough, and I don't think I'm saying anything that we all don't already know. So why not say it? Our strategy has to be about gaining governing power, so that we can implement our vision. Not about opposition to power, but instead figuring out how our side is going to run the country.

In all facets of our lives, people do not choose to act unless they believe that they have some power (to influence, persuade, decide, etc.), and a movement won't grow unless those who share our goals (or, just as importantly, those who might come to share our goals if we present our vision in a compelling fashion and tell our values-based stories better) recognize that we are actively contesting for power – and that they will have more of it when we win! Sally's strategic trifecta doesn't seem to grapple with this reality, and I'm curious as to why.

Vision = Movement = Change

This is the summary of the presentation and discussion of the Movement Vision Project of the Center for Community Change with Sally Kohn, director of the Movement Vision Project. It was organized by the Progressive Strategy Studies Project and took place in Boston on February 21, 2007. The summary is based on Sally's handout and the notes that I took during the presentation and discussion.

The progressive movement is clear what it's against - but is it clear what the movement is for? Two years ago, the Movement Vision Project began interviewing social change leaders across the United States about their positive, big picture, long-term vision for the future. How should the economy be structured? What would a just foreign policy look like? Is it possible to end racism and what would it look like if we did? The project interviewed over 165 leaders, including national leaders as well as state and local leaders, from all different backgrounds, working on a range of issues. Informed and shaped by these conversations, the Movement Vision Project has developed a provocative proposal for the progressive community about our vision for the future and how we get from here to there.

We at the Progressive Strategy Studies Project believe that vision and values are central aspects of the 'objectives' component of a progressive strategy. They are a necessary starting place for strategic thought and planning. We are very pleased to host the presentation and findings of the Movement Vision Project in Boston. For more on the components of progressive strategy see our report, Finding Strategy, published November 2006.

Summary of the Presentation

Introduction

Sally started out by noting that pessimism and pragmatism had seeped so deeply into progressives that they typically adopt centrist positions and don't even dare anymore to articulate a vision, a set of bold ideas for the future, which should be a priority. Too many progressives, after fighting primarily defensive battles for so long, have become so used to what they are against, that they have difficulties articulating what they are for.

The results of the 165 interviews with progressive leaders and activists in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, and on the national level, do not represent a consensus, but naturally include gaps and contradictions.

A. The Progressive Vision for the Future

I. Active Democracy

Guiding principle: Replacing exclusive hierarchy with inclusive participation

Background
The goal is to transform social hierarchies based on privilege and power into pluralistic, participatory structures by addressing issues such as structural racism, structural sexism, etc.

1. Political equality
Create a level playing field for political participation

2. Quality public education
We already know that it works well, if it's well funded. Teach all children to cooperate rather than to compete, to become learners rather than earners.

3. Democratic media
Must become much more diverse in ownership and content. Gave the example of the website Oh My News in South Korea.


II. Inclusive Economy

Guiding principle: Replacing the worship of wealth with the value of community

Background
Wealth continues to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and progressives are complicit in this. On the other side, a large majority of Americans want more community in their lives. The progressive approach should be to not only raise the floor for the poor, but also to lower the ceiling for the rich. In addition, we should be able to work less so as to have more time to cultivate relationships and community.

1. New ownership structures
Progressives should move towards a stakeholder society. Land trusts are just one example.

2. Sustainability
Environmental considerations have to become an integral part of economic decision-making. Progressives should try to keep economies as local as possible.

3. Redistribution


III. International Justice

Guiding principle: Replacing nationalism and imperialism with equality worldwide

Background
According to Kohn, nationalism and imperialism best describe US foreign policy. It is a policy of unilateral domination and exploitation. It needs to be replaced by multilateral cooperation.

1. Global citizenship
Progressives need to develop more comprehensive forms of citizenship. Citizenship in the European Union (EU) is a new form of regional citizenship. Already one third of Europeans between the age of 21 and 35 think of themselves first as Europeans, and only secondly as members of a national community. The UN has the potential to further global democracy, but would need to be significantly reformed for this, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

2. Economic balance
Progressives need to work for greater economic balance between countries. Global Exchange, co-founded by Medea Benjamin is one example; the World Social Forum is another.

3. Peace
Progressives need to replace unilateral domination with multilateral cooperation.


B. Strategies to get us from Here to There

Kohn proposes a three-step approach:
1. Analysis of the problem
2. Vision of the solution
3. Strategy to get from here to there


I. Discuss it

Progressives need to talk more about their bold and even radical vision and ideas for the future, in order to refine and better articulate it.

II. Frame it

Progressives need to articulate and understand their vision in terms of shared values of community and interdependence across every issue. Progressives need to emphasize shared values over selfish values. You can also build a movement if it is rooted in common values.

Our values influence how we process information, which in turn shapes our attitudes and behavior.

