I've written about the importance of coalitions in advancing progressive causes in general before, but with Wisconsin in the news, I figured it was a good time to illustrate it with a concrete example.
From time to time, I've seen various progressive bloggers question the importance of broad-based coalitions or specific groups within coalitions. As long as members of a coalition are working honestly towards the same goal, there really shouldn't be much of a problem. To do big things, you need to have folks who can speak to different voters and allay the concerns of different lawmakers who have diverse constituencies.
The progressive agenda can't move forward without coalition politics. Coalition politics is filled with headaches, but ultimately, it is necessary and can be very successful.
Another thing for all to keep in mind: There is diversity in what is known as the "Democratic base." It's important to understand the different parts of the base and how different organizations are better suited to appeal to the needs of different parts of the base. It's also important to understand that there are many organizations that are quietly effective and do work without any coverage from the netroots or national media. Some of the best groups are ones you've never heard of, and some of the least effective are some of the best known.
Disclosure: I know some of the people who lead various progressive organizations in WI, as well some who work at the state party. The great thing about Wisconsin is that because of the 50/50 nature of the state (the outcomes in 2008 and 2010 should be considered outliers for many reasons) and a long-standing culture of cultivating political progressive talent, is that there are tons of really great political operatives in Wisconsin running various groups focused on the state's politics. It's one of the few states where if you're a donor and want to know where to put your money, you have plenty of progressive organizations to choose from. I've worked with some of the organizations listed in this diary.
Three-legged stool
Think about infrastructure as a three-legged stool. A well-functioning infrastructure needs all three legs.
This 2008 WisPolitics.com article has a good overview of the progressive infrastructure that has developed in the state:
After years of complaining they'd been out-organized by Republicans, liberals seem to have their own three-headed monster these days to boost Dem candidates. One Wisconsin Now works the message angle, Advancing Wisconsin focuses on GOTV, and the Greater Wisconsin Committee does the ads. Their finger prints can be seen all over the Assembly seats that Dems picked up, insiders say. GWC ran TV ads going after GOP Rep. J.A. "Doc Hines, who ended up getting just 42 percent of the vote in the Dells area's 42nd District, while OWN was all over Republican Jo Egelhoff in Appleton's open 57th, which Dem Penny Bernard Schaber won. Advancing Wisconsin's independent expenditure reports show it was active in just about every legislative race that ended up being competitive. The group was out canvassing in just about all the races that ended up being in play, and some credit it for making South Milwaukee GOP Rep. Mark Honadel a near-casualty Tuesday after few put the Republican's re-election campaign on the watch list.
This is based on the "Colorado model" which became famous after Colorado Dems made big gains at the state level early in the previous decade. There's three pillars of support that progressive infrastructure can provide: earned media (to hold local media accountable and to help organize progressive messaging -- so part local Media Matters, part messaging organ), direct voter contact (field/canvassing/phones/mail/GOTV), and paid media. And of course, you have to have in-state stakeholders (including big donors focused on state politics) to help fund all of this.
Labor unions has contributed heavily to these independent expenditure (IE) efforts in WI. They can coordinate with other IE efforts to make sure that the resources are spread out effectively across multiple targets (instead of everyone targeting the same 3 districts). One of the biggest IE spenders in WI is WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council), the state's largest teacher's union and WI affiliate of the NEA, and it's made an impact (from the same 2008 Wispolitics.com article cited above):
WEAC's aggressiveness appears to rise. The state's largest teachers' union poured more than $2 million into legislative races through mid-October and gets the Dem majority it wanted in the Legislature. Of the five seats WEAC targeted, Dems won three. WEAC is credited with saving Whitewater-area Dem Rep. Kim Hixson and other vulnerables.
WEAC also spent heavily to help get former Gov. Jim Doyle (D) re-elected in 2006. It's long been one of the most powerful players in Wisconsin politics. While SEIU, AFSCME and others have also been very engaged in political activity, WEAC's probably the most politically active labor union in the state. It's no surprise that they're being targeted right now (especially since they've been targeted
before). Going back to the three-legged stool idea... WEAC helps with ads and field, so severely weakening one of the biggest players would weaken the three-legged stool.
Progressive groups like WEAC spend money on their own, but they also make sure to work together with other groups on projects (the level of collaboration isn't necessarily evident in other states). For example, Fair Wisconsin (the state's leading LGBT rights organization), Planned Parenthood, and the WI League of Conservation Voters have also contributed to electoral activity. In 2006 with an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot, Fair Wisconsin helped turnout younger voters around the state, but especially in Madison. Planned Parenthood's c4 organization is good at getting out the vote among their target audience (pro-choice women); it has a great reputation amongs the general public, which is of course one reason why right-wingers are trying to tarnish its reputation now.
These groups will still be able to help get progressives elected even if labor is weakened, but it becomes much harder to do so. Labor unions don't just bring resources and bodies to the table, but the reality is that many labor union members wouldn't vote for Democrats if they weren't in a labor union. White, older men who are labor union members are more likely to vote for Democrats than white, older men who aren't labor union members. Why? Because of the the voter education that labor unions do in member-to-member communication (mail, work-site flyers, etc). Labor union members pay more attention to mail pieces that say it's form their union than mail pieces from other organizations; there's a trust factor there that these other progressive groups don't have (can you imagine Planned Parenthood or Fair Wisconsin being an ideal messenger to white, older men?) So labor unions cease to be powerhouses, and there are fewer Democratic voters. That's what this is about.
The Right-Wing Infrastructure
The national groups that parachute in (like Americans for Prosperity) are known to most of you. But the right has it's own WI-based organizations. The best known is the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is an affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers, and is very involved in WI elections. WMC and WEAC often go toe-to-toe in state leg races, and it's been suggested that WMC skipped judicial elections in 2009 so that they had a bigger war chest for 2010. Guess they're itching for their pay-off now.