Note: we’re protesting (tokes and togs)

Posted on June 8, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Sometimes you have to remind people that what you’re doing is against the rules.

Yesterday advocates for legal access to medical marijuana rallied in downtown Los Angeles to protest a threatened crackdown on marijuana dispensaries.  People with a prescription for marijuana can get it legally in California–but not in the United States.  Threatened federal enforcement of drug laws brought patients into the streets, some self-medicating.

The smoking might not have generated attention absent the placards and chants.  Demonstrators needed to alert authorities–and the rest of us–that they were in fact protesting, not just smoking.

There’s a similar story from New York’s prestigious public exam school, Stuyvesant High.  Principal Stanley Teitel reminded students that Stuyvesant would enforce a new dress code as summer in the city approached:

Guidelines for appropriate dress include the following:
• Sayings and illustrations on clothing should be in good taste.
• Shoulders, undergarments, midriffs and lower backs should
not be exposed.
• The length of shorts, dresses and skirts should extend below
the fingertips with the arms straight at your side.

While Principal Teitel wanted to prevent students from being unduly distracted from their studies, students were, unsurprisingly, unsympathetic.  (See Emma Lichtenstein’s reporting in the student paper.)  Some thought that Stuyvesant students really didn’t dress inappropriately anyway, while others thought the dress code targeted girls–because boys were more easily distracted.

So students organized “Slutty Wednesdays” as an effort to redress the dress code.  Students wore specifically inappropriate clothing.  (Apparently, some had to change into banned clothing at school, preferring other attire when walking out the door or riding the subway.)

Mostly, students donned shorts and tank tops.  Administrators didn’t respond, although one teacher noted that he often saw students dressed more provocatively on non-protest days.  Scholarly and serious, Stuyvesant’s students proved more adept at organizing than in finding attire that really irritated anyone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

After Wisconsin and the electoral trap

Posted on June 7, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s victory in Tuesday’s recall election isn’t a happy outcome for the activists who have spent nearly a year and a half going after him.  It’s particularly troubling for labor organizers, who will face subsequent challenges with substantially less resources.  The story tells us a lot about the temptations and dangers of the electoral route for social movement activists.  As is often the case, organizers pursuing institutional politics wound up with much less than what they imagined possible.

Governor Walker went after organized labor aggressively upon taking office, and organized labor fought back hard, dramatically, and with imaginative flair.  Activists demonstrated, occupied the capital building, and provided cover for a supportive minority of state senators to stage a quorum filibuster by leaving the state.  Before Occupy, they fired the first notable mobilization by the left since the hey day of the Tea Party.  (Although Occupy Wall Street cited the Egyptians in Tahrir Square as inspiration, the Madison mobilization made for a far better comparison.)

Governor Walker was extraordinarily unpopular and his opponents in Wisconsin were intensely committed.  But after the senators returned and the governor’s agenda moved through the political process, activists had to figure out what to do next.

Wisconsin politics offered some alternatives, none of them easy.  What seemed most attractive–because it might work and reverse the conservative tide, was the recall route.  Walker’s opponents knew they had to wait to go after the governor (who had yet to serve a year in office), but targeted all of the state senators legally vulnerable to recall.  Wisconsin Republicans staged their own recall campaigns against the Democratic senators who had left the state.  All of the challenged Democrats survived the 2011 recall, and Democrats defeated 2 of the 4 Republican state senators they challenged.  Ah, but they needed one more to gain control of the state senate.

Although this was a substantial flexing of left and labor muscle, it was also very costly.  It wasn’t just the money, but also the focus and the effort, all channeled into an uphill struggle firmly rooted in electoral politics.  They prepared to recall Governor Walker as soon as they were legally allowed to do so.  In mid-January of this year, organizers delivered more than one million signatures on petitions to recall Governor Walker.  One million signatures in Wisconsin is a truly impressive total, about twice what they needed to make the recall happen, and about as many signatures as votes against Scott Walker in 2010.