Progressives need to move from hyperindividualism, emphasizing individual rights and competition in a "dog-eat-dog" world to greater cooperation on the basis of equality and community rights. Education should foster cooperation, not competition.

To put this into practice, the formation of trans-issue coalitions is key.


III. Spread it

Progressives need to move from hypocrisy to authenticity and actuality. Progressives need to bring their vision to life, through authenticity in their organizations, and actuality on the ground.

Kohn concluded her presentation by giving a number of examples to demonstrate that these are not just lofty ideas, but that progressives actually have made progress in realizing them. Progress is possible only if progressives believe in themselves and believe in what is possible.


Summary of the Discussion

In the discussion of the progressive vision, participants emphasized the following:

1. There was genuine excitement about hearing such a radical vision; something that happens all too rarely these days.

2. There was unanimous agreement on the need to have more time to cultivate relationships and community in order to enhance the quality of life, instead of accumulating an ever greater quantity of things.

3. Several participants wanted to hear more about the conflicts involved. People will have to continue to struggle, all the more since their will be massive resistance against the implementation of such a progressive agenda.


In the discussion of progressive strategy, participants emphasized the following:

1. Several people wondered how people from different backgrounds would relate differently to these progressive proposals, and wanted to explore this further.

2. Some people emphasized the need to engage people if progressives want to persuade them of their vision; and they did not feel engaged by the presentation. People have to be able to identify with a vision and to know what they can do about it.

3. Some participants pointed out that the presentation did not sufficiently address how to address the power and resources necessary to realize this vision. Moreover, the presentation did not adequately reflect how fragmented the progressive community is.

Since many participants expressed their interest in continuing the conversation, we thought that posting a summary on our blog and inviting people to comment on it would be a good idea.

If you have a longer comment, it might be preferable to send that to me at wbrauner@comw.org so that I can post it as a separate post on the blog, to keep a better overview of contributions.

On the Primacy of Fundraising

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), last December, after only two weeks, dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President (Rumor has it that one main factor was Obama getting ready to enter the race, attracting so much attention and money).

In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered on February 12, 2007, Bayh spoke very frankly about how much time he had to spend on fundraising. A "non-celebrity candidate" (probably referring to "rock star politicians" Clinton and Obama), he said, without exaggerating, has to spend 80-90% of his/her time raising money.

He went on to describe a typical day: After getting up, his fundraising breakfast is followed by fundraising calls; then there is a fundraising lunch followed by - you guessed right! - more fundraising calls; and then, there is a fundraising dinner and/or reception, followed by yet more fundraising calls to the West coast, depending on where in the country he is.

All this of course is nothing new; but to hear someone who experienced this himself talk about it in such a calm and matter-of-fact way, is still sobering.

It is also well known that any candidate who wants to have a chance in 08, has to raise at least $100 million in 2007 alone. The year having 52 weeks, this translates to roughly two million dollars per week, almost $300,000 per day (assuming, realistically, a seven-day fundraising week), and about $30,000 per hour (assuming, admittedly, a rather short 10-hour fundraising day)! Welcome to contemporary US politics!

While small donations, especially raised online, are increasingly important, the bulk of the money still comes from relative few major donors and donor networks. What most donors are most interested in is whether their candidate can win, which is largely determined by how well he/she does in the polls, which in turn is largely determined by how much money they have to buy airtime to gain name recognition, get their message across, and build an appealing public persona. So there clearly is a circular relationship between fundraising capability and probability of success. Everything else, especially their platform, becomes a function of this absolute priority of having to raise $30,000 per hour.

Since 1976, it has always been the candidate who had raised the most money, who eventually was nominated by his party to run. This means that it's not the people who decide who is running, but a handful of donors. This will be the case all the more this time around because with several big states moving up their primaries, this will be the longest and costliest campaign in history. By this time next year, we will know who is running.

This also means that this pattern is all the more likely to hold in 2007. As of now, by most estimates, Hillary Clinton, together with her husband, and their whole infrastructure, will be able to raise the most. My big concern, like that of many, is that she will be nominated as the Democratic candidate, and then might not win - truly a worst-case scenario.

What does all this mean for progressive grand strategy? It can only mean one thing: It's the money, stupid! The logic is impeccable: You want to win; in order to win, you have to raise the most money; in order to raise the most money, you have to get the biggest donors on your side; in order to get the biggest donors on your side, you have to promise them the kinds of policies that they prefer seeing enacted once you win; etc., etc.

How can progressives even begin to break this vicious cycle, which systemically deforms the US political system?

Already 66 years ago, the liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice, Louis Brandeis, had a sobering answer:

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." (Labor Journal, October 17, 1941, p. 18)

Unfortunately, this is precisely what has been happening in this country in the last 30 years, and especially since 2001: A greater and greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, who use this wealth to literally buy political power and influence. Money is power, and money talks louder than civil society; at least for now.