Part Two: Creating a Hierarchy of Leadership
Is it possible to create an effective political movement using a shared leadership platform?
The answer is an unequivocal, yes.
In fact, many business models and government programs are now embedding a shared leadership paradigm into future plans because it increases accountability and promotes employ ownership. Cooperative environments simply tend to facilitate productivity better than business models plagued by incessant discord.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the political model developed by Bill Clinton and promoted by Barack Obama was based on triangulation; and the divisiveness it has created has been a windfall for the Republican Party. There has been little reason for the GOP to expend energy and resources attacking the opposition because Democratic members have been very effective at self-destructing.
Barack Obama sold his candidacy based on a faux populist image. He was a master at galvanizing grass roots organizations and motivating them to donate time and money to promote his bid for the presidency. But once elected, he shed his populist image, kicked liberal members of the Democratic Party to the curb, and built a four-group coalition that insured the advancement of his corporate policies.
The four factions -- gays and lesbians, African Americans, Hispanics, and women activists -- were given special status, and the White House promoted their social agendas. In exchange, under the guidance of the OFA, they created a flexible, rapid response force that could be mobilized to counter criticism of Obama’s policies when verbal attacks resonated with the general public.
The president, in turn, kept liberal voters off balance by countering their criticism with populist speeches that promised real reform; but behind the scenes, he developed policies that prevented those reforms from actually coming to fruition. Every “meaningful” program he developed contained so many corporate loopholes it was rendered toothless from the moment of its inception, as was evidenced by HAMP.
Now, six years from the onset of Obama’s presidency, the Democratic Party has reached a crossroads. Progressive choices for maintaining a viable political presence have been so compromised by Obama’s duplicity they are virtually non-existent. In addition, the progressive brand has been usurped by neo-liberals, so much so that Obama’s most unpopular policies are now seen as failures of liberalism, even though liberals routinely opposed those policies. To add insult to injury, the president, the OFA, and DNC leaders exploited the popularity of traditional Democratic values to maintain their grip on power. For example: If the public supported an increase in the minimum wage, neo-liberals made a show of championing the cause, even though their policies promoted the dissolution of unions and helped facilitate corporate interests that depended on access to cheap labor.
For populists, Obama’s triangulation is significant because it alienated four common allies. People that we once called friends, are now attacking us viciously for opposing the president’s pro-corporate agenda, and we are painfully aware that breaking away from the Democratic Party means leaving them behind.
But for many progressives, denigration to inactive status has marginalized the contributions we made to civil rights causes; and it has shown the president’s contempt for the safety net project we helped design; programs that sustained millions of American middle class and lower income families during hard times. And the feelings of betrayal left in the wake of Obama’s lies and broken promises are palpable.
So: “Where do we go from here?”
Creating a Shared Leadership Paradigm
In Part One of this series, I discussed the problems OWS members encountered using a shared leadership platform, but I delayed a discussion of the merits of their original concept --which proved to be quite prescient for the time – until I could make the case for embracing a shared leadership paradigm.
It was a concept in its infancy, and like all new ideas it suffered from “growing pains.” Unfortunately, for OWS protesters, the movement never reached maturity, and the best ideas it synthesized were left buried beneath the rubble in Zuccotti Park.
But if you filter their original concept through current hierarchal prototypes, then you can see the strength of their vision. Traditional business models rely on echelons that assign almost unlimited power to a person at the top. This archetype demands discipline and tractability from corporate personnel; and even though it enhances efficiency, it discourages employ ownership, a commitment needed for the creation of a robust working environment.
A typical pitfall encountered in the creation of a new political movement is the impatience of members who haunt the outer edges; even though their contributions to the project are minimal, they demand quick results, and their constant sniping can create a drag on upward momentum. They usually are traditionalists, a group of people known for their innate resistance to change. And they will be the first members to say, “It’ll never work.”
And therein lies the value of adopting a shared leadership paradigm: It creates the perfect environment for encouraging member ownership, and ownership in turn, minimizes resistance and creates a stronger foundation.
It is time for progressives to sober up and face reality. The current political process is too corrupt to be rehabilitated. We need to create a new political movement that operates outside the corrupt influence of both major parties.
The following brief overview provides an example of how a shared leadership platform might work. It is presented as a raw, simple outline, and needs to be vetted and tested before becoming viable; but still, it shows the original OWS concept had merit, and it might have succeeded if structured properly.
The Cooperative Populist Alliance (CoPA)
· Primary Objective – create a powerful non-profit voting bloc based on a cooperative, shared leadership paradigm
· Objective Two – eliminate platforms that enable or incite contentious behavior
· Objective Three – Provide member organizations a flexible framework that allows freedom to achieve unique objectives, while contributing to the greater cause
· Objective Four – Facilitate formations of like-minded alliances to accomplish common populist goals
· Objective Five – Establish a liaison hierarchy of leadership that encourages member ownership and eliminates power struggles
· Objective Six – create a financial guideline that prohibits corporate contributions from influencing the political processes. Lead a movement to overturn the “Citizen’s United” ruling
· Objective Seven – create a fluid platform that facilitates the creation of temporary alliances with unorthodox coalitions. For example, joining Tea Party members to block the passage of the TPP.
