Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-The Draino Theory of History-Extending Big Change Mom
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:09:34 EDT
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

The Drano Theory of History – Extending the “Big Change  Moment” 

Last year, my friend Mike Lux published a  book called The Progressive 
Revolution:  How the Best in America Came to  Be. 
It’s a study of the history of progressive change in  America.  One of its 
conclusions is that change is  not spread randomly throughout our history.  
It is concentrated in bunches – in “big  change moments.”  So far in our  
country’s history there have been five:  
·       The period surrounding  the enactment of the Constitution; 
·       The period surrounding,  and immediately after, the Civil War; 
·       The “Progressive  Period” in the early 1900’s; 
·       The “New Deal” in the  1930’s; 
·       The Civil Rights period  in the 1960’s. 
In fact, 19 of the 21 biggest progressive changes in  American history were 
concentrated in only four decades of the over 22 decades  since the 
enactment of the Constitution. 
Last Sunday’s passage of health care reform confirms that  we are once 
again in the midst of a “big change moment.”  Until last weekend, someone could 
 credibly argue that the Obama election – that the Obama movement – had 
only  aspired create “big change.”  Now  its promise has begun to be 
fulfilled. 
And now there is almost certainly more to  come. 
When you look back at the story of progress of democracy  in America, you 
are struck by what I  call the “Drano theory of history.”  When one “big 
thing” happens, several others almost always follow.  It’s as if the first “
big thing” cleans  out the pipes – and then others begin to flow.  
One of the reasons why last Sunday’s vote was so  significant is that it is 
likely to set up just that kind of cascading series of  fundamental 
changes.   
First up will likely be a Senate vote to rein in the  power of the big Wall 
Street Banks.  The House has already passed a reasonably robust set of 
measures aimed at  preventing the recklessness of the big Wall Street Banks from 
once again causing  the collapse of our economy – and costing seven million 
more Americans their  jobs.  
The Senate Banking Committee passed out its own package  of regulatory 
changes on Monday.  It  will likely go to the floor after the April recess.  
Immigration reform – which has been pronounced dead  almost as many times 
as the now-passed health reform bill – has once again shown  strong signs of 
life.  The giant  200,000 person march for immigration reform coincided 
with, and helped  stimulate, a serious movement to draft and bring to the Senate 
floor a  bi-partisan immigration bill this spring.  
There appear to be seven or eight Republicans in the  Senate who understand 
that the future of their Party is contingent on their  ability to attract 
Latino voters – the fastest-growing demographic group in the  country.  
Immigration reform is a  realignment issue for many of those voters.  That could 
be enough to pass a bill –  especially one that is supported by both 
business and labor, as seems likely.  
Legislation restructuring our energy economy – protecting  us from climate 
change, creating clean energy jobs and freeing us from the  tyranny of 
foreign oil – is still very much alive in the Senate.  It has already passed the 
House.   
Representative George Miller’s proposal to fund over one  million jobs is 
beginning to pick up steam, and the reauthorization of “No Child  Left Behind”
 could reshape American education. 
The opponents of  change were rocked by the victory of health care reform.  
Their entire political strategy was  premised on stopping fundamental 
change cold –  keeping the legislative pipes clogged  and then arguing that 
Washington – and Obama – were all talk. 
There are many reasons why “big changes” come in  bunches.  In general, 
fundamental change requires the  convergence of two factors. 
First, the status quo must become so untenable that there  is substantial 
latent pressure for change from some large segment of the  population.  
But that first  condition is not by itself sufficient.  Change requires a 
second critical  ingredient.  It requires leadership  that is capable of 
organizing those with a self-interest in change, and  assembling enough 
political power to overcome the forces with a vested interest  in the status quo and 
the natural fear of something new.  Turning latent pressure for change into 
 active agents of change requires organizations and leaders.  
You don’t need to convince the poorest people in the  world that they need 
change.  But  the poorest people are often the easiest to subjugate because 
they do not have  the power to resist, to successfully make change.  
Those with a vested interest in the status quo never give  up power until 
they are forced to do so.  Victory requires the aggregation of enough power 
to force change –  not beg for it.  Fundamental change  requires struggle. It 
requires that those with an interest in the status quo be  defeated, not 
convinced.  
One of the major  reasons why “big change moments” beget other “big change 
moments” is that  victory builds the power of the forces for change.  It 
builds that power in particular by  energizing and mobilizing its advocates.  
Defeat demoralizes and demobilizes.  Victories lead to additional victories –
 and to additional  followers.  People follow winners,  not losers.  
Political momentum  continues forward motion in politics, just as surely as 
momentum in physics  keeps objects in motion in the physical world.  
The other reason  why successful “big change moments” are often followed 
by others is that once  people have experienced “big change,” the fear of 
change itself begins to  weaken.  Fear is the major tool  of those who wish to 
preserve the status quo.  When health insurance reform does not  bring with 
it the promised “Armageddon,” American voters will be less vulnerable  to 
the fear-mongering that was used so effectively by the insurance industry 
and  Republicans against health care reform.  Their credibility will shrink 
like the boy who cried wolf.  
The latent pressure for change in the health care system  has been present 
for decades.  President Obama led a movement that, for the first time, was 
capable of  organizing enough political power to overcome the enormous clout 
of the  insurance industry, the political right and substantial elements of 
the business  community.  
Different constellations of power present themselves in  the other major 
issues facing America.  The big Wall Street bankers wield  enormous influence. 
 On the other  hand, they certainly convinced a lot of Americans that 
fundamental change was  needed when they sank the U.S. economy.  People hate the 
big banks so much that  the banks are trying the Orwellian tactic of naming 
the bill to hold them  accountable the “Bill to Bailout the Big Banks.”  I’
m betting this 180 degree perversion  of truth is too much even for the 
ever-gullible main stream media.  
But to win the battle with Wall Street, Progressives have  to sharpen the 
distinctions between Wall Street’s interests and those of  everyday Americans 
– and we have to squeeze the Republicans on this issue until  they sue for 
peace and agree to pass tough changes in the law because they will  be in 
deep political trouble if they block change. 
With immigration reform the alignment of forces is very  different.  There, 
business and  labor have almost come to terms on the need for reform.  One 
wing of the Republican Party  understands their long-term interest in close 
relations with the growing Latino  community.  The other wing will seek  to 
play on fear, and blame the lack of jobs on “immigrant competition.”   
To win, immigration reform advocates need to mobililze  the immigrant 
community and demonstrate its power, at the same time they  reassure swing 
Democrats and Moderate Republicans that a vote for immigration  reform is 
politically “safe.”  We  know that when immigration reform is discussed properly, 
reform receives over  80% support.  But when it is not, it  can be 
politically radioactive.  
The other side will try to make the battle about  “amnesty.”  Progressives 
will frame  the battle as a move to fix the broken immigration system – to 
reintroduce law  and order to a system that has collapsed – to combine 
smart, effective  enforcement and well-regulated flows of future immigrants, with 
requirements  that undocumented immigrants become legal, pay taxes, and get 
in the back of the  line to become citizens.  Progressives will argue that 
we cannot build an economic recovery on a  broken immigration system that 
allows 12 million people to live in the shadows  subject to exploitation by 
unscrupulous employers that undercut the wages of  other workers. Immigration 
rights advocates will also argue that their approach  is the only practical 
solution to fix the broken system, since it is neither  politically nor 
morally possible to deport 12 million people. In fact, the only  alternative to 
immigration reform is to continue the broken status quo that no  one 
supports. 
To be successful this year, the immigration battle  requires that a 
bi-partisan bill be assembled during the month of April and move  in the Senate by 
the end of May.  
In the battle over clean energy, our opponents are led by  the huge oil 
companies.  The  coalition for change is well-funded and managed by some of the 
best political  talent in America.  Once again the need for change is  
manifested every day.  Enormous  amounts of money are at stake.  So  is our 
national security.  
It is possible that before the year is out, Congressman  Miller’s proposal 
to directly fund a million new jobs through state and local  government will 
pick up momentum.  It is likely that the “No Child Left Behind” 
reauthorization will pass as  well.  
Finally, depending on the outcome of the fall elections,  and the early 
2011 battle over the filibuster and rules in the new Senate, we  may once again 
have the opportunity to pass the Employee Free Choice Act  (EFCA).  In many 
ways passing EFCA  would have more long-term consequences on our ability to 
extend this “big change  moment” than any other factor.   
The labor movement is the foundation of progressive  economic change.  The 
stronger the  labor movement, the stronger the forces that can do combat 
with the status quo.  Had it not been for organized labor, there is no way on 
earth that President  Obama would have succeeded in passing health care 
reform.  Labor provided troops, money, potential  electoral muscle and seasoned 
political strategists to the cause. They will do  more to keep the pipes of 
change unclogged than any other institution.  
Of course our ability to maintain the “big change”  momentum will be 
impacted enormously by the outcome of the fall elections.  But it is also true 
that legislative  success this year will massively impact our ability to 
mobilize our base to  volunteer in the elections, to give funds, to go out and 
vote. 
Passage of health insurance reform has already  transformed the progressive 
rank and file.  Victory caused them to stand up  straight.  It was as 
though a  giant national shot of “Red Bull” energy drink had coursed through our 
 collective veins. We’ve also seen a sudden increase in the popularity of 
the  “health care reform” brand.  People  love to support winners.  And in 
the  case of health care reform victory will enable us to highlight the 
concrete,  short-term benefits of the bill –not the ogre manufactured by the far 
right –  from now to Election Day.  
President Obama, his brain trust and organizers suddenly  got a whole lot 
smarter around 11PM Sunday night when the health care bill  passed.  This 
means that the next  time he calls people to join him in the political arena, 
they are much more  likely to hustle to the playing field ready for battle.  
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and  strategist, and 
author of the recent book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1) 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bigcampaign+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.