What do you Berners think of this. It was on my FB and another Bernie Site...is it gaining

[pat_k]

70. Yes, it is just a matter of perspective -- change from within,

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

vs. change from outside.

Ultimately, it's not the vows not to support Clinton that sadden me, it's the tone contained in so many of those posts. So many express so much anger coupled with cynical disengagement that the effect is immobilizing. An effect I believe is at odds with Sanders' calls to action.

I should have made a clearer distinction between (1) "cyncial disengagement" posts and (2) posts that express a vow not to vote for Hillary (or vow to leave the Democratic Party) as part of a commitment to work for change from outside (and expressions of hope and confidence that change is possible). The problem is, I've seen very few examples of the latter.

The level of resistance to strategies aimed at bringing about change from within is fierce. The corrupting influence corporate money is a powerful force. But in my experience, an even more powerful force is group think. Years ago I participated in meetings with chiefs of staff in Corzine's and Lautenberg's offices. It was part of the effort to lobby members to object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005. We worked with/tracked the efforts of people lobbying other Senators and Reps. (Later on, I was involved in similar projects working on impeachment and filibustering Alito.) In case of Corzine and Lautenberg, and a number of other members of Congress we kept track of, the senators/reps accepted the proposition that the Ohio electors were unlawfully appointed, but nevertheless were unwilling to commit to joining an objection. The rationalizations for inaction were almost universally some form of "can't win, so don't fight" or fear of "backlash."

Such beliefs and rationalizations for not "rocking the boat" are never challenged inside the beltway (or by the people "out here" who have internalized the rationalizations). Classic group think. The beliefs of the insular group just keep drifting further and further away from reality as those inside the insular group reinforce the increasingly irrational beliefs. In the beltway bubble, the irrationality manifests itself in a complete failure to recognize how damaging their refusal to demonstrate strength of conviction has been to the party. As Bill Clinton once said, "When people are insecure, they’d rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who’s weak and right." This idea has been stamped out by a generalized, and irrational fear of "backlash," or some other vague terrible thing, that will befall them if they show some spine.

There are ways to effectively challenge the rationalizations, but it takes more than phone calls, faxes, and petitions. Those types of calls for action have been falling like water off a ducks back. They are dismissed, almost without thought, by the "can't win, so don't fight" or "impractical" or "backlash" rationalization. It takes a face-to-face lobbying effort. It requires more than going to "be heard" (which is how they try to run meetings with citizen action groups -- come in, we'll "hear you," then go away). Challenging requires back and forth. It requires persistent questioning and follow up that forces them to defend their indefensible positions. Forcing them to "hear themselves" in a way that challenges consensus beliefs that are otherwise never questioned.

The Sanders campaign constitutes a giant leap forward that can be leveraged. It is an example of the power of "strong and right."

Re: Who do these lobbyists work for, under what name or organization?

There are a variety of different ways to structure an organization. One approach would be to create a sort of consulting service for existing organizations like PDA and individuals who want to be more effective advocates of change. The organization would provide training and other services that support initiatives involving lobbying in face-to-face meetings. Strategies would be developed for a limited menu of issues at a given time. Campaign finance reform would be at the top of the list. The organization could help to coordinate activities of different groups, analyse outcomes and adjust recommended strategies accordingly. "Best practices" developed in each area would be published to support DIY efforts.

Different membership levels would be available for people/orgs who want to become "citizen lobbyists," those willing to provide monetary support to enable lobbying efforts, and those who just want to sign up to show their support for a given effort (a show of numbers represented). To be most effective, the organization would need to serve as a clearing house, publishing results of meetings and promoting reinforcing action on the part of supporting members.

The idea is to create a positive feedback loop of action and information. Too often we contribute to some organization and then get no feedback on the specifics of what is being achieved with those dollars. Without information on results, people are less inclined to join or continue to pay dues. Consistently providing that sort of feedback is difficult for groups that rely on over-stretched volunteers. Paid staff is required to provide the required services. Results of meetings, followups, petitions/letters delivered, and other activities need to be published in a way that makes it easy to find out what's going on -- who's being targeted on what issues, legislation being lobbied for, co-sponsors gained, summaries of meetings with transcripts of significant statements, coalition building activities, member recruitment, "headline news"...

The infrastructure necessary to provide services would need to be put in place before you start looking for "clients." It would require a solid business plan. Soliciting small individual contributions from "founding members" may not cut it. (Doing it that way would sort of be like having a service provider like Kinkos come around to collect money from people in a neighborhood in order to build the store.) Finding investors with deeper pockets may be necessary (perhaps even seek to involve Sanders in founding such an org).

Results of efforts are part of identifying "good" and "bad" members of the house and senate. The information would be out there for use by other groups involved in mounting challenges to incumbents. Building coalitions with such groups could be part of the effort.

Depending on the level of success, a "second phase" would be to recruit and train (and pay) some number of citizens lobbyists dedicated to serving a couple congressional districts, and to recruit supporting members from the districts served. A mechanism would be provided by which members help determine what lobbyists focus on -- whether they be federal, state, or local issues (perhaps having members vote to "hire citizen lobbyists" to focus on what they care about most). The initial districts would serve as a "proof of concept." If successful, the organization expands to other districts.

As far as name. Don't know. Any ideas?

With regard to working from outside through a non-partisan party. Some thoughts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1859679