The article of the moment in progressive circles is Monday's Ryan Grim piece in the Intercept that's subtitled, "Meltdowns have brought progressive advocacy groups to a standstill at a critical moment in world history."
Quite so. The only surprising thing about Grim's account is that it took so long for someone on the left to write it. The widespread revolt of young staffers, especially in the nonprofit space, is the subject of endless talk within the progressive movement, but you'd never know it on the outside because it's been written about only in bits and pieces that never quite add up to a full story. Grim is the first to put the whole thing together without (very much) defensiveness or punch pulling.
The clash Grim describes between workers and management has been brewing for a while—since the election of Donald Trump, at least—but took off in earnest only after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Staffers at progressive nonprofits, in a game of follow the leader, all began issuing demands, writing manifestos, and declaring that the organizations they worked for were hopelessly misogynistic, classist, white supremacist, and, inevitably, "unsafe." These revolts were eerily similar, and they drove management nuts:
At the ACLU, as at many organizations, the controversy quickly evolved to include charges that senior leaders were hostile to staff from marginalized communities. Each accusation is unique; some have obvious merit, while others don’t withstand scrutiny. What emerges by zooming out is the striking similarity of their trajectories. One foundation official who has funded many of the groups entangled in turmoil said that having a panoramic view allowed her to see those common threads. “It’s the kind of thing that looks very context-specific, until you see a larger pattern,” she said.
....Inner turmoil can often begin, the managers said, with performance-based disputes that spiral into moral questions. “I also see a pattern of … people who are not competent in their orgs getting ahead of the game by declaring that others have engaged in some kind of -ism, thereby triggering a process that protects them in that job while there’s an investigation or turmoil over it,” the foundation official added. Such disputes then trigger broader cultural conversations, with battle lines being drawn on each side.
Unsurprisingly to anyone who has any experience with progressive organizations, this problem may have its roots in social justice but it's been weaponized by technology:
Twitter, as the saying goes, may not be real life, but in a world of remote work, Slack very much is.”
In the past, workers gathered around the water cooler to air their gripes to each other. Today it's an endless barrage of Slack conversations, Twitter feuds, and Zoom meetings. All of these are things that can reach out to far more people than will fit around a water cooler, and they can be used relentlessly and effortlessly by a generation that takes to them naturally. Managers fight perpetual rear-guard battles, but because progressives tend to be highly verbal people this generally leads only to more and more talk:
[Months after Joe Biden's inauguration] most of the foundation-backed organizations that make up the backbone of the party’s ideological infrastructure were still spending their time locked in virtual retreats, Slack wars, and healing sessions, grappling with tensions over hierarchy, patriarchy, race, gender, and power.
....“I got to a point like three years ago where I had a crisis of faith, like, I don’t even know, most of these spaces on the left are just not — they’re not healthy. Like all these people are just not — they’re not doing well,” [a senior manager] said.
....The environment has pushed expectations far beyond what workplaces previously offered to employees. “A lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all the things: a movement, OK, get out the vote, OK, healing, OK, take care of you when you’re sick, OK. It’s all the things,” said one executive director. “Can you get your love and healing at home, please? But I can’t say that, they would crucify me.”
Could the Heritage Society come up with a better scheme for eviscerating their progressive foes?
Another leader said the strife has become so destructive that it feels like an op. “I’m not saying it’s a right-wing plot, because we are incredibly good at doing ourselves in, but — if you tried — you couldn’t conceive of a better right-wing plot to paralyze progressive leaders....Progressive leaders cannot do anything but fight inside the orgs, thereby rendering the orgs completely toothless for the external battles in play.”
One of the biggest problem with all this is that it prompts progressive orgs to fight back against conservative orgs not with the messages most likely to win people to their side, but with maximal left-wing arguments that just scare people off. Young staffers insist on it, and management, who are supposed to be the adults in the room, have neither the power or the fortitude to rein them in and manage.
Even worse, this is all happening at a time when conservatives have become complete lunatics. It should be a golden age for progressives, who have the chance of a lifetime to make huge strides in the political arena. Instead we've gotten weaker. That's a hell of an indictment when you're competing against a conservative movement headlined by the likes of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Kevin McCarthy, Ron DeSantis, and Steve Bannon.
This progressive war of all against all has long since become intractable and unwinnable. Is there anybody on our side who commands the moral authority and widespread respect to put us back on track?¹
¹Actually, there is: Barack Obama. It's a shame that he's virtually abandoned both the Democratic Party and the progressive movement since stepping down as president.
Sounds like university politics.
Whenever there isn't a clear measure of success (and often when there is), personal politics determines who is "in" and who isn't.
I suspect this overstates the case significantly. The term "progressive organizations" covers a lot of territory, and my guess is that 90%+ of such orgs are continuing to do what they do without all the fuss. I've worked in nonprofits for decades and there has always been a problem that senior management is too senior--in other words old, myself included. The senior staff gets there by being good with donors and knowing the right people, which makes them inherently much more conservative than the younger staff. Plus, senior staff are the only ones who get decent pay, meaning that the young staff have always felt under appreciated while they do most of the hard work. This problem is ten times worse at the big orgs. There is always a huge tension between activists who want to do out there things, and the senior staff who don't want to anger major donors.
Thank you Zephyr - you've posted essentially what I was going to say. The privileged white guys are whining about being called on longstanding traditions that put them on top including decent pay etc. meanwhile worker bees are supposed to work for peanuts or even free out of devotion to the cause.
That is the real issue but the last vestiges of the left of center white male hierarchy are clinging to their old ways not realizing that the times are changing for real this time.
Also: Ryan Grim, along with Chris "Donald Trump is running to Hillary's left on a lot of things" Hayes & Nathan J. Robinson, was one of the three White Knights of Tara Reade who attempted to a decapitation strike on joebiden with that obvious op.
He's not the brave truthteller Orange County Republiqan Kevin Drum is painting him to be.
I agree with you Hokie. Progressives are stuck with working out the new rules of how organizations are going to deal with the new sensitivity to, and intolerance of, racism and sexism, and it's not going to be easy, partly because the right has decided to sit on the sidelines and throw snowballs, but it's necessary.
Haven't read the Ryan Grim piece, but was it timed to, or rushed into publication because of, this dust up at the Washington Post over Dave Weigel and Felicia Sonmez? I was thinking about that situation and wondering, in the old days before Twitter, if one of your staff was walking around the office sharing the joke which Weigel retweeted, to staffers male and female and of all colors, what would have happened? I'd love to hear from an office dispute labor lawyer what you could do in a case like that. Surely you wouldn't just let someone tell that joke all over the office?
It's almost a certainty that this piece became more urgent for the residents of CumTown in the wake of Dave Weigel's brutal deplatforming by the WOKE editorial staff of the Washington Compost.
FYI - the complaining reporter who got Weigel suspended was fired last Friday. Reading between the lines she was a toxic co-worker who gained a ton of enemies at The Washington Post.
It's funny how you literally never see mention that her lawsuit against the Post got dismissed on left of center sites. It's like you're not allowed to mention that.
Also, people who only "speak truth to power" when there's an audience are suspect.
As though Davy Weigs wasn't?
But of course both employees could be toxic but only on the two seemed to enrage many Post Employees. Hmmmmm.
Yes, start in with the faculty lounge gibberish when you have no argument.
All those straight white men like Obama and Buttigieg and Hillary that you hate.
I curious, is it actually possible to express a progressive thought these days that doesn't include the words "white male" said with contempt? I get it that the virtual signaling is very important, but if you take a step out of the bubble it really does sound pretty toxic.
If you were being grossly underpaid at a non-profit run by black people, would you mention their race? Is raced even relevant here? Never mind that in a majority white country of course most power will be concentrated with white people... but that's not any more "evil" than power in Japan being concentrated with Japanese people.
Honestly, I've always considered myself a hardcore progressive, but the identity obsession we've spiraled down in recent years has me imagining a new lefty labor party that abandons this Malcolm X white devil crap and gets back to the mountaintop.
*virtue signaling
What happens when the 20% of the population which votes Democratic, is binary male and hails from European parentage get sick of all the whining and resentment and simply quit voting? No, we're not going to vote for Republicans, but just say, "To Hell with the Democrats! I'll vote for a centrist No-Hoper!"
The answer is "Women, People of Color and Non-Binary folks are SCREWED!" We won't be screwed; we can just keep our mouths shut at "pass".
I'm a historian, so I like to look for patterns, and the left tearing itself to shreds is something very old an universal (not just American). Various factions in the Soviet Union literally killed each other in a quest to prove that they were the one, true socialist path. Same with the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and on and on.
Monty Python satirized the phenomenon in Life of Brian with the various Jewish factions (People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, Campaign for a Free Galilee, etc) who all were nominally against the Romans, but who spent most of their time fighting each other instead. Indeed, in the film they all end up killing each other while the Romans watch. I fear that's what's happening in 2022 America.
Quite some years ago now, I went to a small-scale showing of a film about the very far left's unionization movement. Before the film even started, factions within the audience literally came to blows -- albeit feeble ones -- about whether the anarchists betrayed the Trotskyites and other incredibly obscure disputes.
The audience mostly consisted of pretty feeble old guys with crutches, even in wheelchairs. It was quite a sight and vividly demonstrated why the Old Left had never been able to actually achieve anything.
Even worse, this is all happening at a time when conservatives have become complete lunatics. It should be a golden age for progressives, who have the chance of a lifetime to make huge strides in the political arena. Instead we've gotten weaker.
Most middle class Americans have been insulated from the lunacy though, both by design (Republicans love exempting their own voters from the worst implications of their policies) and by poor oppositional leadership (Centrist Democrats love watering down their party's own ideas, following norms their opponents don't follow, pursuing bipartisanship for its own sake and generally mainstreaming whatever lunacy Republicans want). Once the lunacy starts leaking out and affecting them in large enough numbers - once they can't get readily get birth control, once they can't reliably get Social Security benefits, once their roads are undriveable - I suspect the middle class to turn against Republicans. Unfortunately, as lots of other backsliding democracies have shown us, the middle class will simply stop voting at all (or the Republicans will strip away any meaning behind voting through voter suppression, gerrymanders, packing the courts to overturn anything that slips through in referenda, etc.).
We're fucked. It's just a question now of whether we have benevolent smiling faces (lame-duck "Democrats") fucking us or lunatic smiling faces (Aunt Lydia type Republicans) fucking us.
Yelling at the kids these days: check.
Yawn.
> It's a shame that he's virtually abandoned both the Democratic Party
Can you blame the guy? Honestly?
> Young staffers insist on it, and management, who are supposed to be the adults in the room, have neither the power or the fortitude to rein them in and manage.
If there is a problem, it is here. If managers are incapable of dealing with whiny 20-somethings, why do they have jobs? Mood contagion is a very common problem in workplaces, it has been happening since we invented workplaces.
You can bitch about Zoom and Slack all you want, but they add approximately nothing new to this scenario, except they're even easier for management to surveil - you can rent software to do it.
Sounds to me like the real headline should be, "Progressive organizations face management crisis: where did all the grown ups go?"
Except that might not confirm the biases of 60-somethings.
The managerial dysfunction really stuck out to me. A lot of the managers they interviewed for this seem to be afraid of their staff and conflict-averse. They can clean this up! They can insist that staff keep internal drama internal or be fired, that they follow procedures for grievances and actually do their job, and so forth.
Do what the Washington Post just did and fire people if they don't get back on board. The Post finally fired one of their reporters because she directly ignored a directive on professionalism and kept attacking her colleagues and the company in a public space. Most of these groups should do that.
I don't really give him fault for not being involved in domestic politics in the US after his Presidency. Basically every President but Trump mostly stays out of getting directly involved in partisan fights after their terms, to the point where it's kind of a norm.
In person meeting means scheduling a room, preferably at a central location, leaving time for people to get to that location, checking out the set up to make sure it works, dealing with limited space, etc.
Virtual meetings can be had anytime and be as large as you like.
Even with Covid restrictions almost completely dropped, virtual meeting remain. Some of the people I work with report having meetings constantly now. Not just the added sensitivity meetings, but they are now called on to sit in with the supervisor's meetings, etc.
Maybe a good recession will solve inflation of all sorts - prices and egos of 20-somethings with little real world experience.
That latter part is the most important thing that stuck out from that piece. The management at the groups in question just honestly seem afraid of their staffers - unwilling to reign in people when folks start talking crap openly about the organization on social media, unwilling to discipline or fire people for being disruptive and dysfunctional, and so forth. The ACLU thing, for example, should have ended with the top brass at the organization just straight up telling the staffers complaining that the ACLU does not compromise on its commitment to free speech, and if they don't like that they can find somewhere else to work. Instead they got frightened*, and tried to half-measure it with a public statement and so forth that pleased no one.
That's a management failure as much as a staff failure, and they need to refocus on the mission as well and be willing to actually enforce discipline on their organizations (and get some NDAs as well!). As the piece says, the reliance on foundation money isn't helping - there's less of an outside pressure on them to actually perform or die.
* The more cynical reason is that the ACLU has become heavily dependent on progressive foundation and rich person donor money, and those folks really want them to be more of a left-wing advocacy group than a civil liberties group.
I will add this, though - they're not totally wrong to be worried about whether coming down hard on this could hurt their own career prospects elsewhere. If somebody gets fired and makes a bad faith accusation of racism/sexism/whatever on their way out, then when the manager is moving on to a new position there's a non-zero chance that people whip up a social media mob to try and get them fired.
It's selective though. I think the primary antidote to "permanent" "kancellation" is to be wealthy (Drew Magary, Jack Kogod) or a projector of Amerikkkan Imperialism (retired Marine Matt Ufford).
Just look at the post-KissingSuzyKolber career trajectory of those three versus Mike Tunison. None of those four were really any less guilty of krimes against waking than any of the others, but only Tunison ended up in the shit.
Who are these nonentities? And why are you naming them?
The piece does talk about management a bit, but not in enough depth to say anything definitive. My guess is that people with management skills tend to end up in highly paid jobs at for-profit businesses, mattered less in the past than now. The rise of social media and call out culture creates challenges that previous generations of managers didn't have to face, and you would expect this to disproportionately affect organizations with the weakest management.
I vaguely remember years old Kevin Drum posts on this topic that went something like: college student are always going to be extreme, that's just college students. Who cares?
Kevin got older & more set in his ways.
It stopped being only on campus. And that's what a lot of people were saying 7 years ago, but it was only something a blogger would write.
As I posted downthread, they were busy trying to get Republicans elected by default in 2014 too, but it really didn't gain speed until 2016 when they could piggy back on the Republican Hillaryhate they'd been building up for 25 years. They were happy to do that.
You are expected to be an evangelist for the org, a "true believer" and as such not complain about being underpaid, overworked and under appreciated because that hurts the mission.
These privileged white guys are living a bubble - they don't see things as they are for folks who have a lower status in American society, they are apparently upset with these folks pushing for better status.
Have to think the demographics in the orgs has changed: like Congressional staffers, who usually were upper middle to upper class white people (? men?) who could afford to take a year or two off while living off their trust fund to intern in Congress. Gotta think similar at ACLU, Audubon, FOE, Sierra Club, Dem Party, AFLCIO, AFT, etc. etc. all relying on rich white kids to be their foot soldiers who Do The Thing then are in and out and on to their next "fun" gig. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, with the outreach to marginalized groups and people who might think that, like the tony managers, this is their vocation, they are looking for an actual living wage. And healthcare. And reasonable life/work balance. And unions. And for all these 'progressive' orgs, they should be leading the way on all this sh-t. "Eat your own dog food" as they say. Living wage, 4 day/32 hour week, p/maternity leave, 10 (? whatever) weeks off, etc. etc. "We can survive doing the Right Thing, so can Insert-Big-Capitalist-Firm-name-here..."
It's the managers/donors who need to get with the program and adjust their expectations.
Yes, good luck soliciting donations for your cause when 60% of any contribution goes to administrative fees.
Perhaps reaching out to groups of employees who can’t actually afford to take a passion job that’s pays almost nothing was the mistake.
“You are expected to be an evangelist for the org, a "true believer" and as such not complain about being underpaid, overworked and under appreciated because that hurts the mission.”
If you’re working at a non-profit, then YES, THAT IS EXACTLY THE JOB DESCRIPTION! Lol, wtf. Stop bawling about your status or whatever and go get a job in the for-profit sector where that actually makes any sense.
OMG I so disagree with your premise. I was at a Not-For-Profit for 17 years as a paid employee -- at first it was a fantastic opportunity to gain experience and knowledge in the career path I never knew I would have back in college. But this outfit had trouble attracting well qualified professionals because the pay scale was not competitive, usually they tried to make up for that by offering great benefits and overall being a nice non-toxic place to work. We were very well regarded and were very thrify with keeping overhead low and DCAA happy.
The salad days for this institution ended with the turning of this century. I should have exited sooner but I was a nice place to work and they gave me the space to self learn about bunch of stuff useful in my current career path.
If you want a well run competent organization you gotta hire professionals and you have to pay market rate for those professionals. You try to staff your non-profit with trustafarians who will work for nothing and you get what you paid for. If donors don't understand this, they need a major education in HOW THINGS WORK.
Obama should run for Congress. Presidents can only serve two terms, but there's no reason one as young and as accomplished as Obama was when he left office couldn't continue to serve—and do much good—in the legislative branch. For that matter he'd make a good Secretary of State.
(I can hardly blame the guy for wanting to enjoy life, but it's always struck me as a pity that other democracies can benefit from long-ish tenures of their most sucessful political leaders, but US presidents have to quit after eight years.)
And Michelle on SCOTUS?
I recall an interview with Barack Obama and he was asked if he would consider a nomination to the Supreme Court and he replied "Michelle would leave me if I did that."
