Our Revolution: Yes; But First Some Questions

Following Bernie Sanders Almost Anywhere
[NOTE: Since writing this, the Web site Support Progressives has been brought to my attention. It creatively addresses many of the questions and concerns about Our Revolution discussed, below, in the sections on "Candidate Selection" and "Coalitions." -- N.J., Sept. 1, 2016]

[Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign] was a campaign about doing, not about being [president]. Indeed, he would reject his crowds' chants of "Bernie! Bernie!" from the beginning of the campaign through his Santa Monica rally two nights ago [June 7, 2016], by telling them that it is they, not just he, who are "part of the political revolution."

-- Nicholas Johnson, "On Being, Doing and 'Compromise;' What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion," June 9, 2016

Contents

So what's the current status of "Our Revolution"?

What Can Be Learned From the Web Site?

"Who's on first; What's on second"

God or Mammon, that is the Question

Governance

Candidate Selection

Coalitions

The Money

Transparency

Conclusion

Yes, Senator Bernie Sanders made it clear from the beginning of his campaign for the the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He was in this race for many reasons but, win or lose the Party's presidential nomination, the overriding reason was the creation of an ongoing organization, a political revolution to bring about the populist programs he had been advocating for at least 30 years. That organization now bears the name, "Our Revolution."

I had been involved in some way with every presidential election since 1948, but never before with the emotional and financial support I gave to the Bernie campaign. As some evidence, here's a list of some 14 blog essays I wrote, starting in June of 2015.

• "On Being, Doing and 'Compromise;' What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion," June 9, 2016
• "When 'The Morning After' Looks Even Worse," June 8, 2016
• "Searching for the Media's Soul," June 7, 2016
• "Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?" March 23, 2016
• "The State of the Media," February 28, 2016
• "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016
• Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus," February 1, 2016
• "Caucus With Your Heart And Head -- For Bernie," January 28, 2016
• "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016
• "Feeling the Bern at The Mill," December 9, 2015
• "Anyone for Democracy," November 22, 2015
• "Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream,'" July 25, 2015
• "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015
• "Bernie! Why the 99% Should Support Bernie's Campaign," June 1, 2015

Now the primaries and caucuses -- and the Bernie Sanders for President campaign -- are over. On July 26, 2016, the Democratic National Convention delegates selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee for president of the United States. Notwithstanding his having run against Hillary -- with speeches noting the disparity between what each of them has chosen to fight for, and against, during the past 30 years -- Senator Sanders made the motion for her nomination at the Convention, endorsed her, and indicated he would campaign for her.

So what's the current status of "Our Revolution"?

The organization was officially "launched" with an hour-plus video stream into 2600 home gatherings across America the evening of August 24. David Weigel and John Wagner, "Bernie Sanders Launches 'Our Revolution With Electoral Targets -- and a Few Critics Left Behind," Washington Post (online), August 24, 2016.

Our Revolution is by now, among other things, a Web page: http://OurRevolution.com. I would have preferred it was an "org" (as I am: nicholasjohnson.org) rather than a "com." But a superficial search suggests "OurRevolution.org" may already be held by someone else. Hopefully, that's someone affiliated with OurRevolution.com, and confusion between the two can be controlled.

At the moment -- from July 26 through November 8 -- Our Revolution is in a kind of limbo. Bernie's enthusiastic throngs have nothing further they can do to get him elected. Many may end up voting for Hillary, but may feel that they never signed up to campaign for her. Moreover, 20 months into a 22-month presidential campaign season (Jan. 2015-Oct. 2016) most Americans inclined to political action have long since committed their time and other resources to presidential and other candidates for public office they probably want to stick with through election day.

After the votes have been counted in the national election on November 8th, and a presumptive president selected, Our Revolution's participants and programs can be more specifically self-selected.

Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers.

What Can Be Learned From the Web Site? The Web site opens with an invitation to "join," "Watch the Launch Event" (which occurred August 24) and to "Help five of our candidates win" with an option to click on "Take Action." Scrolling down further is an "In the News" section with three stories, including the August 29th announcement of an 11-person "board" chaired by Larry Cohen, former CWA President, 2005-15. Although at the "Launch Event" Senator Sanders named the organization's president (Jeff Weaver, formerly Sanders' campaign chair) and an executive director (whose name I can't find or recall), I was unable to find their names, descriptions -- or how and by whom they were chosen -- anywhere on the Web site. (That information may very well be there; it's just that I didn't see it.)

There are four locations on the Web site: About, Take Action, Issues, and Candidates -- along with a number of suggestions that we donate money.

"About" provides three general aspirations: "Revitalize American Democracy," "Empower Progressive Leaders," and "Elevate Political Consciousness."

"Take Action" promotes an anti-TPP project urging us to call and register our opposition with members of Congress. If you think to scroll down there are 7 state ballot initiatives for which a click will take you to the sponsoring organization's Web page or other information.

"Issues" reads like a party platform, itemizing and describing 18 policy areas familiar to Bernie supporters.

"Candidates" lists, with pictures, 62 presumably progressive individuals running for office (primarily state legislatures). A click on a candidate takes you to more information about each.

"Who's on first; What's on second." I'm sure things will become clearer with time, but at this point I'm reminded of the story of the city cousin who visited his country cousin's farm. Leaning against the fence, but wanting to be helpful, the city cousin inquires, "What can I do to help?" He's told, "Just grab a plow and start plowing."

That's about as much specific instruction as is provided those who "join" Our Revolution. Maybe that's enough. Look over the ballot initiatives; if there's one in your state, or elsewhere, that interests you check out its Web site and contribute money or other efforts to assist. Ditto for the candidates. Look 'em over. If you're willing to support one or more on the basis of the information provided, have at it.

But I would think there would be some reason to have a way of reporting back to someone what you did. With the links going directly to the Web sites of the ballot initiatives' organizations and candidates it would appear that's not going to happen. Even if one wished to report what was going on in one's hometown, or another location chosen for action, it's not clear to whom they would report or how.

God or Mammon, that is the Question. A more serious, fundamental question is the core heart and purpose of this organization. As California's Big Daddy Unruh was credited with observing, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." To run multiple local and statewide campaigns all across the country is going to require enormous sums of money. Will Bernie's followers be capable and inclined to provide it?

There's a big difference between an individual contributing money for a single candidate -- especially a presidential candidate, and more especially one like Bernie Sanders -- and contributing money to a fund diversified among 100 or more individuals running for everything from school board to U.S. Senate, candidates from distant cities whom one does not know and had no role in selecting.

The Web site shouts that Our Revolution is a Section 501(c)(4) organization (ineligible to provide donors a tax deduction). Is what is envisioned, in effect, just another PAC for millionaires and billionaires with progressive inclinations to give money subsequently distributed by Our Revolution staff members to candidates of their choosing? If so, I don't see that there is much role for the participation of at least most of what were once Bernie's enthusiastic followers.

I once asked Senator Hubert Humphrey what he told new U.S. Senators when they arrived. He said, "Nick, I tell 'em they have to give four years to the Lord, and then two years to get re-elected; four more years to the Lord, and then another two years to get re-elected."

Today's new senators are told, from their first day on the job, that it's six years of fund raising and campaigning to get re-elected, and then another six years to do it again. To make sure this happens, they are provided with targets for hours on the phone each day and week, and the sums they are expected to raise.

The question for Our Revolution is whether God and Mammon can co-exist; whether wealthy donors, and their large contributions, can co-exist with a progressive grassroots organization; and if not, whether either can bring about Our, or anyone else's, Revolution all by itself.

An insightful and fuller exploration of these and related issues can be found in Lambert Strether, "Is 'Our Revolution' the Way to Build Transformative Politics?" NakedCapitalism.com, August 30, 2016.

Governance. There is a literature regarding board governance. See, for reading suggestions, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," April 28, 2000.

Governance involves all stakeholders thinking through, agreeing upon, and putting in writing, the assignment of responsibilities, delegations, and the relationships between Senator Sanders, the Board chair Larry Cohen, other Board members, President Jeff Weaver, other administrative persons, staff, and Our Revolution "members."

For example, will board members be limited to providing direction, determining mission and goals, and overseeing a management information reporting system regularly disclosing accomplishments along a timeline toward measurable goals, or may they also involve themselves in some administrative decisions? Must all board statements and actions come from the entire board, acting as the board (including accompanying concurring or dissenting opinions), or can the chair -- or any individual member of the board -- speak on their own, whether to the president, a staff member, or the public?

Will the Board members create their own meeting agenda, or will "board meetings" become in effect "president's meetings" to which Board members are invited to attend for purposes of listening to reports from the president and other members of the staff? Will the president sit in on all board meetings, or are they just for board members -- and whomever else the board may invite to discuss a specific item at a single meeting?

What will be the day-to-day role of Senator Sanders with Our Revolution, given his responsibilities to his Vermont constituents and his Senate colleagues?

There is no one "right" way to answer these, and dozens of other challenging questions regarding governance. The only truly "wrong" way to proceed is to fail to identify, address, and resolve them as the board's very first order of business.

Candidate Selection. If the, or at least a, major purpose and strategy of Our Revolution involves the election of populist, progressive candidates "from school boards to the White House," a central process question is the way, the process, and the standards for Our Revolution's selection of those candidates. There is then the process question of what resources (whether campaign worker hours or money) will be provided these candidates, how much will be accorded each (and the standards for making those decisions), and what kind of oversight and regular reporting will be used.

Will the final decisions be made by Senator Sanders, the Board, its chair, the president, a staff group, a referendum of the members? How heavily will the decisions be influenced by major donors (if any)? Or will there be no such decisions? Will Our Revolution simply accept nominations from any of the above, put together a little information about each, post them on the Web site (as now), and leave it to members and donors to do the due diligence, and then put their time and money wherever they choose?

Or will there be a consensus as to who will receive Our Revolution's support, and will the goal be to limit the number of candidates to a number that can be supported (with workers and money) sufficiently to make a real difference in the outcome of their election? Will there be a preference for first-time candidates -- or for progressive incumbents in close races?

Will there be a preference for candidates whose polling numbers and other evidence indicate a real chance of winning, or is the goal to provide at least some token support and encouragement to as many first-time progressives as possible? What are the standards for deciding who is a "true progressive" worthy of Our Revolution's support?

Coalitions. Is it the goal of Our Revolution to be recognized as the single, preeminent, progressive policy and political organization in America? Or is the goal to bring some order and focus (on, say, electing progressive candidates) to the sometime chaos of America's progressive individuals, organizations, and media?

As the old saying has it, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you're willing to let others take the credit." Will Our Revolution be willing to stand by while "others take the credit"?

We've seen what splintered, underfunded, off-again-on-again efforts produce. What might a true coalition, a United Nations-style effort, be able to produce? What goals might be shared across all progressive organizations -- as was sort of the case with the coming together that was the Senator Sanders' presidential campaign -- while still leaving each organization to pursue its own other issues and strategic choices? (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016.)

The Money. I would be stunned if there was anything even mildly inappropriate, let alone illegal, in the way the money was handled in the Bernie Sanders campaign. But I also think transparency is even more important for Our Revolution. So I ask the following questions:

One of the most valuable assets of the campaign, and could be for Our Revolution, is the campaign's mailing list of donors, volunteers, and supporters. Has it been made available to the DNC, Hillary Clinton's campaign, other candidates? Are there plans to do so in the future? Who now has access to copies of this list? Will it become the main list for Our Revolution?

How much campaign money was left on July 26 -- the formal end of the Bernie for President campaign? What has happened to it? Has any gone to the Clinton campaign? The DNC, or other groups funding Democratic candidates (chosen by someone other than Senator Sanders)? How much has gone to candidates Senator Sanders supports? Is any used for his expenses while campaigning for Clinton? How much (if any) will ultimately be transferred into Our Revolution's resources?

Transparency. Transparency is important for any organization that requires the trust and support of its stakeholders. This is especially true for non-profit, progressive organizations. Members (and the public) need to know where Our Revolution's money is coming from, and what it's going to. Our Revolution needs to comply with the standards used by those evaluating non-profits. (A Google search on "evaluations of non-profit organizations' fundraising and salary expenses" brings up over 3.5 million hits.)

How do the salaries of Our Revolution administrators and staff, and expenses for Board meetings, compare with organizations of similar size? How do its expenses for fundraising, as a percentage of money raised, compare?

For Our Revolution, salaries and benefit packages are relevant to stakeholders not only because some may consider them "too high," but more likely because they might be thought to be "too low" -- given our "Issues" that focus on "Income Inequality," "A Living Wage," and "Creating Decent Paying Jobs."

And of course, Our Revolution being what it is, there will be member and public interest in the organization's employment practices with regard to gender equality, LGBT rights, and diversity of all kinds within the workforce.

Conclusion. There could be more, but there need not be. I'll simply close as I began: "Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers." What is spelled out above are some, illustrative, examples of those questions. Whether I hear from any Our Revolution administrators or staff or not, I'll keep looking for answers as I weigh whether Our Revolution has retained, or has lost, my support. (And see Roots Action's email and petition, "If It's Our Revolution, Let's Make It Better," Roots Action, August 31, 2016.)

# # #

Palin Attacks 'The Corporatist Agenda'

February 9, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
[As you may have noticed, while I'm teaching Sports Law, the blogging has had to be cut back to something more like once a week than once a day. But there may be occasional exceptions. This is one.]

Progressives and Conservatives Take Note: Palin's Going Populist
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sarah Palin had some things to say at the President Reagan Tribute the other day that deserve more attention and reflection than they've received so far -- by those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently.

New York's Boss Tweed used to say, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." It ought to be a motivator to your active participation in the caucuses and primaries of your party of choice.

In my case, it causes me to think carefully about the least worst candidates of both major political parties. One will win. If it's not going to be my favorite, I can at least hope, and work to ensure, that both of the nominees are competent enough to function as President.

To remove any possible question in your mind, Sarah Palin is not now my first choice among the possible Republican nominees. Most of her positions I disagree with, many I find uninformed, and -- as many conservatives also believe -- I don't think she now has what it takes to function effectively as President.

But I hope it is true that I have never been one to dismiss entirely all of anyone's views with ad hominem comments. I find life more interesting and rewarding when I look for agreements with, and new ideas from, those individuals my acquaintances and colleagues may be rejecting out of hand.

And so it was that when I heard a quote from Sarah Palin the other day I made a mental note to try to track down the source sometime. It wasn't easy to find, but I came upon it this morning.

It was from a talk she gave at a dinner tribute to President Reagan at the Reagan Ranch Center museum in Santa Barbara, Friday evening [Feb. 4, 2011], sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (unaffiliated with the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley). Jeff Zeleny, "Palin Keeps Position Clear and Intentions Vague," The Caucus/New York Times, February 5, 2011. (The date marks the occasion of what would have been Reagan's 100th birthday.) And see, Jeff Zeny, "Palin, Rallying Base, Paints Dark Picture of Obama’s Policies," February 6, 2011, p. A19.

Her speech contained much with which I would disagree, expressions I would not have used, and conclusions that I might think don't logically follow. But that does not surprise me, and should not surprise you.

What did surprise me was what she said with which I totally agree.

By way of introduction, background and glossary, here are my definitions of some relevant terms:

Words like "socialism," "communism" and "fascism" are seldom used anymore in their original, technical, literal sense. They are swear words, words of derision carelessly thrown at anything one does not like.

That's too bad.

"From each according to ability; to each according to need" [Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875)] -- "communism" -- can be applied to professional sports' revenue-sharing schemes designed to keep the teams more or less competitive, and the games more interesting. It also applies to the "negative income tax" proposals of conservative economist Milton Friedman and conservative President Richard Nixon.

