Maintaining the Grassroots in Brooklyn: New Brooklyn Leadership
I am both a big fan and a big critic of the progressive grassroots. I think at their best, it is the progressive grassroots that can bring out the best in American government. And this recent election showed the worth of such grassroots movements like Act Blue, Progressive Majority and MoveOn.org. But one of my main criticisms of the progressive grassroots is their lack of unity and ability to stick it out for the long haul.
Chris Owens, a favorite grassroots progressive in Brooklyn and favorite bugbear of City Councilman David Yassky, is doing his best to make the grassroots in Brooklyn both more unified and more effective with a new initiative (and organizing base for future campaigns) called New Brooklyn Leadership.
What could bring together Michael Bouldin, Daily Gotham coiner of the term "Green tools of the right" and members of the Green Party?
Chris Owens can do it.
Last night was Chris' thank you party for those who helped him in his recent run for Congress, and his announcement of the New Brooklyn Leadership movement.
At its root, this is an attempt to keep together the very active, very dedicated grassroots coalition that rallied around Chris Owens' candidacy and to hone that coalition into a more effective and lasting tool. And it was a good start. Members of both IND and CBID were there, representing the area's two best known "reform Democratic" clubs. Members of the Green Party were there, including former Brooklyn BP candidate Gloria Mattera. Daily Gotham's own anti-Green enthusiast Michael Bouldin was there. Members of Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn were there. Bigwigs from New Democratic Majority were there. It was, in short, a pretty good cross section of the recent Norm Seigel (2005) and Chris Owens (2006) campaigns and probably the most active participants in Brooklyn's sometimes thin grassroots. There were over 100 people in the room at one time, and people were coming and going, indicating that many more were probably there at some time or another.
Chris Owens, Bill Batson and Eric Adams were the three recent Democratic candidates I saw there. I was quite happy to see these three together because, although they are not always on the same page on all issues, these are the three 2006 candidates I highlighted as examples of what I call a "community candidate," a candidate who has already shown true dedication to the community, establishing a relationship of service to the community before asking the community to support his or her candidacy for office. It was great to see these three excellent and highly dedicated community activists together, and it was great to once again congratulate Eric Adams in his election to the State Senate. Many at Chris Owens' event spoke of having high hopes for Eric Adams in the State Senate despite the Republican domination of that branch of our State government.
New Brooklyn Leadership will hopefully be the ongoing result of last night's enthusiasm. Here are the Principles of New Brooklyn Leadership as announced by Chris [with my comments in brackets]:
1. New Brooklyn Leadership supports public policies that promote and establish peaceful relationships between people and nations, recognizing that all people are equal. [I can hear Gatemouth groan at this one, but it is a sound basis for progressive leadership, with precedents in efforts by Woodrow Wilson through Jimmy Carter. As a principle it is a good place to start considering foreign policy, even though I feel Theodore Roosevelt was also right in saying it helps to have a big stick to back up peaceful policies].
2. New Brooklyn Leadership supports public policies that protect the lives of United States residents through strong security measures and maximized civil rights and liberties. [Amen! This is what I am talking about when I say we should focus on al-Qaeda, not Iraq, and when I say that Bush has helped the terrorists defeat us by throwing out our Constitution in his failed fight to "bring Democracy to Iraq." I also think this is where Steve Harrison was coming from when he faulted Bush lap dog Vito Fossella for his support of the unPatriot Act and his failure to call for screening of all cargo coming into our ports. Protect American citizens and liberties together!]
3. New Brooklyn Leadership supports public policies that promote and establish equitable social, economic and political outcomes for all Americans, including quality public education, affordable and accessible health care, and quality and affordable housing. [Sounds like a good summary of the Democratic Party platform from FDR on.]
4. New Brooklyn Leadership supports public policies that recognizes that a diverse collection of strategies and methodologies must be employed to ensure successful, positive outcomes for constituencies. [I take this to mean both Michael Bouldin and Greens are welcome and respected...]
New Brooklyn Leadership's Vision: An electorate in Brooklyn that is motivated and mobilized to vote in every election for candidates who represent the best interests of the borough and of each individual jurisdiction. [Excellent idea! I have been pushing the grassroots to focus on elections like judicial elections, county committee, district leader, Brooklyn DA, etc. Hopefully this new movement will help to focus grassroots attention on more than just infighting and bring out a better effort for people like Paul Wooten, whose run for Brooklyn DA sadly fell below the radar of most progressive activists.]
Mission: To maximize voter registration and voter turnout within Brooklyn regardless of an individual voter's profile through the development of appropriate outreach methodologies and the development of quality candidates for public and party offices. [Note to Chris and myself: we should talk to Progressive Majority, which is already doing a great job of this in other states.]
Goals:
1. To prepare voter-related resources that are current, thorough and user-friendly.
2. To increase overall voter turnout by increasing the number and percentage of younger voters who cast votes to a level that parallels turnout within other age cohorts.
3. To utilize various strategies and methodologies to create the infrastructure needed to support the vision and mission of New Brooklyn Leadership, including the use of not-for-profit and for-profit business entities as well as political organizations.
Let's see where this goes.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Activism | Community | Elections | Grassroots | Politics | Brooklyn | Chris Owens | Democratic Party | Green Party | Progressive Movement
You could put it to Chris...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 4:47pm.
Well, the audience was a room full of Chris Owens supporters who are eager to continue their activism. And that target audience did receive it well, so in terms of firing up the grassroots base, it already worked.
As to a broader audience, well, let's see what happens. I posted this because that's what I do...I report on local politics from my own perspective. And what Chris is doing is precisly what has been lacking among the progressive grassroots: continuity from campaign to campaign. In other words, infrastructure. DFNYC and NDM try, but the size of their active membership fluctuates wildly depending on what's going on. Will Chris do better? We will see. He has good reason to make it work because that will serve as his base for future elections. I am sure that is one of his personal goals, though I can also tell you that his goals for this organization go beyond personal ambition. It is day 1 into his initiative's existence. What he has done so far is inspire some 100+ local activists to keep together and look 2-3 years into the future. That already is a good step.
As to editing suggestions, talk to Chris if you want to help out. I take no responsibility for his words, though I am happy to discuss my own editorial comments in the [brackets].
Heh
Submitted by Antid Oto on 20 November 2006 - 6:03pm.
I take no issue with the campaign itself. I think it's a terrific idea. I just thought its aims were expressed, um, poorly in that particular release, and I have a tendency to react too strongly and undiplomatically to writing I don't like. I will get in touch with Owens directly once I think of a more tactful way to make the offer.
Your editorial comments are clear, as always.
Diplomacy
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 6:40pm.
Diplomacy is over-rated : -)
I can't say I am always diplomatic...just go ask Wallner in another thread!
Don't think I took issue with what you said. Just wanted to clarify who the intended audience was and to make it clear that my posting it was my own doing, not necessarily a press release by the campaign. And I was serious that you should contact Chris if you had ideas.
And I'm glad you think my comments are clear...of course if you are just being diplomatic you could really mean they clearly suck : -)
One of the goals: (promote
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 6:36pm.
One of the goals:
(promote and establish peaceful relationships between people and nations, recognizing that all people are equal)
Then it should push the argument that these other countries should recognize all people are equal too. I'm referring to our having normal relations with, and saying nothing to, countries that demean and disrespect women. There are countries, particularly in the muslim world, where women are not allowed to vote, are not allowed to drive, are considered the property of men and do not have the same access to legal protections as men. When South Africa had such policies towards blacks, we were up in arms. We did not accept it. We invoked sanctions. Yet we willingly accept it in the cases of countries, and there are many of them, that discriminate against women just as wrongly as South Africa discriminated against blacks. Somehow, appalling as this is, sexism in the world is more acceptable than racism. We need to encourage this to change. And yes, maybe that is why I see there could be great value in the United States having a woman president.
I am sure that is Chris' intention
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 6:49pm.
Perhaps Antid Oto is correct above that the phrasing of the goals are too vague, since I suspect that Chris certainly intends what you are advocating. In essence he advocates what Jimmy Carter did: include human rights in our foreign policy considerations. He also means diplomacy should be preferable to war, unlike the Bush "quick, invade it before diplomacy works" policy.
I will say it isn't always easy. There is sometimes a divide between respecting another culture and standing up for rights. One example is the burkha and veil bans in some countries. They are aimed at practices that are part of the very sexism that you are talking about. But they also are part of religious practice and therefore fall under religious freedom in my book. It is just an example off the top of my head, but it is intended to illustrate that it isn't always clear who should be the target of such opposition. There are grey areas. There are also practical matters. To defeat Hitler we had to ally with Stalin...was that justified? I would say yes, but if you asked me if we should ally with a brutal dictator who killed a substantial part of his population including ethnic minorities, I would certainly say no. But that's what we did when we allied with Stalin.
But where I think you, Chris and I would all agree is that inclusion of human rights as an integral factor in our foreign policy along with economic and strategic concerns. And that diplomacy should take precedence over threats and war.
diverse collection of strategies
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 7:13pm.
(New Brooklyn Leadership supports public policies that recognizes that a diverse collection of strategies and methodologies must be employed to ensure successful, positive outcomes for constituencies.)
how diverse? diverse enough to include republican/conservative strategies and methodologies? Also what is defined as a "succesful" or "positive" outcome can certainly differ from one person to the next. What you or I might consider a succesful outcome can be quite different from what the guy down the street considers a succesful outcome.
Here's a better wording:
"New Brooklyn Leadership pledges to support public policies that recognize the diversity and needs of the community, and commits itself to achieving the goals of each constituency. It recognizes that to ensure these goals are met, a variety of different strategies and methodologies may be needed."
Is a new group really necessary?
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 7:34pm.
The other question is, is a new group really necessary? I'm sure many, if not most of the people in that room are also members of CBID, IND, NDM, DFNYC, and other groups that all have similar goals. How many groups is too many?
Ugh
These folks need an editor badly, unless their goal is to be so fuzzy and indistinct that no one takes offense. The first question not addressed is: who is the intended audience of this declaration of principles and goals? Is it supposed to inspire potential supporters or simply not alienate any of the members of the committee who wrote it? It is packed with vague jargon and indistinct aims.
I often feel like there's not much I can do to support progressive causes, but as a professional writer and editor this is a skill I actually could offer from time to time--if the people writing such documents are willing to respond honestly to blunt, undiplomatic private queries. If you're interested, contact me through the email on my blog homepage.