Dispatches from the religious left
Page 15
In 2007, Faith in Public Life and We Believe Ohio joined with Susan Thistlethwaite of the Chicago Theological Seminary to start the process of exporting the We Believe model to other states. In May, a meeting was held at CTS with representatives from groups in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arkansas Colorado and South Carolina to share what We Believe Ohio had done and to do media and community organization training.
The follow-up to that gathering was handled by Ron Stief, who was involved in Faith in Public Life's founding and came on board in September, 2007 as director of organizing. By mid- 2008, the Chicago training had led to the launch of We Believe Colorado in June, with Pennsylvania and Arkansas still in discussions about the format such a group might take in those states. Colorado provided fertile territory, Stief said, because it had long been home to extremist right-wing religious groups such as James Dobson's Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, and was also ground zero for such right-wing initiatives as TABOR (a tax-and-spending cap) which has stifled the state's economy. As with We Believe Ohio, the Colorado group includes a range of faith groups, including Jewish and Islamic groups.
Although Faith in Public Life offers hands-on organizing assistance, each group it supports is independent and develops its own priorities based on local realities. "It's a network, not an organization," Stief said of FiPL. "We use open-source organizing. We want it to be replicated. FiPL isn't trying to build chapters. What we're trying to do is strengthen local leadership from where they are and the organizations they already sit in, to get solutions to some of the issues we care about. The local groups can call themselves whatever they want. Colorado just happened to call themselves we Believe Colorado. Another group in Pennsylvania is looking at the model. We don't want FiPL to be name of any of the group."
Given its lack of resources to organize on a full-time basis (the group is directed informally by a steering committee of clergy), the main impact of We Believe Ohio has been to contribute to a growing awareness that not all faith-based groups or people of faith are focused on the narrow set of issues (abortion, gays) that have commonly been described in the media as animating "values" voters. Faith in Public Life has helped to amplify that voice-and hopes to amplify the voice of other such groups-with resources such as its Faith in Politics Daily, a free-source round-up of several breaking faith-related stories, and its online map of over 3,000 progressive faith organizations, a resource Stief describes as "an online source book for reporters and organizers. Reporters, if there's a story and they want to get a perspective in South Dakota, they can go to that map, and see who can comment. We give visibility to things that are already going on."
"In 2006, there was one religious voice being heard in the public square," says Tim Ahrens. "That voice was coming from Rod Parsley and Russell Johnson and the Patriot Pastors. We said, there are others of us here. That is not a small step. Sometimes I look back and think we haven't done enough. But that is not a small thing when the momentum and the money were swinging to the religious right."
THREE WHEELS THAT NEED NOT BE
REINVENTED
FREDERICK CLARKSON
The main reason why the Religious Right became powerful is not what most people may think. Some would undoubtedly point to the powerful communications media. Others might identify charismatic leaders, the development of "wedge issues," or even changes in evangelical theology in the latter part of the twentieth century that supported, and even demanded political action. All of these and more, especially taken together, were important factors. But the main reason for the Religious Right's rise to power has been its capacity for political action, particularly electoral politics.
On the Religious Left, many of the ingredients are present for a more dynamic movement. But the ingredient that is most remarkably lacking is the one that made the Religious Right powerful: a capacity for electoral politics. Indeed, there has never been anything on the Religious Left on the scale of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, or any of the dozens of significant Religious Right groups (such as the state political affiliates of Focus on the Family) that have had any significant national or regional electoral muscle. Electoral politics is, of course, not a panacea. But no one who is serious about the distribution of power in this constitutional democracy can expect to accomplish very much without a broad electoral strategy and the capacity to carry it out. That is why I think that the Religious Left, in order to create a more just society, is going to need to take electoral politics more seriously-and not just as a religious auxiliary of the Democratic Party.
Electoral politics is not only a defining activity of constitutional democracy in America-it is the principal avenue for gaining sufficient popular power to improve the lives of the poor and the marginalized via government and public policy, as well as to address the entire constellation of progressive concerns. And by electoral politics, I do not mean merely voting; I mean actually mastering the mechanics of electoral politics and sustaining a permanent activist presence in our communities, and building organizations to sustain it. Such organizations-like those of the Religious Right-must be unconnected to the fortunes of one or another candidate and be much more than a shell group (or group of shells) to be revved-up only in the run up to an election.
Part of the genius of the Religious Right, particularly the onceformidable Christian Coalition, is the way they work across election cycles to build their capacity to affect electoral outcomes; recruiting, training and organizing support for candidates, particularly in party primaries for offices at all levels. They also systematically register like minded-voters and have developed the capacity to turn them out on Election Day. And they keep good data bases. In other words, they have mastered the contemporary tools and mechanics of electoral democracy.
Again, there is nothing remotely like this on the Religious Left-which frankly just does not do democracy as well as the Religious Right. I think that acknowledging this simple fact of American political life is a necessarily prerequisite to opening-up the necessary conversation about what it will take for the Religious Left to be better able to live up to the promise of its most prophetic and pragmatic leaders.
