Orthodox Anarchist

I’ve invited my friend Charles Lenchner to join me next week at the Righteous Indignation Conference in my presentation on online organizing. Charles works for Democracy in Action, an organization that specializes in CRM solutions for small-medium sized non-profits. He has a great deal of experience in the field and I have infinite faith in his competency on the subject. Thus, while I will be providing insight into effectively marketing causes online, Charles will be discussing how to turn your site visitors into supporters and the role CRM plays in that process.

Though it’s something of a tangent, to introduce our presentation, Charles has written a thought-provoking post on JVoices which explores the differences between grassroots movements and progressive institutions, particularly as they exist in the realms of power and money.

Charles’ post stems from an ongoing conversation he and I have been having about creating a MoveOn.org-style web community centered around progressive Jewish issues. At this point, I think most of us take for granted the need for more democratic control over “the voice of the Jewish community.” Hence the perceived need for a Jewish MoveOn (and yes, once again, ha ha, I know, MoveOn is the Jewish MoveOn).

In our discussions on this subject, one area where Charles and I have differed is on the necessity of attaining buy-in from other progressive Jewish organizations which can lend credibility and weight to the voice of our initiative. For several years, I have been trying to crack the nut of how to go about building a broad-based coalition of progressive Jewish organizations which, in bringing their constituencies together, could provide the critical mass necessary to attain the necessary level of impact.

Some of my long-time readers may recall an initiative I tried to launch back in 2004, shortly before moving to Israel, called PJPAC — the Progressive Jewish Public Affairs Committee. The goal of PJPAC was the same as stated above: To create a Jewish MoveOn, one that would provide a counterpoint to organizations like AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents and even the JCPA. PJPAC, however, died in its infancy. The primary reason for this is that a colleague who helms a popular Jewish social action organization, whom I believed would jump at the opportunity to join such a coalition, rebuffed my offer off-the-bat. His main concerns were maintaining the primacy of his own organization, preserving his donor base, which he feared would be compromised by sharing his constituents with another organization, and having little-to-no control over the policy positions chosen by the community. For me, this was a crushing reality check — one reaffirmed by several similar experiences I’ve had since then.

For example, upon returning from Israel for a visit in early 2006, I attempted to organize a Jewish corollary to the World Social Forum — the Jewish Social Forum — which would have been a three day conference none-too-dissimilar from that which the Righteous Indignation Project has put together, offering the same sort of skill-sharing workshops, though which would have placed its emphasis on building this MoveOn-style coalition. As I and several Jewschool contributors involved in various Jewish social justice organizations attempted to hammer out what such a coalition would look like, it quickly became apparent that, ultimately, for the same reasons cited above, few progressive Jewish organizations would be willing to jump on board. As something of an outsider (and a notoriously loudmouthed rabble-rouser with a questionable reputation), this seemed an insurmountable obstacle to me.

Luckily, I wasn’t the only person working on it. Now, in 2008, we have a triumvirate of initiatives that together comprise nearly all that which I sought to accomplish, each having succeeded to some extent in negotiating the rocky terrain of coalition building: The Righteous Indignation Project (RIP) has built a coalition of organizations to share skills and knowledge with the goal of mobilizing a mass-movement (particularly around the 2008 Presidential election); Jewish Funds for Justice’s JSpot has provided a clearinghouse for progressive Jewish action on domestic social issues; and J Street, which launched the week before last, seeks to mobilize progressive Jewish action on Israel-related issues by, among other things, tapping into preexisting networks of progressive Zionists.

Though I’m very excited about all three initiatives and am volunteering my services as a web marketing and technology consultant to each, Charles is correct in identifying what he and I both perceive as their shared primary flaw: They’re not democratic.

Take JSpot for instance. Their “new domestic Jewish agenda” initiative, which invited Jews to prioritize their top domestic concerns, was certainly a step in the right direction, but I was incorrect when I branded it “a direct democratic initiative.” As the first comment on my post introducing the project correctly noted,

It may be a pleasant, affirming exercise, all the more so because of the pretense that it might affect something in the real world, but….It doesn’t. It builds Jspot’s lists, and generates a democratic feeling that encourages people who participate to feel as though that JFJ is an organization accountable to a membership. (it’s not.)

The critique may be a little harsh, but looking back nearly a year later, I must concede it’s true. After all, who chose the list of issues that we, in turn, were asked to choose from? Not us, the public. Rather, the decisions were made by gatekeepers sitting in a board room (two floors up, in fact, from the office I currently occupy on 7th Avenue).

Don’t get me wrong: It’s not that they chose bad positions. I think Jewish Funds for Justice is an outstanding cause, staffed by outstanding people. In 2006, we at Jewschool awarded JFsJ title of Best Organization of the Year and JSpot best blog of the year. And they deserved it. In fact, I don’t have a bad thing to say about the organization, except that I don’t have a say in the organization. And unless I’ve got the cash to swing around to earn me a board position, chances are, I never will.

I expect it will be the same for J Street. I’m fired up about the project, and I’m pushing my friends to join. I even donated $100 the day they launched. But no matter how much they promise to be responsive to the community, I hold no illusions that J Street will be a democracy. It won’t. Thus can it ever really represent me?

I have to ask myself, is it appropriate, effective or just to relinquish power to organizations which provide us little or no opportunity to provide input on the issues we entrust them to address? Should we just sign pre-written petitions, send money and otherwise butt-out of the conversation?

Charles’ stance is clear:

I’d rather have more power in the efforts I participate in. Ask me: do I approve? Can I vote for board members? Is there transparency about your strategic direction? The fresh scent of purity, having not allowed big donors to determine your agenda? Real data about impacts, on your website? If so, I like you. Where can I sign up?

I clearly share his sentiment. But my discussions with Charles, as of late, have led me to wonder whether democracy is just too alien a concept for Jewish institutions. Perhaps we’re better off scrapping the dream of a coalition and starting a grassroots democratic initiative from scratch.

The decision rests upon whether established organizations are willing respond to the public’s desire for more democratic participation. Our institutions must acknowledge the fact that the Internet has revolutionized the political process and made direct democratic participation not only far more affordable and accessible, but has led us all to take for granted the fact that one day we will vote on every referendum from our living rooms. It is only a matter of time before direct democracy becomes the norm (which, I believe, is what accounts for the consolidation of executive power we’ve seen in various governments since the ascendance of the Internet — it is a gross display of contempt for the burgeoning public will). And while initiatives like JSpot and J Street may be more forward thinking than others, a CapWiz account and a democracy are not one and the same.

I posit that in the coming era, the only effective approach to member engagement and movement building is greater democratization: Inviting more direct participation and giving people more of a say.

The real challenge organizations must confront is not whether or not to democratize, but how to go about doing so. That, I believe, is the conversation we ought to be having.

See you in Boston…