Be careful of language. It could take you somewhere you never wanted to go.
A few days ago, Indivisible released two pledges, one for presidential candidates and one for every single Indivisible member in the country. Monday night, April 29, Rachel Maddow devoted her opening segment to these pledges and the force that Indivisible has become across the country. One of the beautiful things about Indivisible when it improbably exploded into thousands of groups across the nation, was the sweet and desperate hope of a place and a message to fight what most progressives knew would be a complete unraveling of our norms and values as the United States of America. Because of that explosion of interest and Indivisible's insistence of autonomy among these diverse groups, activists took stock of their districts, planned actions according to the reality on the ground and the imagination and creativity was local and genius.
We all experienced a few bumps in Florida when, during the 2016 primaries, most groups in the state opted not to proceed with endorsement via questionnaire of candidates. We wanted our voters to decide. North Florida isn't South Florida; the Panhandle isn't Orlando. When one Indivisible group decided to endorse, totally within their right to do so, then successfully went through the process and subsequently announced their endorsement, it unintentionally appeared to many other groups in the whole state that this was a statewide endorsement, causing consternation and some resignations. We regrouped and got on with the work supporting the winner of the primary.
While the pledge for candidates is well written, elevates the primaries after two horrific election cycles, and is a truly unifying document, the one for Indivisible members may not translate into the same result. Why do I think this? Several reasons.
First of all, after the Maddow broadcast, we got requests to be put on our list. While it's understandable people want to be on the side of a successful movement, it's a siren's call. If members do sign the pledge for individuals, what's the guarantee they will be willing to do the work for the next 17 months? It starts NOW. Many groups have a solid core they can count on to do the calls,visits to MoCs (members of congress) emails, texts, door knocks and actions. This takes time and training and energy and needs to be a sustainable commitment. When Indivisible St Johns started in December 2016, our first meeting was over 500 people. We got little done. The second, at 435, was to be an organizing meeting and it too, was unworkable. Gradually and appropriately, groups split off geographically and each has a solid core of activists who have been there since DAY ONE. These are the kind of people it will take to make change.
Which brings me to my second point: we immediately got new requests to join. This is great (and actually happens every time we have a general meeting), always advertised as open to the public. What will a pledge mean to these new members? It seems pretty heavy handed. I pledge allegiance to the flag. There have been times in my life that I didn't but still appreciated that fact that I could. There is nothing else in my life to which I make a formal pledge. There are many people and things I commit to without a formal pledge: the love of my family and friends, the vulnerable people in my community, the beautiful environment I'm privileged to live in, my anti war activities. Would signing a formal pledge deepen those commitments? I haven't needed it to date and frankly worry that such a pledge is reminiscent of Trump's insistence on "loyalty". It smacks of the Mafia like behavior we've witnessed since 11/9/16 and normalizes it. I reflexively resist authoritarian demands like pledges, uniforms and unjust laws and abuses of same. Is this the path we want to take as the critical thinking, issues based and non partisan individuals that we claim to be and that have achieved so much these past 2+ years without a pledge?
Some will say "Mary, it's just a pledge. You're supposed to be a leader and set the example. It doesn't really mean anything so sign it and shut up". Well, have I not just made my case?
We all experienced a few bumps in Florida when, during the 2016 primaries, most groups in the state opted not to proceed with endorsement via questionnaire of candidates. We wanted our voters to decide. North Florida isn't South Florida; the Panhandle isn't Orlando. When one Indivisible group decided to endorse, totally within their right to do so, then successfully went through the process and subsequently announced their endorsement, it unintentionally appeared to many other groups in the whole state that this was a statewide endorsement, causing consternation and some resignations. We regrouped and got on with the work supporting the winner of the primary.
While the pledge for candidates is well written, elevates the primaries after two horrific election cycles, and is a truly unifying document, the one for Indivisible members may not translate into the same result. Why do I think this? Several reasons.
First of all, after the Maddow broadcast, we got requests to be put on our list. While it's understandable people want to be on the side of a successful movement, it's a siren's call. If members do sign the pledge for individuals, what's the guarantee they will be willing to do the work for the next 17 months? It starts NOW. Many groups have a solid core they can count on to do the calls,visits to MoCs (members of congress) emails, texts, door knocks and actions. This takes time and training and energy and needs to be a sustainable commitment. When Indivisible St Johns started in December 2016, our first meeting was over 500 people. We got little done. The second, at 435, was to be an organizing meeting and it too, was unworkable. Gradually and appropriately, groups split off geographically and each has a solid core of activists who have been there since DAY ONE. These are the kind of people it will take to make change.
Which brings me to my second point: we immediately got new requests to join. This is great (and actually happens every time we have a general meeting), always advertised as open to the public. What will a pledge mean to these new members? It seems pretty heavy handed. I pledge allegiance to the flag. There have been times in my life that I didn't but still appreciated that fact that I could. There is nothing else in my life to which I make a formal pledge. There are many people and things I commit to without a formal pledge: the love of my family and friends, the vulnerable people in my community, the beautiful environment I'm privileged to live in, my anti war activities. Would signing a formal pledge deepen those commitments? I haven't needed it to date and frankly worry that such a pledge is reminiscent of Trump's insistence on "loyalty". It smacks of the Mafia like behavior we've witnessed since 11/9/16 and normalizes it. I reflexively resist authoritarian demands like pledges, uniforms and unjust laws and abuses of same. Is this the path we want to take as the critical thinking, issues based and non partisan individuals that we claim to be and that have achieved so much these past 2+ years without a pledge?
Some will say "Mary, it's just a pledge. You're supposed to be a leader and set the example. It doesn't really mean anything so sign it and shut up". Well, have I not just made my case?
posted by Mary at 10:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home