Wisconsin’s recall law requires not a mandate on the incumbent, but a choice–much like a regular election.  Democrats nominated Tom Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor whom Governor Walker had defeated in 2010.

The electoral process requires compromises and unpleasant choices.  Mayor Barrett was unpopular with organized labor, and had used the new, uh, flexibility, in dealing with organized labor to balance Milwaukee’s budget.  The University of Wisconsin Teaching Assistants union, which had been energetic in organizing the demonstrations in Madison, refused to endorse Barrett–or even his primary opponent, Kathleen Falk, because neither would make a strong enough commitment to undo Wisconsin’s new anti-union strictures.  And after getting the nomination, Barrett chose not to emphasize the labor issues altogether.  Surely he figured that the unions were angry enough about Governor Walker’s administration to vote against him anyway, and that it made more sense to focus on Wisconsin voters who were less stalwart in their support for labor.  This is the normal hedging that characterizes general elections in America.

The anti-Walker campaigns were largely responsible for drawing national attention to organized Republican efforts to defund organized labor, and the recall election drew national attention–and money.  Partly because of the rules, and partly because of the resources, Governor Walker raised and spent much (much much) more money than the anti-Walker forces.  Walker was able to start raising money earlier, and spent nearly $30 million, more than seven times what the Barrett forces were able to raise.

Familiar conservative funders, including the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party Express, spent a lot of money on keeping Walker in office.  Unions spent money too, but they were trounced.  Essentially, the Walker opponents chose to play in an arena where they were at a disadvantage.  Still, it might have been the best choice they had.

Both sides worked hard at mobilizing support, and Tom Barrett won more than 100,000 votes than he had in 2010, but Scott Walker got more than 200,000 additional votes, widening his electoral margin.  Although the recall effort claimed one additional Republican state senator, the legislature may not meet until after the Fall elections.

And the people in power get to make at least some of the rules for the next election.  Redistricted legislative districts are likely to disadvantage Democrats.  More than that, organized labor has suffered severe losses in the wake of Wisconsin’s new laws on collective bargaining.  One element of the reform banned the automatic collection of union dues.  The Wall Street Journal reported that AFSCME and the NEA lost fully one-half to two-thirds of their members, who were no longer compelled to contribute to their unions.  Minimally, this means even less labor money as a counterbalance to corporate contributions in the next election.

The rules of mainstream politics structure the decisions that activists make.  Recall, just doing away with the Walker regime, seemed the most comprehensive and attractive alternative for Wisconsinites, but it was filled with risk.  The campaign provided a thinner message than the protests in the streets of Madison and the results represented a dramatic defeat.  The intense commitment of a minority, even a large minority, isn’t enough to win in a general election.

The pressing question now is to figure out what to do next.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

University of California or University in California

Posted on June 3, 2012 by David S. Meyer

The future of the University of California is even more daunting for organizers than the troubled present.

The problem: Students, faculty, and the citizens of California have interests in both access to the University system and maintaining some degree of excellence in the system.  It’s extremely hard to focus on both issues simultaneously, and it’s hard to know who to work with and who to trust.

Over the past five years, the University has been fighting losing battles on both fronts.  As the state of California has consistently cut funding, the University has cut spending and programs while raising tuition.  Most of the ten campuses are working hard to increase the percentage of out-of-state and international students, who pay much higher tuition.  It’s a viable revenue strategy, but it’s understandable why California taxpayers are incensed that their University has less room for the young people of California.

Meanwhile, ongoing cuts to programs are affecting the quality of education UC students receive.  Saturday’s New York Times reports that students face fewer classes, larger classes, tougher admissions standards, less attention, higher tuition, and even a less demanding education.  According to the Times, every student may still have access to an academic adviser, but each adviser is now responsible for 500 students (rather than 300 in years past).  Is that access?  Many professors facing larger classes with fewer teaching assistants now require less writing, shorter and fewer papers.  (When I came to UCI, about a dozen years ago, each of my TAs was typically responsible for 80-90 students; 120-140 is now more typical.  If this doesn’t seem like much of a difference to you, try to imagine reading and commenting on 40 ten page papers.)  Students are unlikely to complain about such reforms, but they’re certainly not being helped.

