“I’m an active member (officer) of my county’s Democratic Party. The uniformity of opinion at the local-to-the- state (WA) level, regarding events and root causes and (to a significant degree) policy and programmatic solutions, is stunning. I’m not regarded as a dangerous radical by very many within the party, and yet i am a dangerous radical. My take is that - currently - we can work within the Dems - at least in places like WA state. And, if the trend of opinion - and attitude - among young adults is as it appears, we can be the elder statespersons of the party soon. (Tip of the hat to David Hamilton for that observation. )

“As to interaction with the ‘Obama caucus’ - i held a ‘house party’ discussion on Dec. 13th per instructions from the ‘Obama campaign’ central committee. We fed our agreed policy priorities back to the CC, which were probably the top 4 for almost everyone on this list. We await the next instructions from the CC, and we will continue to perform as requested - and continue to proselytize for the left position. I have no idea whether this horizontal, then upwards, communication will have any effect on policy, but it does cement our local ‘core group’. Therefore, i do not think that this is wasted effort.

“Linkages - i’m trying to recruit Bill Domhoff to P4O (or to PDA) who speaks from a non-Marxist point-of-view to the same process and end that [Bill] and Carl do. Why? Because he can bring actual sociological data and experience and method to the project. Beyond that, there are a host of potential linkages, as you know. I’m involved in a local sustainable-logging group and an affordable-housing committee, both of which involve perspectives that i view as leftist - or proto-leftist. Next week i’m joining a regional renewable-energy- generation committee.

“At a level of national interaction, I recommend a project that is being originated by Chris Bowers and Natasha Chart (that will be announced tomorrow [?] on the OpenLeft blog) as one important, cooperative effort for progressives. If I forgot to broach the matter earlier, it is the reference in my previous e-mail to “… OpenLeft’s project to sort, review, analyze, prioritize, and organize-support-for-or-opposition-to federal legislation as it enters the committee hopper”. This could become a very broad organization of technical and wonk types (like me) with a focus on national policy and program.

“So - upshot for me is that P4O is a good idea. And, as you wrote, the discussions have been very interesting. For me, though, it’s always about organization, proselytization, and mass mobilization around concrete program (my protest days are behind me - or perhaps ahead).”

Does this kind of local narrative advance the discussion here?

For example, here in this locality, we’re very much for EFCA, and it will be part of whatever we pull together. So is Obama, so far anyway; that’s fine, we’re in tune there. But we’re also for public investment in our river infrastructure, repairing locks and dams, for Greener industrial transport. Obama at the top is for this sort of thing in a very general way, but there’s nothing saying he will back this or when. All sorts of the usual suspects are lining up for their own local boondoggles that have nothing Green about them, and we want to affirm our local unity around what we need, and then press to get it done. There’s no basic reason why Obama’s team couldn’t get behindwhat we need, but if we don’t affirm it from the git go, it’s not likely to happen.

The wars are a slightly different question. On getting out of Iraq, the widest unity is around our view, end the damned thing now, and bring the troops home. There’s a much narrower unity around 8 more years of low-intensity warfare under the cover of gradual drawdown. Obama’s team takes both positions, or wavers between them, tilting to the latter. So here we simply affirm getting out. Obama came here and said this to 2000 workers, and they gave him a standing ovation. We’ll going to hold him to it, whether or not its the latest nuance of ‘the campaign’ or the White House. Why? Because it’s what’s needed. In Afghanistan, Obama needs to find a diplomatic and political approach, like Zbignew has stated, and even him at times. But the stand he’s taking at the moment there is not one any local progressive forces want to embrace.

In a way, I find your argument here both too right and too ‘left’ simultaneously. From my perspective, I want to go very wide from below, and making it very specific to our locality is what makes that possible. But when we bring pressure to bear on government at all levels, including the White House, it will be a coalition of forces pushing the center from a left-center coalition.

In any case, it’s all so much talk so far, even if we have taken some local initiatives. Once things are moving, it may look different from what either of us are saying here, because we’re hardly the only players, and this remains an open process.

In your initial statement, you affirmed HR676 and “stopping the wars now,” incorrectly stated absolutely that “nothing positive is likely to happen without ending the wars and cutting defense,” and said you seek “the kind of people who hold these politics.” But in your last comment you claimed “it’s not a matter of what you or I are inclined or not inclined to do.”

In fact, the main point of my posts have been to question your inclination to define the politics of Progressives for Obama too narrowly.

In contrast, the initial call adopted a different perspective. It supported the goals of “the Obama movement that will make it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming” and supported “Obama’s sixteen-month combat troop withdrawal plan,” while continuing to urge Obama “to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq.”

You believe the “wave” of the Obama movement has dissipated. I’m not so sure. 500,000 people responded to the online survey and more than 80 percent said that implementing the goals of the Obama campaign is important to them. That instance of participatory democracy, however limited, is suggestive. ACORN and MoveOn recently conducted rallies to support “the Obama economic stimulus plan.”

I’m merely suggesting that the primary emphasis of a group that calls itself “Progressives for Obama” should be to support the goals of the Obama campaign, while suggesting some amendments as needed. Winning those victories will open the door to more reforms.

I do not believe that your original statement affirmed that kind of majoritarian emphasis, but rather sounded more like a traditional leftist effort to persuade liberals to be more radical, which, as I said, often alienates potential allies by coming across as condescending.

Regardless, we may be going around in circles, so I sign off for now.

Wade Hudson, Editor
Progressive Resource Catalog

‘Riding the wave’ doesn’t help much. The wave of electoral activism, inside and outside the Dems, is retreating; the wave of activism around the economic crisis and the dangers of wider wars is rising. Our problem is simultaneously consolidating in the former while reaching out in the latter, developing new forms of organizing in both. It’s not easy, but it’s necessary.

Myself, I’m more interested in a majoritarian strategy that aims to build momentum by mobilizing massive numbers quickly in a timely manner when Congress nears a vote on key measures. One of our major problems is that public policy does not reflect public opinion due to the influence of special interests.

I’m not interested in splitting hairs about which position is more progressive on the mythical left-right continuum. I don’t know Chris and Carl, so I can’t say if this comment applies to them, but that kind of hair splitting often comes across as arrogant and elitist, which is one reason we need to commit to self-improvement.

So I’m inclined to ride the Obama wave, support the goals of his campaign as reflected in his major speeches and the Democratic Party platform, which include a commitment to “transform the nation,” and oppose him only if and when he deviates from those goals.

To actively oppose those goals will alienate such opponents from the broad range of Obama supporters, which will undermine prospects for mobilizing massive numbers.

Also, the need for quick, massive, national action calls for more than local coalitions. We also need a national coalition.