People can write letters, organize phone banks, lobby, protest, and conduct prayer vigils-but what if those who hold elected office are not interested in listening? That is perhaps the central question of constitutional democracy. And to ask the question is to suggest the answer. Obviously, it is far better to have people in office with whom we agree (or mostly agree) than people who don't. So the answer is to elect better public officials.
But how do we do this? Fortunately, it is not necessary to completely reinvent the wheel. What follows are brief descriptions of three kinds of "wheels" that I think are adaptable to different sectors of the progressive religious community around the country.
First, a little background. I live in Massachusetts, arguably the most Democratic state in the country. Currently, the entire Congressional delegation is Democratic, as are 175 out of the 200 state legislators. But the overwhelming numbers of Democrats in the legislature has not translated into progressive public policy as much as one might think, as conservative Democrats largely held sway in the legislature for decades and enacted few of the progressive planks in the party platform.
But that is changing. Progressives have significantly increased their numbers in the legislature and in statewide office over the course of several election cycles, thanks in considerable part to three innovative organizations that each feature distinctly successful models of organizing: Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Boston Vote, and Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts.
NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR
The Boston-based Neighbor-to-Neighbor (N2N) organization began in 1996 after an analysis showed that forty-seven House districts should have had more progressive representatives than they did. Using grassroots organizing, leadership development, electoral campaigns, legislative lobbying and voter registration and education, the group "built power" in low-incom
e and working-class communities. As a result, Neighbor-to-Neighbor has a remarkable record of turning around the problem of low levels of voter participation in lower-income urban communities. For example, in 2002 the group dramatically increased voter turnout in low-income precincts of several cities, including increases of 185 percent in Salem; 900 percent in Lynn; 210 percent in Leominster; 589 percent in Fitchburg; and 131 percent in Worcester. This contributed to the election of progressive candidates as well as two progressive Democratic members of Congress, Rep. James McGovern of Worcester and Rep. John Tierney of Gloucester. Sustained organizing in Worcester, Salem and Holyoke was a deciding factor in the 2003 election of progressive, Latino city councilors in those cities. "Since 1997 we have unelected or swung a large bloc of the target legislators," former Executive Director Harris Gruman told me in 2003. He said another twenty-five were needed to make the House a reasonably progressive place, but that that goal was in sight. "There is nothing quite like the persuasive impact of seeing your colleagues go down." Since then, about a dozen more progressives have been elected to the legislature, and the tone has dramatically changed.
N2N's success is based on "targeted organizing" around what it calls "The Working Family Agenda." This agenda comprises "good jobs, education and training, affordable child care, health care and housing, and a welfare safety net."Their methods include year-round intensive voter contact and issue mobilization across the election cycle, followed by personal, telephone and mail contact during electoral campaigns. "With year-round voter engagement," Gruman said, "you change the equation dramatically. Most people don't pay much attention to politics until the presidential campaign comes around."
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF MASSACHUSETTS
Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) grew out of the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, whose spirited but unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination attracted thousands of previously alienated and uninvolved progressives. After Republican Mitt Romney defeated Democratic regular Shannon O'Brien in the general election, some Reich supporters decided to create a permanent electoral organization to continue to invite progressives into the party, and train leaders and activists with the goal of making the Democratic Party a far more progressive place.
Organizing committees were soon formed in a dozen towns and cities. Since then, some groups have come and gone and new ones have formed, as is the nature of politics and organizing. As of this writing, there are active groups centered in Gloucester, Lexington, Arlington, Amherst/Northampton, Brookline, the Berkshires, South Hadley/Holyoke and Chelmsford. PDM is continuously sustaining and growing a statewide network of experienced and accomplished electoral activists with a history of working effectively together. PDM has also played a decisive role in key state legislative campaigns, and its activists were an early and integral part of the field organization for a long-shot reform candidate for governor-Deval Patrick-who was elected in 2006.
The secret of the group's success to date is the organizing method of founding board member Marshall Ganz, a former top organizer for the United Farm Workers who teaches organizing at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Ganz's method focuses on one-on-one recruiting, the development of personal political relationships and leadership training-all aimed at expanding the pool of progressive voters and activists. His method builds on the cumulative experiences and best practices of social justice organizing from the labor, women's and civil rights movement, among many others.
PDM says of itself that by organizing "as a progressive voice in the party, we believe that we can make a far greater difference than by merely becoming party activists. PDM also believes that third parties and third party candidates unnecessarily divide progressives against themselves and thereby lend support to the Republican Party rather than bringing about needed political change. We hope that one result of our activism will be that more people will become inspired to become deeply involved in the life of the Democratic Party." Or as N2N's Harris Gruman put it, "If we are going to have a political party, it needs to mean something."