Perhaps neither Obama is eager to get back in the political arena.
Our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, was a one-term president who went on to serve in Congress for about 18 years. He became a leader in the anti-slavery movement. His congressional career was probably more impactful than his presidency.
I bring this up to illustrate that a president can have a second political life after leaving the White House, although it's been a long time since anyone has done it. The only other example I can think of is Herbert Hoover. Hoover and Harry Truman became friends and 17 years after Hoover left the White House, Truman tapped him to lead the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, often known as the Hoover Commission. For better and worse, the commission's recommendations lead to the post WW-II national security state.
John Quincy Adams did just that. And from his seat in the House he led the beginning of the fight against slavery. He also argued the Amistad case before the Supreme Court, and was central to the founding of the Smithsonian Institution.
Looks like I was typing while George was posting.....
Obama was always happier running as a republican, not as a democrat (in fact you could argue he was the best republican President since Bill Clinton). So it doesn't surprise me at all that he's not that involved with the progressive movement, because he was never a progressive.
Regarding the infighting going on at some of these places, I think the unspoken part of this is that management a lot of the time isn't particularly very good or effective. I can count on one hand the progressive organizations that didn't have over bearing bosses or a completely dysfunctional structure. It's just unfortunate that more transparency over this has occurred when US democracy is basically fighting for it's life.
^^^ perfect example of what I was saying. Obama is unpersoned by the progleft.
From 1968 to 1988, the Democrats lost five of six presidential elections. Three of those losses were landslides and that includes the most progressive candidate of the latter half of the 20th century (McGovern) as well as the last of the New Dealers (Mondale).
And you're surprised we got Bill Clinton in the '90s?
LOL.
This isn't just college kids or lefty organizations. Sure, those are fertile fields but the weed is identity and the division of what defines us into ever smaller and more atomized groups. I saw this is the late 1980s at the progressive educational non-profit with the constant diversion from mission to an ever-escalating competition to "highlight" (and gaslight) a particular history and oppression.
Hint for the younger folks ... let go of the deck chair. Stop fighting for your deck-chair shuffle of the day and STOP THE SHIP FROM SINKING. Find common cause and build something larger than you, otherwise you will be adrift, alone and with only your deck chair to cling to.
Can I prove I am who I say I am? Probably not.
But I served on the California DCC at the end of the Obama administration as the "Bernie people" or whatever you want to call them started to take over. Some of their wins include getting the teachers unions to endorse a Republican state house candidate.
If I had to boil it down, I'd say these people started off as mad that the Republicans could launch a fake war and destroy the economy and get away with it so their response was (a) act like Republicans (fight fire with fire) and (b) demand absolute purity. I kind of get it in a way. Sometimes online I say things like that, or I used to.
But irl this is not good politics. Trying to get rid of unions that aren't woke enough is a bad place to start. Sure, their views might not be convenient, but the unions put people out there to walk precincts. The only substitute is to hire people, which takes money... which is what the "progressive" orgs supply.
Ironically, I think, it's a lot of small donor money controlled by a few that is ruining the Democratic Party.
I have to add that wokeism doesn't extend to treating older folks as equals. It is totally accepted in the workplace to constantly tell jokes about the age of fellow workers and people the organization serves, often right to their faces, and expect the "old folks" to just laugh along. Plus, age discrimination is rampant and blatant in hiring and firing. Once you reach a certain age most organizations just will not hire you, and if layoffs need to come you are often the first to go.
Old people are steeped in prejudices from bygone decades. Young progressives look forward to their leaving the scene; meanwhile, the young feel justified in shoving the old aside. That way the new prejudices can have free rein; the formerly marginalized get to marginalize someone else.
Or jews. We're allowed to be antisemited by them and they pay no price.
I’ve been saying since before the 2020 election that Joe Biden’s becoming president bought this country at most 4 years and probably just 2. The saving of this country depends upon that man’s ability to coerce a thoroughly broken Senate to pass progressive legislation to fix this country fast. This hasn’t happened, and likely won’t happen ever again after November.
This intraparty and intraorganization fighting stems from this entirely. Everyone is upset. Everyone is scared because they know if we continue to do nothing we will no longer have anything resembling a democracy left to save. You have left-of-centers like yourself wanting to blame progressives for everything when they don’t even make up a majority of Democrats elected in Congress. You’re even moronically blaming Barack Obama. He’s no longer president and doesn’t have to run for office if he doesn’t want to. We have hundreds of Democrats in office already, and Cincinnatus shouldn’t need to come out of retirement to save the Republic. Nothing will be fixed until the Senate is fixed. No other problem matters until Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are made irrelevant and the filibuster is removed because nothing can be fixed otherwise.
And progressives only seem to get mad about being blamed for things while they happily admit they did those things in their own spaces. How about you NOT do those things while the country is teetering on the edge.
AOC, she of the super safe district, throwing Biden under the bus last week is exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. Sorry if we hurt your feelings calling it out.
Seriously, you guys can sure dish it out but you can't take it.
Reminds me a bit of the early 70's, when the boomers were flexing their power on the left--the McCarthy-RFK-McGovern sequence was telling. Not "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" but "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion". Defeat in both cases.
The early 70s were what folks thought it was at the time it happened. The Watergate Tapes outed the extent of the ratfucking done by Creep to sabotage the Democratic party to ensure Nixon's reelection.
But plus +1 for the "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" reference hahahaha.
"Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion" was a smear originating from Nixon's dirty tricks office. I suppose you are upset that Democrats aren't concentrating on fixing the Great Replacement, the menace of CRT and groomers in our schools and kindergartens, and whatever else Tucker Carlson is ranting about this week.
Abortion??? Nope. That is 00's.
Bay Area nonprofit employee here (front line, not management), with friends and work connections at many other local nonprofits. Can confirm the Intercept's reporting on this is quite accurate and honestly, tragically overdue.
The bit Kevin highlighted re: there being “a pattern of … people who are not competent in their orgs getting ahead of the game by declaring that others have engaged in some kind of -ism, thereby triggering a process that protects them in that job while there’s an investigation or turmoil over it"... Seriously, that shit is just endemic in the Bay Area nonprofit community. The org I work at has been led around by the nose by several poorly behaved and extremely unproductive low-level employees who've shown a willingness to accuse any manger or director who challenges them of supremacy culture, etc., often filing formal HR complaints. The hassle factor is sufficiently large that people like this are generally allowed to slide, despite being useless and/or counterproductive when it comes to their actual job responsibilities.
Meanwhile the whole org has been intermittently riven with various internal campaigns, demands that there be official public statements by the company about this or that hot button issue despite said issues being entirely unrelated and even counter to the org's stated mission, more -isms/supremacy/"you don't care about X!" accusations when that doesn't happen, and so on. The turmoil is driven almost entirely by a very vocal 20% or so of the staff. The rest of us are generally exhausted by it all and mainly just keep our heads down, avoid speaking openly within the company so we're not the next targets, and try not to let it completely derail the actual work we're there to do.
So yeah, nice to see a nascent backlash finally kicking into gear, though to be honest I have my doubts about how far it can really go in the current climate. At whatever point Trump announces his candidacy I imagine the craziness will ramp right back up again in response. As the Intercept article also mentions at some point, people in these kinds of orgs want to feel like they’re doing something to fight back but have zero access to or influence on the real perpetrators in government and the culture at large. So instead they identify enemies and perpetrators within the tiny sphere they can affect and create an emotional experience for themselves of speaking truth to power, fighting the man, etc., a sadly self-indulgent spectacle that almost always does more harm than good.
"So instead they identify enemies and perpetrators within the tiny sphere they can affect and create an emotional experience for themselves of speaking truth to power, fighting the man, etc., a sadly self-indulgent spectacle that almost always does more harm than good."
This. The people who do the most systemic abusing are never within reach of the ones they abuse. Thus do we endlessly strike out at each other for that is all we ever see.
Trump has frontal lobe dementia. He is toast. Do you need a beat down to understand this???
These are probably the grandkids of the ASSHOLES in "SDS" back during the '60's. What a bunch of pompous jerks. Angels on pinheads? That's way too obvious.
Hmm:
"people who are not competent in their orgs getting ahead of the game by declaring that others have engaged in some kind of -ism"
Work long enough in any modest sized organization/company and you will encounter such people. They are very difficult to manage.
"lunatics on the right, lunatics on the left, stuck in the middle with them all."-- fed up centrist looking for a government that works
“I’m not saying it’s a right-wing plot, because we are incredibly good at doing ourselves in, but — if you tried — you couldn’t conceive of a better right-wing plot to paralyze progressive leaders“
Something that’s been swept under the rug is the extent to which Russian psyops in 2016 were responsible for the lefty movement viciously turning on Hillary. Yes, Bernie was great, but man, she was transformed into something so vile that many lefties were happy to usher in Trump rather than vote for her.
Is there any doubt that they’re not still actively involved every day in amplifying fissures on the left the same way they’re radicalizing the right wing? It’s happening.
President Obama played a prominent role in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
This is true.
The Democratic party has been under the control of centrists for a long time; Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer among others. Has this prevented the rise of the lunatic right and the danger to democracy? Obama was charismatic and something of a unifying figure, but it's hard to see him as a possible savior when his election gave a major boost to racism on the right. Some things promoted by the extreme left are certainly not political winners, but those things are continually being rejected by the Democratic party leaders - they are not party policy.
Extreme leftist rhetoric is not the real problem. Republicans are able to arouse reaction based on what many White Christians see as a threat to their supremacy. This is not a matter of rhetoric, it is what is really happening because of demographics and real leftward shift of the population's attitude on cultural matters.
This is far from a potential "golden age" for progressive economic politics, although as a whole the country continues to move leftward on cultural attitudes. Just trimming the progressive messages and toning down extremists will not eliminate the advantage that Republican get by arousing racism and religiosity. Neither Kevin nor anyone else has come up with a counter-strategy that would work under current conditions.
Regarding Obama:
“Barack Obama. It's a shame that he's virtually abandoned both the Democratic Party and the progressive movement since stepping down as president.”
I’d like to hear more about this as I think it’s actually fertile ground for debate rather than foregone conclusion.
I remember quite a few complaints in articles and comments, during the Trump years, that Obama should step up to lead the “resistance.” Clearly he did not, but he wasn’t entirely silent. And I imagine there must have been a mix of strategies motivating Obama’s behavior. For one thing, he was likely following the standard tradition where an ex-president refrains from excessive commentary on his (or her!) successor. But I suspect strongly that Obama wanted or hoped that the Dem party and the Left would find its own voice and produce its own new crop of leaders in opposition to trump. I don’t think Obama wanted to continue dominating the stage, and he probably knew that there could easily be counterproductive and unforeseen consequences if he assumed the face of Trump resistance.
On the whole, things really don’t seem to have worked out as terribly as they could have. Obama’s Vice-President is now President, and that’s a direct result of Obama’s ongoing influence. Biden may very well have been the only 2020 candidate mercifully un-woke enough to beat Trump, but he never would’ve been in striking distance without his 8 years as Obama’s VP.
Also, Obama’s party took control of Congress, vaccinated the sane parts of the country, got us out of Afghanistan, passed an infrastructure bill, and led a war against Putin’s totalitarianism that they should be receiving more credit for (but, you know, eggs are expensive). So, really not a bad post-Obama list of accomplishments.
And a black woman became both the first black person and the first woman ever to be VP. That sort of new generation of leadership filling such roles is, I would assert, almost certainly what Obama was hoping for. Unfortunately, I’m not at all convinced that Harris could ever be an effective national leader. She was certainly talented to rise as high as she did through CA politics, but, in my opinion, she seriously needs to quit woke Twitter if she wants a future career as President (although that might be getting into another topic).
Of course things probably won’t go well for the DEMs in November, but that wouldn’t be any different from the first midterm election of Obama himself. History does have a way of intruding, and with the end of the Pandemic, world wide inflation, and Putin’s war in Europe, the DEMs have been dealt quite a series of blows.
This is all to say that I just don’t see the situation as one where Obama has turned his back on everything Dem-related. His ongoing influence is palpable. Nevertheless, there is indeed a rift, perhaps a growing one, between Obama and the types of Leftists described in this blog post by Kevin. But, first of all, that rift isn’t new. Secondly, I’m going to resort to the oldest cliché in the book: did Obama abandon “progressive” DEMs, or did they abandon him?
Keep in mind that books like Kendi’s “How to be an AntiRacist” oppose just about everything that Obama stands for (such as faith in gradual progress, a belief that our society has slowly improved, a hope that collective action will promote more positive change, etc.) Kendi explicitly advocates for MORE discrimination (his reasoning being that the “solution” for past discrimination is current and future discrimination). And, for reasons that will remain baffling to me until the day I die, untold numbers of “progressives” literally took to the streets (and tore up their own organizations - as Kevin describes) largely in a refutation of Obama and a shockingly wholesale embrace of an extremist like Kendi.
So, who abandoned who?
Yeah, I wrote something similar before reading this.
Go to any lefty activist group and say anything about Obama. Then wipe the spittle off your face.
Good post and thanks for refuting Kevin's stupid, needless, pointless and gratuitous shot at Obama. Can't you let a man enjoy his retirement and even if he did try to throw his weight around, what good would it do with people who take a negative view towards his Presidency? The minions who staffed and voted for Bernie didn't come out of nowhere!
And that's the bottom line. As bad they're making such progressive groups disfunctional right now, said groups have no choice but to hire those darn kids! lest you wish to hire a bunch of retirees (like Obama). Hopefully in time, like all of us, will grow up and look back on their 20-something selves with embarrassmnent as they mellow and moderate
“Can you get your love and healing at home, please?”
Well, progressive organizations employ people self-selected to focus on communal issues and embrace communal solutions. The organizations are also more diverse than the right-of-center ones; so, opportunity to identify more with some co-workers than others. But on both sides of the political divide, there’s the human tendency to find a scapegoat outside one’s own tribe to blame one’s problems on - illegal immigrants, or cis-white-males, or whomever. The other side’s tribe, being much more homogeneous, is dealing with fewer internal divisions.
The far right: the Holocaust didn't happen but I wish it did
The far left: cancel culture isn't real but I'm glad it's happening
One of my children once worked for a progressive organization. They paid terribly, and treated staff terribly. She did learn a lot, but at a price of diminished self-esteem. Leaving that organization was the best thing she ever did.
A lot of progressive organizations really expect huge self-sacrifice from their young workers. If they can't pay and treat people better, they should cut staff and pay better while providing some mentoring. And maybe some sensitivity. A lot of lower people on staff are young women, and there is blatant sexism, especially in respect for their opinions and unwillingness to pay them decently.
Again, nope. Progressive organizations look at anti communal thinking. I mean bud, do you need a brain damage for this type of thinking??? Communal thinking???? Please.
JESUS! This is why I left the fucking country. Kevin brings up the obvious and the very thing he is talking about happens in comments. FUCKING TERRIFYING! Get out your mirrors folks.
Yeah, the Ph.D. gibberish was out in the first few comments. Sad.
>Abandoned
That's a funny way to spell kicked out for not being anti-american.
Sorry but can you cite any actual evidence of the following???
"One of the biggest problem with all this is that it prompts progressive orgs to fight back against conservative orgs not with the messages most likely to win people to their side, but with maximal left-wing arguments that just scare people off. "
And I am not talking about Twitter randos mouthing off. I am talking about press releases, position papers, etc.
*An environmental organization that seems to think the topic of white supremacy will advance its ostensible concerns for a healthier planet:
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/racism-killing-planet
OR:
*A Civil Rights group (the now infamous ACLU) which adopts a comically absurd policy of avoiding the word "woman" (be sure to read the replies):
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610
*There are any number of similar examples. The article that Kevin's blog post references discusses many of the organizations in question, just take a look at it.
The ACLU has totally lost the plot. Chase Strangio, their transgender lead: "“Abigail Shrier’s book is a dangerous polemic... We have to fight these ideas which are leading to the criminalization of trans life again... Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”
Yeah, that's an organization dedicated to the principle of free speech.
No need for press releases, etc. Just look at the mailers I get - the calls to action, the issues they care about. There is no way these issues are appropriate for my region and demogrpahic (and certainly not given the letters I write them) - they are internally driven to set the agenda. All too often the "interest" and "poll" letters have absolutely no answer for me: "Why do I care about climate change? a) because it affects black people b) it affects immigrants c) it affects women d) it affects poor people e) Climate Change is transphobic." These are the answers a 23 year old activist think are relevant, and they are completely divorced from any reality.
Fossil fuels lower male testosterone.
Once again, nothing leftist about it. Just more cult of the individual. Gay rights is anti leftist.
"What emerges by zooming out is the striking similarity of their trajectories... “It’s the kind of thing that looks very context-specific, until you see a larger pattern,” she said."
Telling bit there, it's almost as if there really is a wide spread problem!
Activists on the left and right are addicted to sweet, sweet, self righteousness and 'the winning' associated with making others feel pain. The right's activists at least has a clear goal in mind--Make America like it was in 1959! Oh and make a little $ along the way.
The left---I'm not sure what the endpoint for all of this might be. End of the patriarchy? A race blind society? No wait, a race hyper-conscious society that doles out opportunities based on your group's past oppression? Oh yeah, and endless monitoring of speech such that no person is ever offended? Open borders?--Definitely because everyone walking across our border just wants a better life! And never say that America is a great place that millions of people would move to an instant; that will get you spit on faster than saying Obama.
I know lefty advocates way better than the right and I would say the other defining feature is that many of these folks are miserable. Like an addict, the fix wears off after you have 'won' a battle in a war that has no goal.
Brian : Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg : F00k off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.
Francis : Wankers.
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f00king Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there. LIFE OF BRIAN
This what this sounds like to me....