
In traditional organizing, advocates work to empower one group of people prevail over another group of people. You might be trying to help labor wrest concessions from management; or you might be trying to fire up the base so a blue candidate can defeat the red team. Inevitably, the organizing game is conceived in adversarial, us-against-them terms. Once you understand the realities of power, it is argued, simple persuasion doesn’t work.
I can think of instances in which entrenched power will only stand aside in the face of a still greater power. The civil rights movement in Mississippi was like that. On the other hand, without changed hearts and minds across white America, the civil rights movement could not have succeeded.
Mark Osler is about changing hearts and minds; he’s not into forcing people to accept your agenda whether they want to or not. There is much to be said for this approach. Progressives lose public policy fights when the public is swayed by fear-based arguments. Unless we address the fear, we can’t shift the debate in our direction. When you live between Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas, you understand this instinctively.
We must empower the powerless, but must this involve pissing off the powerful? And if the powerful are really pissed off, how long will our victory persist?
These questions lie at the heart of professor Osler’s “The Five Cardinal Sins of Progressive Activists”. Highly recommended AGB
By Mark Osler
I’m a sinner. At one time or another, in the course of my own advocacy (on the death penalty and other issues), I have committed each of the five sins I am about to describe. In fact, so have most who work in advocacy, whether they are progressive, conservative, or located somewhere else along the political spectrum.
We live in a world that too often values conflict over solutions, and loud voices over wise ones. Avoiding the mistakes described below may not only make you more effective, but help make our public discourse more civil and productive.
1) Speaking mostly to those who agree with you
Over and over, I have seen the same pattern: an advocacy group gets some funding, and then uses the money to host a conference which gathers together large numbers of people who agree with the position of that advocacy group. It’s rewarding, of course, and reaffirming, but what a waste of resources! If the point of advocacy is to change minds, it is almost always a mistake to direct our arguments to those who already agree with us. If you aren’t talking to people who either disagree with you or haven’t made up their mind, you aren’t really doing advocacy work. (more…)