The University’s management, seeing state support as unreliable, is explicitly moving toward a model where the campuses can function with less of it.  A few states have maintained excellent universities with declining support from their state.  The University of Michigan, for example, gets only about 17 percent of its budget from the state of Michigan.  It charges nearly $40,000 a year in tuition from out of state students, and those higher paying students make up about 40 percent of the undergraduates.

The Michigan students who gain admission can get a great education even as the state continues to cut support, but fewer Michiganders can get in.  I’d guess that fewer of the graduates are going to be eager to stay in the state after graduation.  The University will be responsive to the people who help it keep operating.  State legislators and tax payers who are getting less deference and responsiveness from the University are even less likely to want to contribute to it.  Yipes!

This is one possible future for UC campuses, and it’s not an attractive one.  The Council of UC Faculty Associations is ringing the alarm bells about adopting a Michigan model:

UC President Mark Yudof and Governor Jerry Brown are working out a deal behind closed doors that will loosen the most important ties between the university and the state…

Although they will both praise the deal by saying that it “stabilizes” funding while granting greater “flexibility,” its essence is that each will let the other off the hook: UC will mute complaints that it does not get enough money from the state and the state will stop holding UC accountable for the money it still gets.

The likely result is that UC will dump a larger number of eligible Californians onto the CSU and Community Colleges, which will in turn pass on their overflow to for-profit schools, where students take on inordinate amounts of debt with a very high likelihood of default.

* UC will no longer promise the state that it will admit a fixed number of California students in return for the enrollment funding that the state provides. For next year, and presumably from now on, UC will be allowed to use taxpayer funding as it pleases, without being accountable for the number of in-state students it educates (http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/highered/higher-ed-020812.pdf, pg. 19). This means that UC is likely to enroll fewer California students, and to replace them with out-of-state and international students who pay more. The likely result is that UC will be able make more on average from its enrollments, that the state is likely to pay less, and that middle-income Californians will get less access to UC…

UC will be able to say that how much it spends to educate Californians and how many of them it enrolls is its own business, and not the state’s. If UC thinks its traditional mission is a money-loser, it can now use its continuing, but declining, revenues from the state to diversify into fields where it sees a brighter future. It will not be expected to draw on its other, more entrepreneurial, activities to subsidize public higher education, but instead will be allowed to use state educational funds to subsidize these other activities — and especially the capital projects necessary to get them off the ground…

An alternative model is to focus on delivering whatever we can with limited funds, continuing to increase class sizes, cut salaries, maintenance, and offerings.  It is definitely possible to spend less, but only by providing less.  Look: the California State University system delivers less and charges less.  Of course, CSU is also facing severe cuts.  Many states have decided to forgo subsidizing a top-flight research university system.

That’s another possible future.  Alas, I fear that focusing only on stopping tuition hikes leads that way.  Californians who want a top flight research university education can apply to institutions that deliver it–and find a way to pay.

Probably like most faculty, I’d prefer to return to the system laid out in the Master Plan more than fifty years ago–high investment and minimal tuition–and to pay taxes for it.

Lots of Californians will disagree with me, which is fine, but they should articulate the model they prefer for public higher education.  There are plenty of real examples out there, but please don’t lean on the imaginary ones, in which spending can always be cut without compromising what’s bought.  We’ll never get more than what we pay for.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Same sex marriage and tipping points–new evidence

Posted on May 24, 2012 by David S. Meyer

General Colin Powell, who has served in high positions in Republican administrations, has announced that he supports same sex marriage.

Following President Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage, Gen. Powell’s declaration is additional evidence that the president’s statement represented a “tipping point,” which signals even faster shifts in public opinion on the issue.

Recent polls show that support for same sex marriage is stronger among African Americans than the population at large.  But that’s not all:

Even as organized Catholicism in the United States has announced support for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex unions, a slight majority of people who identify as Catholics supports gay marriage, just a bit more than the general population.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Social movement society conference

Posted on May 24, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I’m happy to be at the University of Ottawa, participating in a workshop considering “the social movement society.”

The idea is from a book Sid Tarrow and I edited nearly fifteen years ago.  We argued that social movements were becoming a routine part of politics in rich democratic countries.  We said:

People (and authorities) were more tolerant of protest, particularly less disruptive protest.

A wider range of constituencies would use protest to represent their claims.

The infrastructure supporting social movements had become increasingly professionalized–and dependent upon financial resources.

I expect to get a clearer sense of all that we left out or got wrong.  It’s going to be great.

Posted in academic | Tagged | 2 Comments

Occupy NATO (in Chicago)

Posted on May 22, 2012 by David S. Meyer

When the leaders of the Western world assemble for a NATO summit meeting, the world press follows and activists see an opportunity to project their messages to a broader audience.  Chicago was the site not only for the meeting, but also days of protest on a wide range of issues, most of the actions under the banner of Occupy.

Some of the grievances are clearly tied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, members of which have maintained a war in Afghanistan for more than a decade.  Activists have lots of reasons for opposing the war, and most were on display during the days of demonstrations.  The peace movement in America and the campaign against this war are long standing, well-established, and frustrated.  After all, it’s been more than ten years.  What’s different this time is the Occupy label.

When Occupy emerged last fall, foreign policy was low on most lists of what it was about.  At the top of the long agendas that emerged from General Assembly meetings was economic and political inequality.  Linking these concerns to the war isn’t hard to do, and activists were mostly pretty good about doing it.  Here’s a bit from the Chicago Tribune’s coverage:

“I think we’re seeing a lot of different concerns,” said Lillian Moats, 65, of Downers Grove earlier as she looked out over a diverse sea of people including self-described anarchists dressed in black and people made up as clowns.

“I think that there’s just a great resonance with the Occupy movement, because if we weren’t spending such outrageous amounts on war, we have money for human needs,” Moats said. “It seems like our country’s priorities are upside down.”

The antiwar part of the protests included a march on Boeing’s headquarters in downtown, followed by a march to President Obama’s headquarters.  Here again the traditional peace movement concerns merged with Occupy’s focus on economic inequality (from Progress Illinois):

In addition to the products the company makes, Occupy members voiced their concerns about tax subsidies the corporation received from the state and federal government. They also shamed the company for laying off thousands of workers.

“Despite making a profit of $9.7 billion between 2008 and 2010, Boeing laid off 14,862 workers, and it increased executive pay 31 percent,” said an Occupier through a megaphone.

But it wasn’t only peace activists who seized upon the opportunity for exposure provided by the NATO summit.  Local Occupy activists concerned with affordable housing were out in force earlier in the week, focusing far less on the military alliance than stopping Cook County Sherriff Tom Dart, foreclosures, and evictions.

Amidst all the issues, activists made proposals beyond saying “no” (stopping war, evictions, and exploitation).  Members of National Nurses United marched and demanded a financial transactions tax.  (Adbusters’ Kalle Lasn, who issued the first call to Occupy Wall Street, has made the same proposal.)  The nurses said that such a “Robin Hood” tax would raise money that could be used to prevent huge cuts to human services, and make a stab at economic inequality in the process.

The point is that Occupy has become an almost all-purpose umbrella for a wide range of issues and activists, and the NATO summit was a chance to trot out many of them out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Movements, Presidential rhetoric, and tipping points

Posted on May 21, 2012 by David S. Meyer

The NAACP’s decision to support marriage equality explicitly is early evidence that President Obama’s announcement about same sex marriage was a tipping point in American politics and opinion.

As we discussed, President Obama’s disclosure, in a soft interview, about how his position on gay marriage had “evolved,” was limited.  He didn’t make a major policy address, nor did he propose any legislation to advance the cause.  Nonetheless, his new public position was a signal and encouragement for others to go further.

