eugene (aka Robert in Monterey) is one of the finest bloggers we have in national and California state politics. I have disagreed with him often over the years. But rarely does a diary hit home personally the way that his current Rec Listed diary, "We're losing this election," does.
To some extent, his diary is about the specifics of priortizing the Prop. 8 race in California and the Gubernatorial race in Washington versus the Obama race. eugene condemns Californians who would travel to Nevada to work on this election. I'm the Out of State Travel Coordinator for Orange County (eugene's native county), so of course I take this personally. But beyond this is a perennial struggle between national and state campaigns; that is most of what I want to address here. I think that eugene, in positing a simple tradeoff between activism directed in one of various ways, misses the point of what is happening this year.
These are my personal observations; as a volunteer, I do not speak in any way for the Obama campaign in this diary.
1. The specifics of the Prop 8, Merkley, and Gregoire races
Before getting into general issues, I want to address the specifics of these races. To the best of my knowledge, the Obama campaign is not heavily recruiting Washingtonians and Oregonians to go to the nearest swing state (Nevada.) Peresonally, I'm telling people from these states that while Obama can certainly use their help, they also have important races at home -- Gregoire, Merkley, Burner -- that can use their energy as well.
Not surprisingly, it turns out that election campaigns are not fungible, which means that you can't substitute one for the other. If I were in Darcy's district, I'd be working on her campaign. But I'm politically active (although perhaps less so than eugene.) Most other people are not as active, don't tend to get involved in canvassing, etc., and their enthusiasm for the Obama campaign and tossing off Republican rule simply can't be channeled into other races on demand. For many people, the choice is working for Obama or staying at home.
Do we condemn such people? Maybe eugene can make a case for it. I would not.
I do know of some people from these states who are going to swing states for the general election on their own. They want to be sure that Obama wins; some of them have trouble sleeping at night as we approach the election and want to be sure that they can tell themselves that they personally did everything they could to foster an Obama victory.
This does not strike me as a bad thing.
Prop 8 is a different case, because of course the Obama campaign is trying to recruit Californians to go there. In fact -- sorry, eugene -- let me post some links:
To sign up: ca.barackobama.com/drivetonevada
Troubleshooting: e-mail drive at nevadaforchange dot com
Information on your trip: ca.barackobama.com/drivetonevadaresources
General FAQ: ca.barackobama.com/drivetonevadafaq
Personally, my time is not going into defeating Prop 8 for several reasons:
(1) There is a dedicated activist group -- gays and lesbians -- which is very much devoted to this race. It is not going to be ignored.
(2) Even if the proposition passes, I believe that the California Supreme Court will rule it to be unconstitutional. They decided that the right to marry was a matter of equal protection; you cannot eliminate constitutionally provided equal protection by a majority vote. (Thinking that you should be able to is what kept Robert Bork off of the Supreme Court.)
(3) If for some reason they didn't do so, I believe that California voters would repeal this measure at an early opportunity. Frankly, one reason that Prop 8 could pass is that many minority voters who are both pro-Obama and pro-Prop 8 will be coming out to vote this year to support Obama. They generally don't vote as much. Now, the logical implication of eugene's privileging defeating Prop 8 over electing Obama is that we should not emphasize GOTV in minority communities this year. I think that that is no sooner proposed than rejected.
2. On "Big" versus "smaller" elections generally.
It's somewhat silly to call Prop 8 a "small" election; it is the biggest statewide issue this year (although personally I find Prop 4 -- the parental consent requirement for abortion which would be upheld as constitutional -- to be of greater concern.) Only a few races in the state -- Charlie Brown's, Debbie Cook's, Russ Warner's, and a few others -- could be in the same ballpark for those with national interests. But it is certainly smaller, in the public eye, than the Presidential election, and as such eugene's complaint is one of a broad class.
What people making this complaint don't seem to get is the fungibility argument. Many people will put their time and effort into "big" campaigns, that seem to be part of the tide of history, in a way that they won't for small campaigns. Many others will do the exact opposite, believing that their power relative to the goal is greater in a smaller race, or believing (correctly) that the latter approach is a better way to ascend the local political hierarchy.
To a great extent, these are different kinds of people, who can happily co-exist so long as they don't snipe at each other. I am careful, when I speak to groups on behalf of the Obama campaign, to tell people that so long as they are doing something this year -- as long they are contributing to the tide -- they are helping out. It is up to them to choose where to deploy their resources among how many races. Unlike eugene, I am not inclined to second-guess. My role is to make it easier for people who want to be involved in the national race to do so.
What those complaining about Obama stealing resources that could otherwise go to state and local races is this:
First, most of those resources weren't going to go to you state and local races anyway.
My father and stepmother are -- to my shock and joy -- going to travel to Nevada for the election. My father, retired from legal practice, will be involved in voter protection for the first time in his life. They will vote the correct way on Prop 8, but there is no way that they were going to canvass for or donate to the anti-Prop 8 campaign. It's just not something that would be on their radar screens as something they would do. But they are going to be out on the streets this year, because the seriousness of the moment and the stakes of the Presidential campaign have caught their attention.
There are some of your Californians going to Nevada.
Second, the national enthusiasm created by the Obama campaign -- and especially by a prospective rout -- helps downticket races.
Sullen Republicans may not be as likely to vote this year. Even if they do, smart politicians can use the enthusiasm and excitement generated by Obama for their own purposes, by having Obama rallies and using the allure of Obama to get people into a room where you can talk to them about local races.
If I were part of the anti-Prop 8 drive, I would be holding "pro-Obama and anti-Prop 8" rallies and meetings. I would be printing up Obama literature myself if I couldn't get it, and would be sending people door to door in California telling them that they were supporting Obama and, at the same time, opposing Prop 8. Obama has a positive association; why people would not be using it mystifies me.
But, I hear the objection, to have people canvassing in California means that they aren't in Nevada! So these goals are in opposition, right?
No, for two reasons.
First, the better we are doing in Nevada (and other swing states), the more political observers see that McCain is going down to ignominious defeat, the more dispirited Republicans get. Taking a big lead in Nevada actually does help people in California and elsewhere. Making this a Democratic year helps to defeat Prop 8 and to elect Gregoire and Merkley.
Second, here's a terrible secret: we're not going to get that many people to go to Nevada. By far most activists will be staying home on Election Day and leading up to it. (People work, you know?) I run into this all the time. It's OK; there are many places to help.
Finding people willing to go to Nevada for an appreciable enough amount of time to significantly reduce their activism at home is like panning for gold. With substantial effort, we find some wonderful nuggets, and it makes the search worthwhile, but we have no illusions about emptying out the rest of the West Coast just after Halloween. We have to put the pressure on in order to get enough people to go, but we know and accept that most people will stay at home.
And that's OK -- so long as people do what they want to help a progressive cause in some way.
Where I think we harm our efforts is when we start sniping at each other and celebrating our opportunities. We can say "you can do that or you can do this" rather than "don't do that because you have to do this" -- which is a real turnoff, especially for people who don't want to do "this," and who only are willing to do that because of our extraordinary historical moment.
Making people feel bad for political activism because it's not the political activism you prefer is a bad practice. It's wrong and it's unnecessary. Here are you options, everyone: choose the ones that please you while doing some good.