PDM and N2N do differ in several important respects. N2N has paid staff and organizes primarily in urban, low-income communities of color. PDM is based primarily (but not exclusively) in white middle class and college communities, and operates on an almost all volunteer basis. Many of PDM's volunteers are able to travel and assist in targeted races outside of their own districts. While these organizations developed separately, they are close allies. They recognize that building for power takes time, patience and hard work regardless of town or constituency. As a general rule, people's personal and group political behavior changes slowly - therefore a certain kind of patience is a necessary element of political maturity, even amidst the urgency of the issues of the day and the tumult of electoral politics and the necessary impatience in the face of indifference and inaction.
The progressive advances of recent years did not occur out the blue. The progressive resurgence in the state showed itself long before the catalytic candidacies of Robert Reich, Howard Dean, Deval Patrick, and Barack Obama. PDM and N2N are also members of the Mass Alliance and its predecessor, the statewide Commonwealth Coalition, comprising progressive unions, women and environmental groups that engaged in more tradi tional electoral campaigns; trained thousands of activists; and helped forge a progressive caucus of state legislators. PDM and N2N capitalized on these trends-and encouraged, expanded, and organized them.
BOSTON VOTE
A different kind of model with electoral implications was pioneered by Boston Vote, a 501(c)(3 ) nonprofit, tax-exempt organization founded in 1999 to encourage social service and other nonprofit agencies in low-income urban areas to register their clients to vote and help to turn them out on Election Day. By definition, Boston Vote is non-partisan, but it offers a kind of model that allows progressive social service agencies and religious organizations to integrate voter registration and mobilization into their existing programs. Boston Vote and several participating agencies received major foundation funding to develop a civic education program to increase voter participation among low-income communities of color. Of the 140 groups in the program, George Pillsbury of Boston Vote told me in 2003, about fifty were very active. The organization has since developed basic materials and low-to-no-cost training to help nonprofits register people to vote, and to mobilize others, as well as to eliminate barriers to participation to a variety of disadvantaged groups.
"We've gotten out the message that these non-profits really depend on voter turnout in order to get their voices heard, to fulfill their missions and to receive continued funding," Pillsbury said. "What progressives have done over 30 years is set up good nonprofit organizations that have grown out of various pieces of liberal legislation-organizations that the communities fundamentally trust."
Their efforts to ratchet-up voter participation in the communities they serve, according to Pillsbury, were responsible for the reelection of Felix Arroyo, a Latino Boston councilor. "Voter turnout in the black, Asian and Latino communities went up 80 percent, while [turnout in] the white communities went down 12 percent," Pillsbury said. "Felix Arroyo came in second in a field of 5 [for four seats in 2003], because our precincts turned out." Since then, the group has gone statewide and is now called Mass Vote.
NAVIGATING THE NON-PROFIT TAX CODE
Finally, it is important to underscore that churches and service agencies know that the IRS proscribes electioneering as a condition of federal tax-exemption, and they quite properly do not want to undermine their mission by getting in trouble. Fortunately, the rules governing what is and is not permissible are not only fair and reasonable, but are surprisingly comprehensible, and the kinds of activities encouraged by Mass Vote are well-within the IRS rules. This is the stuff of basic empowerment in electoral democracy, as the much-honored but too often forgotten African-American Civil Rights movement taught us.
What Mass Vote teaches tax-exempt groups to do within the
law, is different than becoming a lobbying group or an electoral organization. That said, lobbying and electoral organizations are necessary too-but are necessarily separate. Thus, leaders of a more politically dynamic Religious Left will need to not only master the mechanics of electoral politics, but the non-profit tax code as well. And they will have to create new organizations to carry out different tasks. I know that this may seem daunting. But the good news is that these wheels need not be reinvented, as there are lots of people and organizations with the relevant knowledge and experience to draw upon. We can learn and master the tools handed to us by the generations that have brought our constitutional democracy this far. If we do, a vibrant and politi cally dynamic Religious Left can be a powerful part of the coalition necessary to bend the arc of history towards what Martin Luther King Jr. called justice.
This essay was adapted from the article, "Putting the Mass in Massachusetts, " which was published in the December 15, 2003 issue of In These Times magazine.
USING NEW MEDIA TO
STRENGTHEN THE RELIGIOUS LEFT
SHELBY MEYERHOFF AND SHAI SACHS
The Religious Left is a diverse movement that includes individuals, entrepreneurs, 501(c)(3) nonprofits, social justice groups within congregations, and advocacy organizations. While each of these groups may have different resources, missions, and target audiences, they all can benefit from a greater awareness-and more effective use-of new media. By "new media," we mean everything from blogs and text-messaging to social networking tools and media sharing sites. Much of what is now available is not only user friendly, but also comes with low or no cost attached, thus opening up unprecedented possibilities for the Religious Left.
We must seize this opportunity to shape public perceptions of religious and political issues, build a larger network of supporters, and mobilize for more powerful social change. New media tools are perfectly suited to the task of networking and mobilizing diverse communities and individuals into a larger movement. Anyone with an Internet connection and sufficient know-how can participate, and new media can quickly turn a casual reader into an activist.' his allows us to take a, powerful, bottom-up approach to movement building.