The NAACP surfed the attention President Obama had generated to announce a position that had been in development for several years.  At a meeting of its Board of Directors, the longstanding civil rights organization announced:

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

W.E.B. Du Bois

Of course, the NAACP viewed the issue through the lens of its history and constitutional orientation, even as it addressed issues founder W.E.B. Du Bois couldn’t imagine surfacing in American politics.  Organizations that survive evolve to address new issues.  And note the way the NAACP’s board invoked the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, ratified after the Civil War with the rights of former slaves in mind.  Constitutional interpretation evolves too.

Like President Obama’s statement, the NAACP’s position is a signal to other organizations and publics about the importance of addressing marriage equality.  If Obama and the NAACP are reading the political tea leaves correctly, political organizations that don’t endorse marriage equality (at least on one half of the political spectrum) will soon seem out of touch.  The Democratic Party will surely have a marriage equality plank in its platform this year.  As each new group flips on this issue, the pressure and incentives for others to do so increases.

This is what “tipping point” means, as Philip Cohen has been ranting about over at Family Inequality.

We’re always so immersed in the battle of the moment that it’s hard to see how much our world has changed, more slowly than activists wanted–but far more dramatically than most imagined possible.  The complexion of our president, the number of women who serve as Justices on the Supreme Court, the broad support for Medicare, the availability of curbside recycling, the social sanctions associated with bullying or cigarette smoking all reflect social and political changes only a few visionaries could have imagined 50 years ago.

And progress on any issue forces us to see just how much more there is to be done.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Petitions, virtual and otherwise

Posted on May 18, 2012 by David S. Meyer

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees “the people” the right to assembly and “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”  Do petitions matter?  How?

Signing a piece of paper is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to make your opinion known.  The obvious goal is to accumulate a large number of names, and then deliver them in some dramatic fashion to an authority who will then be so impressed by the numbers and sincerity that he changes policy.  The delivery can create a powerful image, but generally authorities can avoid responding if they don’t want to.  At right is a photo of boxes of petitions requesting clemency for Troy Davis, sentenced to death in 1991 for killing a police officer.  Amnesty International, which opposes the death penalty in general, mobilized on Davis’s behalf, noting that the prosecution’s case was based on testimony of nine witnesses, seven of

250,000 signatures protesting Apple’s overseas employment practices delivered to Grand Central Station store

whom had signed affidavits recanting their testimonies.  In addition to filing legal appeals, organizers delivered 600,000 signatures to the Georgia Board of Prisons and Paroles on September 15, 2011 (20 years after the conviction).  Georgia executed Davis less than a week later.

But the petition campaign was still a way to raise larger issues about race and justice in the American legal system, and certainly about the death penalty more broadly.  In the old civics textbook style of politics, volunteers take the petitions door to door, talking to their neighbors, educating the public, and building organizations.

And sometimes, the petition process is built into the law.  In many states, including California, initiative petitions can place a referendum on the ballot.  In Wisconsin, a successful petition campaign triggered the upcoming recall election for Governor Scott Walker.  Activists gathered more than a million signatures, far more than legally necessary, and delivered them by the truckload.  Gathering signatures was one important stage in building support and infrastructure for the election.

Surely some petition campaigns can still work that way, but:

Professional signature collectors are more reliable than volunteers.  Paid by the signature, they work longer hours than volunteers, camped in front of shopping centers or government buildings.  To diversify their efforts, they often carry many petitions, so there is something of interest for anyone who walks by.  (I’ve been approached by a petitioner who asked me if I wanted to raise or lower taxes in California.  He had a petition that would help me either way.)  The expression was there, but certainly not the education or organization building.  In California, at least, initiative petitions and referenda are routes increasingly taken by well-funded interests, whose connection to “the people” may be tenuous.

New social media have made signing petitions even easier–and more detached from actual organization building.  Since last year, Change.org has provided anyone with interest the opportunity to create a petition campaign quickly.  Each month the site adds one million users and starts 15,000 campaigns.  (Have you been contacted by one or another?  Every day?)  Signing a petition online takes even less effort than doing it in ink.  Someone told me she signs 20-30 at a clip when she feels like civic engagement.  Obviously, it’s not so much engagement.

Almost all of the petitions wallow in the e-ther without doing much of anything, but the organization claims some successes:

Ultimately, the measure of our community’s success is our collective impact — our ability to identify problems, mobilize people, and create real change.

From the first day we launched, Change.org members have won hundreds of campaigns in their neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Each victory doesn’t just overcome an isolated case of inequality or injustice — it allows people to view important issues through a tangible, often personal lens, inspiring them to take further action and helping to build the deep commitment, connections, and momentum necessary to make ever-larger change possible.

Bank of America Cancels Plans for $5 Debit Card Fee

Verizon Drops Online Payment Fee Within 24 Hours After Immediate Online Backlash

Dallas VA Medical Center Removes Homophobic Nurse for Harassing Lesbian Marine Veteran

Universal Pictures Lets the Lorax Speak for the Trees!

Ecuador Ministry of Health Investigates and Closes Ex- Gay Torture Clinics

Of course, Change.org, which supports 44 staffers and generated an estimated $5 million in revenues last year (non-profits pay a fee for each campaign they start), has an interest in demonstrating (and claiming) influence.

And then there’s Trayvon Martin.  Weeks after Martin was shot to death, with no charges or arrests forthcoming, Martin’s parents and supporters took to the e-petition.  It went viral and global quickly, generating 2.2 million signatures, national attention, and the appointment of a special prosecutor.  Sometimes, the petition can be at the core of a successful organizing campaign.

But here’s another question:  After signing a petition, do you feel inspired to do more?  or satisfied for discharging your duty?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Tea Party versus the Republican Party

Posted on May 17, 2012 by David S. Meyer

The Tea Party and the Republican Party have been forced into a marriage of inconvenience.  Republican candidates need Tea Party support to win many contested elections.  And Tea Partiers, to their dismay, know that the Republican Party, which has disappointed them again and again (take immigration and the deficit, for starters) is still their best bet for getting what they want in terms of policy.

A few purists will probably stay home or vote for a third party in November, rather than pull the lever for Mitt Romney, but I’m confident that most will see the Republican candidate, whatever his deficiencies, as infinitely preferable to Barack Obama.  That’s not so complicated.

Nominating Republican candidates for office, however, is another matter.

The nomination process (caucus or primaries) is a good place for movements to do some damage.  There’s much lower participation than in a final election, and much less visibility.  A smaller group of committed people really can effect influence.  This year, Tea Partiers went after three Republican senators: Olympia Snowe (Maine), Orrin Hatch (Utah), and Dick Lugar (Indiana).  Senator Snowe elected not to run for reelection, severely compromising the prospects of Republicans retaining the seat–and making it more difficult for them to gain control of the Senate.  But Senator Snowe sometimes voted with Democrats.

Senators Hatch and Lugar have always been reliable conservatives.  They are, however, proud of being professional politicians, determined to govern.  This is anathema to Tea Party purists.  Both targets tacked right in response to Tea Party challengers.  It looks like Hatch will survive–and win reelection, but Tea Party enthusiast Richard Mourdock handily defeated Senator Lugar, and probably made the Indiana Senate race newly competitive.  Serving as State Treasurer, Mourdock is no political novice, like, say, Christine O’Donnell; he’s been running for office, often successfully, for more than two decades.  He has, however, clearly articulated a disdain for working with people who disagree with him, claiming to value principle over pragmatism.  He was endorsed by Tea Party favorites, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Jim DeMint.  This all sounds great on the campaign trail, but makes governance extremely difficult, ultimately disappointing supporters.

Whether or not the Mourdock for Lugar exchange is a good deal for the Tea Party or the Republican Party is very much an open question.

Senator Jim DeMint (Republican, South Carolina), who has raised and spent millions of dollars on conservative challengers to Republican incumbents, has explicitly argued that having more conservatives in the Senate is far more important than winning Republican control of the body.  (Here, he responds to Christine O’Donnell’s loss in the Delaware senate race.)  He has publicly welcomed new conservatives to the Senate, urging them not to compromise nor to harbor personal ambitions for titles or institutional influence.  Yet he has also used his money and his new allies to improve his own prospects for a leadership position in the Senate.

But professional politicians, including Republican regulars, want to win elections so they can govern.  The battle within the Republican Party, between those who value purity and those who want to govern, is well underway, and likely to get nastier if Republicans make large gains in the next election.

Strict ideological litmus tests sometimes produce candidates who can’t win a general election.  Senator Snowe couldn’t pass such a test, nor could Republican Senators Scott Brown (Massachusetts) or Susan Collins (Maine).  And if Lugar and Hatch don’t pass muster, soon there will be others.

A Republican Party completely captured by the Tea Partiers will be a smaller party.

Ultimately, the resolution will depend upon the voters.  Most Americans quickly grow impatient with movements and politicians who take pride in not delivering.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Presidents, opinion, and activism

Posted on May 16, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Last week President Obama announced that his evolution on gay marriage had culminated in his decision to support it.  This statement was a milestone for the gay and lesbian rights movement and for America, especially as it came when same sex marriage is prohibited in most of the United States.

Pundits–and indeed most Americans–thought that Obama’s shift was politically motivated.  After all, public opinion on same sex marriage has shifted dramatically in the past few years.  More Americans support same sex marriage than oppose it now (see Pew’s poll series), and the difference is dramatic among younger people–who might vote.  Should we be disturbed if Obama, like most politicians, weighed the political payoffs of the policies he advocates?  That’s supposed to happen in a democracy; it’s called accountability.  And one way movements exercise influence is by giving politicians good political reasons for embracing the policies activists advocate.

President Obama’s statement will surely galvanize opponents of same sex marriage, heightening the threat they see and provoking more anti-marriage activism.  It gives more visibility to the issue, and provides a ready focus for mobilization–Obama.

Endorsing gay marriage is also likely to increase the enthusiasm and participation (including financial contributions) of some of the people who already support President Obama.  It’s not clear whether President Obama will lose the support of anyone who otherwise would have voted for him.

It is likely to promote more acceptance for gay marriage.  The President, even one you don’t like, is a powerful symbol in America.  It’s not a trivial endorsement.  And when we vote for someone who disagrees with us on some issues (as we always do), we make a decision that the antagonistic position just isn’t significant enough to throw out everything else.  Often, we find ways to justify the dissonant position, sometimes by rethinking our positions.

It’s also worth thinking about what President Obama didn’t do.  Immediately after North Carolina amended its constitution at the ballot box (61 percent!) to prohibit same sex marriage (AND civil unions), Obama offered an alternative view in an informal interview on television, but proposed no legislation.  Marriage remains the concern of state governments.  Obama did not issue an Executive Order prohibiting government contractors from discriminating against gay people, nor did he suggest that the IRS might offer to treat gay couples the same way it treats couples who are legally married.  The words aren’t unimportant, but there’s more that could be done.

For an idea of what a president might do, think about Lyndon Johnson’s evolving stance on civil rights.  In 1965, a week after police had violently prevented non-violent civil rights marchers from crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama, President Johnson seized the moment to promote the Voting Rights Act.  And, by all accounts, he used every resource at his disposal to beg and bully Congress into passing it.

President Johnson didn’t reveal his evolution on civil rights in an informal interview.  Instead, he made a televised speech to the entire Congress announcing his intent.  It’s an eloquent and ambitious text; every American should read it.

In it, President Johnson explicitly described the Voting Rights Act as one significant step in a much longer and larger struggle for justice:

But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it’s not just Negroes, but really it’s all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.

Unlike President Obama, President Johnson did not enjoy a reputation for eloquence, but read the speech.  Johnson wanted to do more than share his evolution; he wanted to promote America’s progress.

And think about President Obama’s discussion as one small step in a much longer, uh, evolution.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments