Progressives shouldn't confuse a party with a movement

Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda, writes columnist David Sirota. Movements, however, are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it.

Though the 2006 and 2008 elections were billed as progressive movement successes, the story behind them highlights a longer-term failure. During those contests, most leaders of Washington's major labor, environmental, antiwar and anti-poverty groups spent millions of dollars on a party endeavor — specifically, on electing a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. In the process, many groups subverted their own movement agendas in the name of ... Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

See All Reviews »

Review

Dwight Rousu
4.4
by Dwight Rousu - Sep. 8, 2009

Sirota creates an insightful look at the distinction between a political party and a political movement.

In this vacuum, movement building has been left to underfunded (but stunningly successful) projects like Firedoglake.com, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and local organizations. And that’s the lesson: True grass-roots movements that deliver concrete legislative results are not steered by marble-columned institutions, wealthy benefactors or celebrity politicians — and they are rarely run from Washington. They are almost always far-flung efforts by those organized around real-world results — those who don’t care about party conventions, congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees they were never invited to in the first place.

See All Reviews »

Dwight's Rating

Overall
4.4

Good
from 13 answers
Quality
4.6
Information
3.0
Insight
5.0
Style
5.0
Context
5.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
5.0
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
2.0
More How our ratings work »