|
Creating Progressive Infrastructure Now
An Action Plan for Reclaiming America’s Heart
and Soul
Leonard M. Salle and Katherine A.
Forrest
Summary
The
American conservative movement has succeeded in moving public
attitudes steadily rightward over the last 30 years, with
far-reaching consequences for the country’s political governance.
This success has been achieved through a well-funded and
well-coordinated organizational infrastructure that follows a
long-term, disciplined communications strategy. In order for
moderates and progressives to maximize the power of their own ideas
and values, and to compete effectively with the right wing over the
coming decades, they must develop, without delay, their own
infrastructural capacity and practices. This paper suggests how to
get started.
- Contents
- The Conservative Infrastructure
and the 2004 Election
- A Brief Historical Perspective
- Understanding the Nature of
Infrastructure
- Functions of a Political Movement
Infrastructure
- Characteristics of Infrastructure
Organizations
- Infrastructure Independent of
Political Parties
- Potential Components of a Progressive
Infrastructure
- The Action: Creating a Progressive Infrastructure
-
Establishing the PI Project Team
- Initial Work Plan
- Ongoing
Development of the PI
- Process Considerations
- Stakeholder Input into
Decision-Making
- Long-Term Vision
- Internal Coordination
- Key Ingredient: Funding the PI
- Strategic Investment Model
- The Venture Capital (VC) Model
- The Traditional Foundation Model
- Conclusion
- About the Commonweal Institute
It is not enough to have better ideas and
a better vision.
We need the determination and the means
to make the ideas and vision a reality.
The Conservative
Infrastructure and the 2004 Election
In the aftermath of
the November 2004 election, as can be expected, numerous political
analysts and commentators are giving their thoughts on what has
happened and why. Much of what is being said has truth and value,
but it does not tell the whole story. There has been almost no media
recognition of the role that an extensive network of conservative
organizations played in the election. This conservative
infrastructure, which advances a long-term conservative strategy,
continuously markets their ideology to the broad public, effectively
crowding out other perspectives. This conservative strategy
played a significant role in the Democratic loss and, over time, has
also forced Democrats to move to the Right in hopes of getting
elected.
Conservative
politicians are provided with both the ideas and the specific
language – such as “frivolous lawsuits” and “tax relief” – by the
infrastructure, for use in public statements and campaigns. The
messaging components of the conservative infrastructure also present
these words and the associated conservative perspectives to the
public through multiple media, making it appear as if the
politicians are simply expressing widely accepted ideas. Moreover,
thanks to their institutional infrastructure and its affiliated
media, conservative politicians and activists can quickly
communicate their messages to the broad public rapidly through
conservative talk radio, network television, and print media. The
ability to make the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” allegations into
a major media story, for example, casting doubt upon the integrity
and honesty of Senator John Kerry, had a major impact on the 2004
presidential election by almost all accounts.
So any analysis that points only to the
mechanics of the campaign, to the supposed strengths of the
Republicans and weaknesses of the Democrats, misses a major factor
in the political races. The political success of the Republican
Party rests largely on a network of right-wing organizations,
individuals, and their funders that together formulate and
disseminate compelling messages that support conservative
candidates. A major driver of the Republican victory was this
ideologically-oriented conservative movement infrastructure.
There is no
comparable progressive infrastructure. Moderate and progressive
candidates are on their own. They have to make their own arguments,
they have to develop their own language, they have to educate voters
on their issues, and they cannot depend upon an infrastructure and
its aligned media for support the way conservative candidates can.
A Brief Historical
Perspective
Over the past 30
years, as a result of the effectiveness of conservative
infrastructure, politicians of both major parties have had to move
to the right in order to get elected. Today, even many Democrats
talk about “downsizing” government, “reforming” the system of tort
laws, and promoting “choice” in public education. These are all
slogans that the conservative infrastructure has been selling the
public for years.
The original impetus
to create the institutions that now constitute the conservative
infrastructure was a memorandum that Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,
submitted to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce (USCOC) on August 23, 1971, addressing
what he called the “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.”
Powell, who was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court two months later
by Richard Nixon, claimed that "the American economic system" of
business and free markets was On August
23, 1971 Louis F. Powell submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce addressing what he called the “Attack on American Free
Enterprise System. Powell, who was nominated as an Associate Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court, and who On August 23, 1971 Louis F.
Powell submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
addressing what he called the “Attack on American Free Enterprise
System. Powell, who was nominated as an Associate Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, and who On August 23, 1971 Louis F. Powell
submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce addressing
what he called the “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.
Powell, who was nominated as an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court, and who "under broad attack" by "Communists,
New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire
system, both political and economic." Powell argued that those
engaged in this attack came from "the college campus, the pulpit,
the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and
sciences, and from politicians." The Powell memorandum was widely
distributed to the membership of the USCOC and syndicated columnist
Jack Anderson wrote several columns discussing the memorandum.
Powell intended his memorandum to be a call to
action for the USCOC, which he thought would be the primary
institution considering and implementing his many suggestions for
protecting the American enterprise system. However, it was not the
USCOC that took action.
In 1973, in response to the Powell memo, Joseph Coors and
Christian-right leader Paul Weyrich founded an activist think tank,
the Heritage Foundation, which is now the flagship organization of
the ultra-conservative movement. Subsequently, the Olin Foundation
began funding similar organizations in concert with Richard Mellon
Scaife's various foundations, the Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, Coors' foundations,
foundations associated with the Koch oil family, and a group of
large corporations. The organization Philanthropy Roundtable was
founded to coordinate this funding. What all these foundations had
in common is that their leaders were associated with the extreme
right of the political spectrum – such as the John Birch Society and
the secretive Christian-Right Council. There are now over 500
organizations that receive funding from this core group.
In addition to the Heritage Foundation, some
other well-known infrastructure organizations on the Right are
American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Pacific Research
Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Federalist
Society. Media organizations aligned with the conservative
infrastructure include the Washington Times and FOX News. Media
personalities that work closely with others to advance the Right’s
ideology, such as Rush Limbaugh, also function as part of the
Right’s infrastructure.
The Right’s
successful dissemination of their values and ideas is why
conservative perspectives now dominate the public discourse. It is
why so many candidates who, 30 years ago, would have been considered
too extreme to be given serious consideration are now being elected.
It is why this country now urgently needs a progressive
infrastructure (PI).
Understanding the
Nature of Infrastructure
Recently there has been talk of creating a
“progressive infrastructure” and there already are certain
organizations that could participate in that infrastructure.
However, a clear understanding what constitutes an infrastructure,
progressive or otherwise, is needed.
Webster defines infrastructure as “the basic
framework of a system.” We can think of it as something like our
interstate highway system, which is the framework that enables
surface travel through and around the nation. To be fully
operational, the highway infrastructure must incorporate such
functions as maintenance, highway patrol, and the accommodation of a
variety of different vehicle types.
In this paper, we are talking about an
infrastructure where the framework comprises the organizations and
individuals that support a political movement based on underlying
values and principles. It is a system capable of influencing the
public and the politics of the nation by marketing ideas and
advancing a political agenda. For such an infrastructure to operate
effectively, the infrastructure must be able to serve a number of
functions, as in the example of the highway system. If those
functions are not provided for, the infrastructure will be an
incomplete system unable to accomplish its objectives.
Functions of a Political Movement
Infrastructure:
·
Articulate the underlying
ideology;
·
Develop strategies and tactics that can be used by
organizations within and allied to the infrastructure;
·
Develop and disseminate conceptual frames and language
that can be used to advance positions consistent with the movement’s
ideology;
·
Conduct market research on
attitudes, knowledge, framing, language, and media usage;
·
Educate public officials and candidates regarding the
issues;
·
Garner favorable media coverage for the movement’s
philosophy and positions;
·
Conduct policy research and development that reflects
the movement’s priorities;
·
Create and disseminate content for the media that
effectively communicates the movement’s philosophy and positions;
·
Influence major institutions to respond favorably to
the movement’s ideas and proposals;
·
Track the behavior of opponents and develop
appropriate counter-measures;
·
Recruit and train members for the movement, including
those of a younger generation;
·
Cultivate and coordinate both regular and ad hoc
funding sources;
·
Develop model legislation
for adoption by state legislatures and by Congress;
·
Prepare policy papers that
explain and advocate the movement’s positions on specific issues;
·
Create a body of
intellectual work that supports critical issue areas;
·
Establish speakers bureaus
and provide training for speakers
·
Provide special training in
using verbal framing for office holders, for those who appear in the
media, authors, and for grass roots activists;
·
Educate and influence
decision-makers regarding specific issues;
·
Exert an appropriate
influence on the legal and judicial systems; and
·
Coordinate the various
components of the infrastructure on an ongoing basis.
This is not an
exhaustive list of infrastructure functions. Other important
functions of a political movement, such as grassroots organizing and
training of political campaign operatives and candidates, are not
being considered here as infrastructure functions, although clearly
there are ways in which these overlap or work synergistically with
infrastructure activities.
Characteristics of Infrastructure
Organizations
Infrastructure organizations are
characteristically multi-issue and focused on advancing underlying
principles and ideas. This model has worked well for the Right and
there is no reason to think it cannot also work well for
progressives. Multi-issue think tanks not only develop ideas and
policy, but also engage in advocacy, frequently with a strong
emphasis on marketing and communications. Such organizations can
advance multiple issues simultaneously, relying on unifying frames
and language consistent with their philosophy and values.
Multi-issue organizations enable efficient
communications. Established relationships with a variety of
specialized media and communication outlets—e.g., ethnic-language
broadcast media, the Internet blogging community, youth/campus
organizations, faith organizations—can be used to disseminate
messages about a wide range of issues in ways that would be
difficult for single-issue organizations. Multi-issue advocacy
organizations can tailor their messages to the interests, culture,
and psychodemographics of different target audiences, all the while
advancing the same underlying philosophy. They can also serve as
resource centers for the media, speakers, politicians, and policy
makers who need information quickly and in customized formats.
Arguably the most influential of the
conservative infrastructure organizations is the Heritage
Foundation. It is a multi-issue advocacy think tank whose operations
include development of long-term policy strategy, policy research,
publications and presentations, wide-ranging communications to the
public and to office-holders, training of conservative spokespersons
and media personnel, production of media content (including for
television and radio), maintenance of an information database for
mainstream media, and acting as a central clearinghouse for a large
infrastructure of hundreds of other organizations. In the words of
its president, Edwin J. Feulner, “We don’t just stress credibility…
We stress an efficient, effective delivery system. Production is
one side; marketing is equally important.” The Heritage
Foundation’s primary objective is the dissemination of conservative
ideas; its primary strategy is to employ information technology and
the media in order to influence political leaders and public
opinion.
In addition to the Heritage Foundation and a
number of other think tanks, the Right’s infrastructure
organizations include, but are not limited to, those that provide
model legislation for state legislators; those that recruit and
train law students to be advocates for the movement, then facilitate
their career advancement in government and policy-making positions;
those that coordinate funding; and those that coordinate with
single-issue organizations. Although these organizations are not
involved in marketing or communications per se, their participation
in the conservative infrastructure is essential. The conservative
infrastructure has one or more organizations that carry out each of
the infrastructure functions listed above.
Infrastructure Independent of Political
Parties
An important, distinguishing characteristic of
political movement infrastructure is that, although its advocacy may
appear to be aligned with a political party, the infrastructure is,
as a matter of law and perception, separate from any political
party. Because the Right’s infrastructure is separate from the
Republican Party, conservative infrastructure organizations can
maintain their tax-protected status, while acting as strong
advocates for positions that are consistent with those of Republican
politicians and the Party. Indeed, the conservative infrastructure
develops and sets the long-term policy agenda on an ongoing basis,
as well as engaging in short-term tactics to advance specific
issues. Conservative politicians can use talking points provided by
right-wing think tanks, appear on infrastructure-developed media
programs, and have what they say repeated in the Right’s
echo-chamber. The lack of a similar infrastructure has put
progressive politicians and their political parties at a distinct
disadvantage.
Potential Components of a Progressive
Infrastructure
A number of existing progressive organizations
can potentially become part of a new progressive infrastructure.
These include multi-issue advocacy organizations, which would have
distinct value as focal points for a political movement
infrastructure. However, with proper coordination, a number of the
numerous single-issue nonprofit organizations and even
politically-oriented for-profit entities can play important roles in
carrying out some of the functions of the infrastructure, such as
policy and market research, policy development, and strategic
communications.
The Commonweal Institute, a multi-issue
advocacy think tank, was established in 2001 by the authors of this
paper, who intended it to serve as one of the central components of
a progressive infrastructure. The organization was designed to
reach the general public and diverse audiences, not just the
progressive mainstream. Its planned operations feature a long-term
strategic plan (to be developed in collaboration with other
progressive organizations), coordination of short-term tactical
actions with the long-term strategy, policy research, market
research (frame development, cognitive interviewing, focus groups,
polling), and training. Diverse audiences will be reached through
use of market segmentation, multiple media channels, content and
language appropriate to the targeted audience, and creation of
customized communication products.
A new progressive think tank, Center for
American Progress, currently focuses on timely national and
international issues, communicating to major media and through its
website and e-mail. The Rockridge Institute is a think tank
specializing in framing for multiple issues. A number of
progressive organizations, including but not limited to the
Institute for Policy Studies, Economic Policy Institute, Campaign
for America’s Future, Demos, Media Matters for America, and Center
for Policy Alternatives, also appear to be positioned to function as
infrastructure organizations. Each of these organizations has
distinct capabilities and interests that are potentially
complementary. Working within the context of an infrastructure, each
of these organizations would be able to have greater impact as a
result of coordination (see Internal Coordination below).
Most existing progressive organizations have a
discrete issue focus. Since they represent so much of the existing
progressive capacity, it will be essential that they become
integrated as much as possible into infrastructure operations. This
can be accomplished, in part, through shared strategy, framing, and
language. Infrastructure organizations with marketing and
communications capabilities can reach the broader public with the
intellectual product of single-issue organizations, a number of
which conduct substantial amounts of research and policy
development. Multi-issue infrastructure communication organizations,
however, may be able to take strategic advantage of synergies
between issues -- such as education, immigration, and the economy;
or energy independence, job creation, and transportation policy – in
ways that cross traditional issue boundaries. It will be the
responsibility of coordinating infrastructure organizations to
ensure that the research undertaken by single issue organizations is
not duplicated by infrastructure organizations. For example, if an
issue organization specializes in economic analysis, every effort
should be made to use that capability rather than duplicating it
within an infrastructure type organization.
The Action: Creating a Progressive
Infrastructure
The following suggestions are intended to spur
the thinking of individuals or groups that could participate in
creating and funding a progressive infrastructure (PI).
Establishing the
PI Project Team
Since time is
pressing, establishing the PI has to be approached as a critical
undertaking spear-headed by a project team. This team should
include members with planning and management skills, as well as
those who are intellectually familiar with PI concepts. Even when an
excellent plan exists, nothing will happen unless the persons needed
to execute the plan are identified and given the money and authority
to proceed. It would be desirable
to involve members of the moderate and progressive business and
venture capital community in establishing and possibly working with
the PI Project Team. This would help the Project Team take advantage
of their specific expertise in creating what will amount to a new
industry.
Initial Work Plan
With the functions of an infrastructure in mind
and a systems approach, the Project Team would create a work plan
that would be refined over time. The purpose of an explicit initial
plan is to “get the ball rolling.” Additionally, since the need for
the PI is urgent, activity on many of the various work plan items
should proceed simultaneously, or almost so. This parallel
development would work well, because at the early stage of
activities there will likely be little interdependence.
Items in the initial work plan might include:
creation of a “map” of the desired PI; preparation of presentation
materials; a series of funders’ conferences; articulation of an
underlying progressive ideology; framing and language for certain
specific issues; and the establishment of special training programs
about use of appropriate framing for moderate and progressive office
holders, candidates, those who appear in the media, and authors.
Early on, it will be important to identify and
begin working with those who will likely be directly involved in the
PI, as well as to identify, inform, or involve a number of research
and issue-focused advocacy organizations that ultimately could
coordinate their activities with those of the PI. There should also
be communications with strategic initiative alliances (e.g., around
environmental issues or reproductive rights) and
single-audience-focused organizations (e.g., those that work with
youth, elderly, or racial/ethnic subgroups) about their possible
relationship to PI organizations.
Ongoing
Development of the PI
An important basis for the ongoing development
and functioning of the PI would be the creation of long-term
strategies for multiple issues. This would make it possible for
moderates and progressives to move from a reactive to a proactive
stance. The Heritage Foundation’s 1,100-page “Mandate for
Leadership” served as the guiding strategic document for the Reagan
administration; Heritage has subsequently published periodic
strategy updates. A similar strategic approach would serve as a
guide for coordinating progressives’ activities on both a short-term
and a long-term basis.
Once underway, the
PI would continue to expand in its capacity to influence public
opinion and the political direction of the nation. Framing
and language consistent with underlying progressive values and
ideology should be broadly disseminated through the PI and across
various media. Single-issue organizations would be able to
coordinate with the PI and in some cases may become part of the PI.
The base of both major and small funders would continue to expand
both in response to the effectiveness of the PI and because the PI
organizations would be able to use their marketing capacity for
fundraising purposes. The parts of the PI that are not directly
involved in idea marketing would also be critical, as is the case
with the conservative infrastructure. Moving forward, the PI should
focus on using creativity and innovation not only to keep up with,
but also to seek advantage over, the well-established conservative
infrastructure, which can be expected to continue to innovate as
well.
Development of PI should be seen as synergistic
with other activities to advance progressive ideas. For example, the
success of major strategic initiatives, such as those developing
around energy independence and alternative economic models, will
depend upon a supportive political environment. PI would work to
create such a favorable political environment on a continuous basis,
independent of election cycles. In addition, multi-issue advocacy PI
organizations with extensive communication capabilities could offer
strategic initiative advocates a variety of ways of presenting their
ideas and would provide access to wider audiences.
Process Considerations
In order to provide ongoing, valued support for
the progressive community, to arrive at consensus expeditiously, and
to maximize efficiency, PI organizations and their major backers
will need to address several key matters of process.
Stakeholder Input into Decision-Making
A viable progressive movement cannot be
expected to be created or maintained only from the top down. The PI
will need to use processes that enable and welcome substantive input
to decision-making from all stakeholder groups, including grassroots
and state level organizations, and diverse constituencies.
Soliciting and valuing input from these stakeholders will help to
ensure a higher level of participation, mutual trust, and overall
effectiveness. At the same time, it will be important to establish
realistic project plans and to see these plans through on schedule.
Long-Term Vision
An early, major challenge will be to articulate
a progressive vision in clear, concise terms, and to achieve
sufficient consensus on this vision that it becomes useful for
focusing the activities of PI organizations. The various specific
policy goals of different progressive groups need to be coordinated
under a short, simple list of fundamental objectives. The
conservative movement, for example, has condensed their objectives
to free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom,
traditional values, and strong national defense. At the more
detailed level, these are implemented by conservative infrastructure
organizations through strategies to increase privatization, decrease
taxes (particularly on the investor class), decrease regulation,
counter the belief in shared responsibility for the common good, and
secure control over major energy sources, among other aims.
A central task, then, involves formulating and
articulating relatively simple principles and goals that will
reflect underlying progressive values in the coming decades, as we
undertake such large-scale and long-term endeavors as:
·
Achieving a fruitful balance between the interests of
the business sector and the needs of the public;
·
Speaking for “the commons,” or those shared assets –
physical, social, human-made – which we inherit as a community
rather than as individuals, and to manage these assets on behalf of
future generations (paraphrasing Adam Werbach,
www.commonassets.org);
·
Creating a progressive vision for America that is well
equipped to confront the challenges facing our nation and the
international community, including religious fanaticism,
environmental deterioration, an increasing divide between the
wealthy and the poor, and new developments in technology and
communication.
Internal Coordination
The conservative infrastructure has created
mechanisms for continually adjusting short-term tactics to match
longer-term strategies and overall goals. These include weekly
meetings of dozens of the key players, at which priorities and
responsibilities are discussed and decided. Responsibility for
convening and running the meetings is assigned to a specific
individual. This coordination and harmony between short-term and
long-term, plus a disciplined approach to communications, have been
instrumental to the Right’s success.
The organizations and individuals in the PI
will need to develop and maintain similar levels of strategic
coordination and communications savvy in order to advance
consistent, persuasive messages that communicate its vision
effectively to the American public. This can be facilitated by
appropriate funding specifically for the coordination function.
Ideally, each of the component organizations would have its own
areas of specialization in terms of functional capacity and
interests (e.g., policy research, framing, market research, media
access, areas of policy expertise, training, databases), with
relatively little overlap. The component PI organizations would work
cooperatively on endeavors.
For example, if a public education issue were
identified as a high priority, one organization might agree to
conduct and/or coordinate all of the necessary research, another
might do framing and language development around the issue for all
to use, another might coordinate all the training for speakers and
preparation of materials to be distributed to public officials, and
yet others work specifically to ensure appropriate coverage by
mainstream and ethnic media. Several organizations might issue
communications related to public education in order to achieve
maximum media penetration and sustained attention to the issue. The
net effect would be that the organizations would reinforce each
other, but not duplicate efforts. Management of such
multi-disciplinary team efforts will clearly be a skill required for
those responsible for this coordination role.
Key Ingredient:
Funding the PI
Funding the PI will
require a different approach than traditional project-directed
funding. First, since the major focus of the PI at this point is
developing capacity, rather than defining and executing single
projects, the funding also must focus on development of
institutional capacity. According to a recent report about
conservative infrastructure by the National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy (NCRP), “Conservative foundations have, in part, been
so effective not so much due to the size of their grants but rather
because they tend to give more to general operating support.”
Another important
point to recognize regarding funding of the PI is that, as argued
above, the infrastructure must be able to carry out a number
of functions if it is to operate
most effectively. If some of those functions are not provided for,
the infrastructure will be an incomplete system and therefore unable
to fulfill all of its objectives.
Progressives who normally make substantial
political contributions should think of supporting PI as, in effect,
making a political contribution. Providing support to the
infrastructure will improve chances for progressive candidates to be
elected. Unlike political contributions that result in a win or loss
in a specific election, a contribution to the PI can be expected to
result in ongoing and increasing political strength for
progressives.
For the many moderate and progressive
individuals and foundations that focus their support on specific
issues, a contribution to building PI will improve the political
environment for the causes they care about. Currently, in the
absence of PI, many worthy progressive programs are being adversely
affected by the conservative-dominated political environment that is
hostile to their aims.
Strategic Investment Model
The preferred model for funding progressive
infrastructure is what we will refer to here as the strategic
investment model. Following this model, funders and their advisors
would refer to the infrastructure mapping, created as part of the
initial work plan described above. Existing organizational and
individual resources (fully functional or potential) would be
identified and given necessary support. Additionally, where the
mapping indicates gaps that no existing organizations or individuals
appear ready to fill, funders should seek ways of filling them,
including expanding the capabilities of existing organizations or,
if necessary, creating new organizations.
The Venture Capital (VC) Model
A funding model that should complement the
strategic investment model is the VC model, which in recent
years has become a popular model for funders in the business and
financial sectors. The VC model has developed as groups of wealthy
progressives have come together in a number of cities across the
country, seeking to direct their support to organizations that will
help progressives become more effective.
For the most part, these groups appear to use
the VC model, which has been responsible for much of the growth and
success of the high-tech industry. After inviting organizations to
make presentations to the group, the funders then choose from among
the proposals, whether from well-known, established entities
(preferred by groups in New York and Washington) or from new,
innovative ones (preferred by those in California).
A strength of the VC model is that it
efficiently identifies new ideas and options. Another strength is
that it provides both financial support and expertise to promising
organizations at an early stage. Additionally, VC funders can act
much more rapidly and flexibly than can traditional foundation
funders. The VC model has had great success in industry because
there is a clear incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate and fill in
gaps, thus rounding out an entire industry. The venture capitalists
funding industry have a strong profit motive, too; they can afford
to invest in many start-ups in order to achieve the occasional home
run.
Although ideally suited to industry, there are
limitations of the VC model for the purpose of creating a PI. First,
it is not ideally suited to building a coordinated, interlinked,
functioning industry quickly. Secondly, there is no assurance that
newcomers will work in line with overall long-term strategic
initiatives, as will be necessary for proper functioning of the PI.
Third, the financial incentive for nonprofits to identify and fill
infrastructure gaps does not exist or is not as clear. However, it
is both desirable and possible for the VC model to incorporate
elements of the strategic investment model. By doing so, those who
are currently using a VC funding model would likely be central to
creating a fully functional PI.
The Traditional Foundation Model
The traditional foundation funding model, which
uses narrow guidelines and proposals, is slower and more cumbersome,
and seldom provides the unrestricted funds needed for major
institutional growth. This model is valuable for funding specific
projects, but, as currently structured, it is not appropriate for
building a substantial, flexible, and interlinked PI rapidly. One of
the ongoing efforts in creating a PI will be to encourage
foundations to provide the type of unrestricted long-term funding
that characterizes a number of the conservative foundations. Because
of the work of NCRP and others, it appears that some foundations are
now discussing the value of providing this type of funding and, as a
result, there may be changes in funding policies of some
moderate-progressive foundations in the near future.
Optimally, funding for the PI will be based
primarily on the strategic investment model, complemented by
VC model funding, which can be particularly useful for identifying
and funding innovative and creative elements that could function
within the PI. The VC model can also incorporate elements of the
strategic investment model. Traditional foundation funding and
donations from individuals and organizations in time may also play a
role. Obviously, it will be important to have close coordination
between funding activities to ensure the efficient use of funds.
Conclusion
Moderates and progressives should not waste any
time in their quest to reclaim the heart and soul of America. A
crucial first step is to understand the functions of political
movement infrastructure, the necessary funding approach, and the
importance of strategic coordination and communications. The next
stage is to begin actually establishing a comprehensive progressive
infrastructure.
Every day that we do not act on this, the
conservative infrastructure will strengthen the position of the
right wing of the Republican Party. Every day that we do not act,
the ability for progressives and moderates to reach the broad public
with their messages will be diminished.
We must not miss the opportunity to create a
reasonable, just and sustainable society, for all people now and for
future generations.
So what do we do? We act – now. This paper
suggests how to get started.
# # #
# #
About the Commonweal Institute
The Commonweal Institute, a multi-issue think
tank and communication organization, strives to create a political
environment more supportive of progressive institutions, issues, and
candidates. The Institute has conducted research on the conservative
infrastructure, its strategies, and how its actions are impacting
mainstream American institutions such as public schools, the civil
justice system, and the philanthropic community. This paper is one
of the materials that the Commonweal Institute is preparing to
promote the development of a political movement infrastructure with
the capacity to get progressive ideas out more effectively to the
public and those in positions of power.
During the past 15 months, the Commonweal
Institute has issued two ground-breaking reports. The Attack on
Trial Lawyers and Tort Law galvanized trial lawyer organizations
throughout the country with the realization that Congressional
lobbying alone is not sufficient, and that they must address public
opinion as well. Responding to the Attack on Public Education and
Teacher Unions is the first publication that presents strategies
for protecting public education from the right-wing assault; it also
includes recommendations for building progressive infrastructure.
Another recent Commonweal Institute report, Faulty Data and False
Conclusions: The Myth of Skyrocketing Medical Malpractice Costs,
addresses a major political issue at a critical time, providing
solid evidence to discredit the claims of the “tort reform”
movement.
Focusing on the importance of reaching the
broad public during this past election season, the Commonweal
Institute sponsored the Digital Polemics 2004 Documentary Film
Festival in Austin, Texas; participated in the production of the
Votergate documentary videos; and held a series of popular
workshops, "Talking Politics with People Unlike Ourselves.”
Commonweal Institute Fellows and staff have published articles
(print and online), given public presentations, and appeared on
radio and television.
The members of the Commonweal Institute’s
Advisory Board reflect the organization’s focus on moving public
opinion. They include George Lakoff (framing and language expert),
Celinda Lake (focus groups and polling), Paul Ray and Brooke Warrick
(survey research and market segmentation), Rudolph Malveaux (ethnic
music as political communication), Joan Blades (co-founder of
MoveOn.org), and David Zucker (public relations). The Commonweal
Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated in
Washington, D.C.
The authors, Leonard M. Salle and Katherine A.
Forrest, are the co-founders of the Commonweal Institute. Their
biographical information can be viewed at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/about_us.htm#Founders.
Copyright © 2005 by Commonweal
Institute, Inc.
|
