I personally believe that the "boycott" card is so overplayed by Left-wing activists that it has become virtually meaningless.
Once upon a time, a "boycott" was a powerful tool used by organized labor to mobilize millions of people on issues of life and death. I remember the table grape boycott from the 1970s that lasted for years--years. People died for that boycott, devoted decades of their life to the issue. Today, boycotts seems like watered-down outgrowth of consumer society. At any given time, there are so many boycotts happening on the Left that it's hard to keep them straight let alone keep track of their effectiveness.
Now, we have a boycott of the DNC and of the Obama campaign that has been launched by AmericaBlog and joined by a host of very high profile blogs, including DailyKos. But how exactly does this boycott work and what is it supposed to achieve? I am a well informed media activist and I had to spend time researching just to figure this out.
Either explain what this boycott means, how it will achieve its goal, and the point at which it have been deemed a success--in very clear terms--or call it off.
The Description of the Boycott as it Stands: Don't Ask, Don't Give
My frustration with the lack of clear system and goal in this boycott stems in large part from the AmericaBlog post that launched it. Let me just say, for all those who need to here it: I am an avid reader of AmericaBlog, so this is not an attack on that sight, John, or any of the sites associated with the boycott.
The description of this boycott is just vague--confusing (emphasis mine):
Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, and soon others.
It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.
Fair enough, but I have no idea what this is describing. A "boycott" is a "a punitive ban that forbids relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods" (American Heritage Dictionary). You boycott Walmart (e.g.) with the purpose of putting Walmart out of business; you boycott the Olympics (e.g.) with the purpose of rendering them illegitimate as an enterprise; you boycott Israeli goods as a way of causing economic ruin to a country whose existence you do not recognize, and so forth. What is a "pause"? I don't know.
So here is the next description that describes the goal of the "pause"--how it will work and the point at which it will be deemed a success:
So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.
At what point will I know that the President and the Democratic Party has kept it's promises to gay community, families of the gay community, and friends of the gay community? Is it at the point that DADT is revoked or is there some other point? What is a "promise" to "our friends" anyway? I'm a friend of the gay community and I am a left-leaning Jewish voter, to which Barack Obama promised that he would bring a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, or at least I thought that was one thing he promised. Will this "pause" continue until Obama convenes a peace conference in the Middle East? What about health care? Obama promised to many friends of the gay community that he would fix health care--and I thought he meant that he would fix it in a way that I supported 100%, or at least that's what I hoped he meant. Should I "pause" if I don't like health care, as part of the Don't Ask, Don't Give boycott? It is just not clear.
To help clarify, AmericaBlog went on to specify:
We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.
OK, so that is a bit clearer. Three issues are at stake, here: ENDA, DADT, and DOMA. Fair enough. But the boycott is not actually calling for us to withhold donations, but to "pledge to withhold contributions"--to sign a pledge. So, is the purpose of the "pause" to create a list of people who are willing to withhold donations, to encourage people to consider withholding donations, or to generate a list as a stern warning to "friends" that other friends will not be giving until these three promises are kept.
But is does the pledge still hold if two out of three of those conditions are met? What if only one is met? What if the conditions are addressed clearly and the process of meeting them begins, but they haven't completely been met before the time for donating comes up?
Further down in the same post, in another point that clarifies the previous points, AmericaBlog then says the following (emphasis mine):
We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.
So, somehow, we have arrived at a point where the "FAQ" of a pledge-to-boycott action page states explicitly that the organization behind the threat of a boycott is not calling for a boycott.
Now, to add to this confusion, kos puts up a post on November 12 responding to Politico's coverage of the boycott (which explicitly says not to boycott). Markos puts the word "boycott" in quotes, as if to signal that by calling the boycott a "boycott," Politico got it wrong. He then explains that, while he has always asked people to give directly to candidates and not to the DCCC (e.g., has never boycotted the DCCC), he has lent his name to the AmericaBlog "boycott" of the DNC:
Now the DNC is a bit different, because I have lent my name to Americablog's Don't Ask, Don't Give pledge. This is simple: Democrats made a series of promises, DADT among them, and vowed to make change happen if only we gave them our votes. And we did, in record numbers, and Democrats have huge majorities in Congress and a White House with a national mandate.
From what I can tell, Markos does two things in that post: (1) he says he does not call for a boycott of the DCCC, and (2) he says that he does support the boycott of the DNC by AmericaBlog--and then explains why that is so, emphasizing the reasons why a boycott of the DNC (and the Obama campaign) is appropriate in this instance.
Markos does not, however, explain the difference between a "pledge" and a "boycott," nor whether he supports just the "pledge" or the "boycott" or both, how exactly it will work, at what point the goals will be achieved.
Explain Better Or Call It Off
The end result of this confusion, I believe, is that the AmericaBlog boycott/pledge, and the support of it by DailyKos and other blogs, will sow far more misunderstanding within the left-wing grassroots than it will create pressure against either the DNC, the DCCC, or the Obama administration.
Simply put: what this boycott does not yet make sense in practical terms, therefore this boycott can not yet achieve its desired goal in political terms.
Signs of this confusion are already unfolding on DailyKos, as grassroots activists are starting to feel the need to both support and argue against the boycott--while others are trying to figure out if there actually are any boycotts at all.
PLEASE! AmericaBlog and DailyKos! Explain exactly what these things are supposed to be or please call them off.
It should go without saying that the communities your sites speak to share your passion for change and are both inspired by and welcoming of the direction for political action that you indicate through your writing. But the responsibility to clarify what you mean when you call for a "boycott" is paramount, otherwise, the confusion created will be partly yours to blame.
And that would be unfortunate, because we are just a short while away from the time when tens of thousands of online activists will be looking for clear direction on how best to apply their sweat and savings in the 2010 election season. If this "boycott" is any indication of what's to come, we have a lot of confusion ahead of us.