Tier One – The Membership Alliance
The Membership Alliance would serve as the entrance portal for CoPA. At this stage, members would complete questionnaires that identify the new member’s pet projects or political objectives. The applicant’s unique profile would then be added to the database, and other members wishing to create an alliance based on the information contained in the new member’s profile would be free to contact the individual by email.
Tier Two – The Humanitarian Alliance
When forming new political platforms, social causes often generate the most contentious and volatile political interactions because they impact people on a personal level; that is why politicians often use them to create wedge issues. From the onset of their involvement, members will be encouraged to avoid confrontations and concentrate instead on developing humanitarian platforms that offer realistic solutions to mitigate social injustice and human suffering.
Tier Three – The Cooperative Council
The third level of involvement would focus on political and financial processes. From local issues that impact small town residents, to Congressional or presidential policies that threaten national sovereignty, forum members would be tasked with assembling and transforming like-minded alliances into powerful voting blocs.
Each member group would be represented by a single liaison who would be tasked with presenting the organization’s unique viewpoint to the forum. All council members would be given an equal voice.
A three-step process would be employed to resolve differences in a timely manner (A detailed description of the process will be presented in the final installment of this series).
Basic Guidelines
CoPA is dedicated to ending the corrupt corporate influence that has compromised the integrity of our political leaders.
In accordance with CoPA objectives:
· All processes should remain legal and transparent
· Outside agitators and anarchists are strictly forbidden from gaining access to the CoPA environment
· We are a peaceful organization, and any discussion of subjects that might be construed as threats to people or national security is strictly forbidden
· All members are accountable for their own behavior
Action Plan:
1. Develop a comprehensive questionnaire and membership package to seamlessly facilitate the inclusion of each new applicant
2. Create a test platform to evaluate the efficacy of the plan’s objectives, structures and processes.
The next section will focus on developing a communications network.
Comments
Love CoPA idea - Objective 7 the only one I would hesitate
to follow. ("that facilitates the creation of temporary alliances with unorthodox coalitions" - if unorthodox means rw racists, no - in Germany these coalitions never worked and split or lead to increasing kabuki theater and fake rhetoric - see AfD and Pegida - see Marie Le Pen father and daughter). But that's just me and shouldn't be considered as any kind of criticism of the plan overall.
Other than that, I think it's great, as far as I am able to understand the plan.
When do you post this on dailykos? I am curious to see how they comment over there.
Thanks, mimi
If you study the heirarchy of leadership used by some of the disaster relief organizations, you see how they use a "plug and play" type operation; and by that, I mean they have different leaders for all levels of emergency response...and when one leader's expertise runs out, another, more qualified leader seamlessly slides in and takes over...the advantage I see in using a series of "liaisons" is that it eliminates power struggles...
The same could be true for allowing temporary alliances...I would never adopt Tea Party ideals, but I would temporarily align with their members to defeat the TPP...they wouldn't change their identity; the populists would not have to change...we would just form a larger voting bloc...once an objective had been achieved, the alliance would be dissolved...interaction between the members of both groups would be discouraged to prevent dissension...
praenomen
thank you for the explanations,
I will try to study that and watch and listen. It's exiting to witness. Thanks for putting up with me and my comments.
I commend you for not
accepting everything you read at face value...as I said earlier, this is just a place to start...there are many problems that would have to be resolved before it could become viable. I want people to parse it; it is the only way to test its efficacy.
Thanks, mim
praenomen
Incredibly forward thinking here
There is a tremendous amount to digest here. Overall, I really like how you have taken the challenge of trying to create a new paradigm for action outside the traditional political process which has rendered our voices mute. You have an understanding of Occupy that I love. Too many wrote off Occupy as a failure, but I saw so much in it that we can learn from and obviously you did too. Empowerment was one of the greatest strengths of Occupy in its infancy.
I am a firm believer in social movements and in using coalitions to seek results to commonly shared issues. For example, Social Security and Medicare are two programs that have almost universal support among the public. Strength is in numbers, so why not harness that strength to promote security in those programs. I honestly believe in using coalitions to effect common goals. That does not mean that we must maintain or support members of said coalitions on issues which we find immoral or wrong.
I may have more comments after I read this again at least one more time and can properly digest it. Terrific diary and you are to be commended in the challenge you have taken on!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks, Nancy
Like I said, in many ways, OWS ideas were prescient...the movement never had the opportunity to time test and restructure their leadership model. Cooperative models scare most Americans because they immediately equate them to Communism, or hippie style communes...but they should take time to study the new paradigms that are being employed in the "sharing economy" because that seems to be the future trend...the millenials understand it...it's just difficult for older groups to grasp new concepts.
praenomen
keep on trucking praenomen
You are on to something good.
Thanks, smiley
Someone had to make the first move...it may not be a workable plan, yet...but anyone who wants to redesign the model should feel free to contribute...I just want populists to get off their rears and take action...
praenomen
Seconded! Your diaries are so excellent and
thought-provoking.
Thank you, praenomen!
Thanks to Nancy, as well, for her contribution of the '8 stages of social movements' handout.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks, mollie
I've always appreciated your support.
praenomen
Thanks praenomen...
at some point we'll need to discuss how to catapult this fine series beyond c99p. We must, when possible, bridge the divide and conquer tactics that are used to keep us separated into disparate tribes. We the people, we want the same things, for different reasons.
Thanks, JtC
As always, I'm humbled by your ongoing support. You and Joe, and the members of this site have given me new hope to carry on the fight.
praenomen
I am coming to really appreciate your diaries, sir.
I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
You put an awful lot of positive thought into explorations of how we can take action and create a grassroots movement that will truly speak for us and have a huge impact on the two-party bullshit system we have in place now. Thank you so much for this, seriously.
This is the only point of disagreement, at all, in the diary:
Barack Obama started off his presidency by signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which essentially did nothing and had no lasting impact to promote equal rights. Women still earn 78 cents on the dollar, so what the fuck ever. So I'm in agreement with you on that one.
However, Obama can hardly be considered a champion of LGBT rights. The man had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into it. Our very own Scott Wooledge got arrested for chaining himself to the White House fence, remember that? The only reason Obama finally got onboard was because LGBT activists threatened to pull the GayTM, public sentiment was starting to turn, and his advisers told him that holding out on support for gay marriage was starting to hurt his polling within the Democratic Party.
I am confused as hell as to why African Americans and Hispanics continue to support this president, since he does nothing for them and has clearly sided with Wall Street. Income inequality has become a huge issue for everyone, and people of color are effected most of all. It is baffling.
Overall, great diary, prae. I really enjoy reading these and it always gives me a lot to chew on.
Have a great weekend.
I miss Colorado.
Thanks, shiz
After reading your comment, I realize I should have explained the "special status" comment...Obama selected these four groups as the faction of the Democratic Party he could manipulate (and this is the part that breaks my heart)...all four groups were vulnerable because they had not received the type of support they needed...Obama is a master at making people feel he is going champion their cause...unfortunately, it is only theater...
His sole purpose was to divide the party, and to dump the progressives into the ocean where they would disappear...he knew the liberal activists would present the biggest obstacle to passing his corporate agenda...and now, the entire party is paying a price...
I have been talking to my daughter (who does a lot of my graphics artwork and internet/tech wizardry on other projects) about developing a new magazine format newsletter...as soon as we have that up and running, I'll place your name on the list.
It is so good to hear from you...thanks for the nice comment.
praenomen
Hey you! :)
Thanks a lot for the explanation. That makes a ton of sense, although ... God, in my heart of hearts, I still have such a hard time believing that Obama suckered us the way he did. It's terrible. :/ Certainly makes you question the Democratic Party as a whole, too.
We need another way forward. That's why I am so appreciative of your diaries.
Heh, I was just kidding about the subscription part - it's an old Dkos joke. But now that I know you are actually putting one together, yes, please put me on the list!
Oh yeah, I've been meaning to tell you ... so glad you live in Cali instead of Florida and I screwed up Disneyland and DisneyWorld, hee hee. Jerry Brown is off in a lot of ways, but at least he's not Scott Walker or Rick Scott. Those two have got to be the country's worst governors, but they do have some competition from Sam Brownback and Bobby Jindal.
I miss Colorado.
Hey Shiz...
don't forget Bruce Rauner in Illinois, he's a real up and comer in the race to the bottom.
If Rahm Emanuel has ambitions to become a governor someday
If Rahm Emanuel harbors unspoken ambitions to become a governor someday, I wish the state of Illinois and her people a lot of luck.
In today's political landscape, I can totally envision Rahm Emanuel ruling an entire state as a kind of Democratic counterpart to Chris Christie.
Sorry, I was never privy to the
inside jokes at DKos...I was the guy walking around with a big target on his back. Each time I posted a diary, I had to double up on my blood pressure medicine because I knew a shit-storm was headed my way.
Who wasn't suckered by Obama? One of the most depressing things I've read about his administration was the story about how Rahm lambasted the Nobel Peace committee for giving Obama the Peace Prize...it shows how much he had misrepresented himself.
The newsletter/magazine thing is just another attempt to get populists off their asses and do something instead of attack each other...we are so damned self-destructive it's embarrassing...that is why this site is refreshing. We need some method of getting populists to talk to each other...I'm not technically savvy enough to start a network, but I can put together a magazine, which I hope to use to dis·sem·i·nate info about the populist movement and how to get involved...the problem is how to keep the neo-liberals from absconding the movement like they did the Democratic Party...
Don't know, yet. There's not anything they can't fuck up....
praenomen
Wow, I never heard about that one.
Although: am I surprised? Not at all.
Imaginary headline involving Rahm Emanuel that it would not surprise me one bit to someday discover had happened in reality: