How Grassroots Politics is Hurting the Left

Dana R. Fisher, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology

Columbia University

In the aftermath of the Presidential election, Democrats around the country are trying to make sense of the outcome. There is no question that this election roused more interest than any other Presidential election in the past thirty years; voter turnout was at its highest since the 1968 race between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. Apparently, Americans today are not the apolitical people whom scholars have found to be Bowling Alone. Instead, thousands of people from both parties around the country did even more than vote. They volunteered their time and traveled to swing states to canvass and participate in visibility events. But what went wrong for the Left?

Between war, abortion, and same-sex marriage measures, there were many reasons that socially conservative Republicans made their way to the polls on Tuesday. However, the Presidential victory was largely the product of the GOP’s sophisticated grassroots campaign to mobilize the social conservative vote. Through its network of locally grounded volunteer Team Leaders, the Bush Campaign capitalized on the pre-existing connections of intermediary civic institutions, like churches, to guarantee its success. Through an uncharacteristically grassroots campaign, church members were funneled into a pyramid of Republican activists working on the campaign and motivating the Right around the country.

In contrast, the Democrats used a less personal tactic for rallying grassroots support for the Kerry campaign. Instead of relying on local networks of Democrats, the DNC outsourced much of its grassroots campaign to independent firms that trained and coordinated professional canvassers who raised money and registered Democrats around the country. Hiring young people who are not particularly grounded in the localities and places where they are working, this strategy did not make the most of existing personal bonds among like-minded Democrats. In fact, many of these Democratic activists were recent college graduates from Blue states who were imported to work in battleground areas.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this strategy—young progressive activists have played a significant roll in a number of social movements over the past fifty years. But, this strategy is a fatal shortcut, bypassing the real bonds between real people that Republicans have impressively employed. Without connecting these Democratic activists to pre-existing local Democratic institutions, these young people can be burned out easily by the very organizations that coordinate such left-leaning grassroots campaigns. While many of the young people who spent the past few months canvassing for the DNC are considering going back to school or leaving the country in favor of more progressive parts of the globe, the stable intermediary institutions that helped get Bush elected remain. And given the election’s results, it is clear that getting a phone call from your church-friend, Bob, or a visit from Betty, the next door neighbor, is more likely to mobilize a sympathetic vote, because Bob will be at the church picnic on Sunday and Betty can always watch the kids the next time you need it.

Although the Democrats reached out to a large number of people, this relatively rootless grassroots campaign had significant effects on the young people who represent the future of progressive politics in the United States. Without doing the hard work of developing a strong and sustainable Democratic base, progressive politics will continue to lag around the country. Until the Democrats commit the necessary time and effort, it is likely that outcomes like Tuesday’s election will continue.

Dana R. Fisher is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. She is presently working on Activism Inc., which be published by Stanford University Press in 2006.