"Socialism" -- government owned and operated enterprises, such as the Interstate Highway system, public schools, libraries and parks (among other things) -- also works pretty well for us.

"Capitalism" -- free private enterprise, the marketplace -- rewards the successful entrepreneur (sometimes, as with a Bill Gates, overwhelmingly so), and leaves those who fail to the bankruptcy courts, with nothing but the opportunity to start all over again.

What do you call a system of joint government-corporate partnerships -- "heads I win, tails you lose;" "If I make a profit I get to keep it; if I have big losses the taxpayers will give me a bailout"? Subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, tariffs, bailouts, price supports are often just rewards for major campaign contributions. Those who remember World War II will identify government by interlocking relationships between corporate and government interests as what we then called "fascism." (If the government owns and operates an automobile manufacturing company that's "socialism"; if it provides a private, for-profit car company a "bailout," that's "fascism.")

Enough of the definitions.

The point is, I am a fan of both capitalism and socialism -- as I have defined both, above. I am not a fan of fascism.

More significant for purposes of this blog entry, it turns out that Sarah Palin is not a fan of fascism either. So on that proposition we agree.

Here is what she had to say -- in words very close to what I was writing about yesterday in "Super Boosters' Super Bowl; Champions' Wins Can Be Taxpayers' Losses; Lessons for Iowa," February 8, 2011, and numerous prior Web pages, newspaper columns, and blog entries.

This is not an economic policy. . . . It is the road to ruin. It’s crony capitalism, too, on steroids. The corporatist agenda — big government, big business collaboration, with powerful friends in DC who can afford to hire the lobbyists to grease the wheels of government in their favor for these investments.

In the interest of certain special interests, the government invests our money in technologies, in industries that venture capitalists tell us ‘no, those are nonstarters.’ but they’ll provide lucrative returns for favored corporate interests with major stakes in these areas. . . .

This collusion, this isn’t competition. It’s crony capitalism and it stifles our economy. It stifles the free market . . .. Government makes it increasingly impossible for anyone but cronies to get ahead. . . .

And ["the little guy"] that’s who is left out in the cold today. Big business, big labor, big finance — they have seats at the table. The little guy doesn’t. But we’re the ones left holding the tab. We’re paying the bill. This is not the way it’s supposed to be. This is not the way that it must be. American exceptionalism is not exceptionally big government with a command and control industrial policy. . . .

History has proven again and again when government picks the winners and losers, we are stuck with the losers. And we the taxpayers subsidize the failures. . . .

Do we still believe in . . . free-market capitalism?

Or do we surrender to big government and a corporatism agenda?. . .

We must be as motivated and optimistic as our parents and our grandparents were, many of whom started off with nothing and yet they were able to build a fulfilled life by the sweat of their brow. . . .

They didn’t demand bailouts.

Text of Governor Palin's Keynote Address: Tribute to President Reagan, Feb. 4, 2011.

So why are these excerpts from this transcript of her talk of vital importance to what I described, above, as "those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently"?

Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004), posits the thesis that the big business wing of the conservatives (those who advocate and practice what I have defined, above, as "fascism") have managed to bring along millions of voters, willing to vote against their own best interests (the funding of social programs and regulations designed to protect them), by talking about (while doing little or nothing about) "God, guns and gays" (opposition to abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and handgun control).

This has been accomplished, in part, by attacking "big government" and "taxation" while remaining eerily silent about the very linkage that big business has with that "big government," and the cash transfers it receives from the taxpayers who pay that "taxation."

So the big business, big money, funders of the conservative coalition should be (and probably are already, as they watch the events in Cairo unfold) a trifle concerned about Palin's turn toward an anti-fascism populism.

Similarly, the Palin-haters -- and progressives concerned about the rest of what she says, and might do in office -- should be wary of the consequences that might flow from a Palin-as-Populist campaign. It wouldn't take that much to expand the Tea Party's appeal to those who ought to have been a solid part of the Democratic Party's base (e.g., the poor, working poor, working class) -- and were, until the Party turned its back on them in its own search for corporate dollars.

It's something to think about.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #