Over the past five weeks, tens of thousands of grassroots progressives have hit the streets, and made political contributions totaling in the millions, in support of the fight for workers' rights in Wisconsin. As a political organizer, I can't help but wonder why a simultaneous spending fight in the U.S. Congress—one which impacts far more people—hasn't resulted anywhere near the same amount of activist outpouring.
Certainly, the relative lack of an existential threat is one of the key differences, as unions are fighting for their lives in Wisconsin and Ohio. While some organizations are faced with the void in the DC spending fight, most notably Planned Parenthood and NPR, there isn't a strong belief they will disappear entirely while Democrats control the Senate and the White House.
A second important difference between the Wisconsin and DC fights is the relative lack of pageantry inside the beltway. Among all center-left constituencies, labor remains the undisputed champion in its ability to turn people out to events not hosted by a candidate for president. The sheer energy of the protests in Wisconsin, spurred on by the the existential threat to labor lacking in the DC fight, inspired many people around the country to take action themselves.
However, a third, more fundamental reason for the relative lack of grassroots activism is that Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House haven't picked a fight with Republicans. Starting in late November, when President Obama backed a pay freeze for federal workers, Democratic leaders in the White House and Senate made it plain that they agreed with the basic Republican campaign premise of slashing non-defense discretionary spending. While Democrats have some differences with Republicans over the quality and quantity of the cuts they desire, the line between the two parties is pretty blurry right now. Vagaries such as "winning the future" aren't clearing up the picture.
In the same vein as inching toward Republicans on policy, almost everyone believes the White House would rather give Republicans most of what they want than go through a government shutdown. If President Obama presents himself as anything, he presents himself a bipartisan dealmaker. This has been central to his image since he launched his campaign for president more than four years ago. He burnished this image back in December, cutting a number of deals with Republicans during the lame duck session, most notably an extension to all of George W. Bush's tax cuts.
The idea that President Obama will suddenly make a break from his longstanding motif to engage in a high-stakes fight over a government shutdown comes off as ludicrous. Who would believe he would do that? As such, on at least an unconscious level we all know there is not going to be a big public fight, aka a government shutdwon, over spending cuts in DC. The most likely outcome is what happened in December: the White House is going to work out some deal with Republicans behind closed doors, giving them most of what they want. Aside from the debatable question about whether or not that's good politics, forging bipartisan deals behind closed doors unquestionably functions as a severe dampener as grassroots activism.
The exact opposite happened in Wisconsin. Instead of pleading for bipartisanship, the Senate Democrats there left the state in order to deny Senate Republicans the quorum needed to pass the budget repair bill. By doing so, the WI 14 launched national activist efforts into high gear, quickly raising more than three-quarters of a million dollars from 30,000 donors. A couple of weeks later, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin followed suit by officially backing recall efforts against all eight Republican state senators who were eligible. It wasn't long before a couple million bucks poured in. The whole time, the crowds on the ground in Madison—and around the country—kept getting bigger and bigger. The Wisconsin Dems picked real fights, and the activism flowed freely as a direct result.
Democrats in DC could experience a similar windfall in activist support during the spending fight. To do so, they would likely have to say "no" to some specific Republican demands and suffer through a government shutdown. This line of action would definitely be risky. If Democrats appeared to be the unreasonable party, as Scott Walker and Senate Republicans did in Wisconsin, they would take a significant hit in the polls and President Obama's re-election would be imperiled. However, if it succeeded, and Republicans were viewed as the unreasonable party, then Democrats would simultaneously fire up their base and receive a nice bump in the polls. High-risk, high reward.
Back when I was a consultant, clients repeatedly asked me how they could get some of that "internet magic," by which they meant lots of buzz, supporters and money. When I told them it usually required becoming a leader in a big national fight, more often than not they demurred. In most cases, this wasn't due to shyness, but instead because it simply wasn't an option open to them (going viral isn't easy). It is, however, an option open to Democratic leaders in DC, especially President Obama. They can choose to walk through it if they wish, but right now there is no good reason to believe they will.