We are the Grassroots!!!

Deborah K

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
17,997
As a longtime, long-suffering grassroots activist, I'd like to post an interesting definition of the how the grassroots works. I'm not in total agreement with the article, but it does a more than adequate job at dispelling the belief by some that the grassroots should be controlled by the campaign. I have bolded some of the more pertinent points.

Let's discuss it, shall we?
How the grassroots works

Any political strategy that depends on broad grassroots support for its success needs to be based on a sound understanding of how the grassroots works. Without such an understanding, the strategy will tend to miscalculate its approach to handling the grassroots, resulting in failure.

The fact is, the "grassroots" is not like anything else in politics. By its very nature, it's fiercely resistant to central control — yet it can be incomparably loyal and self-sacrificing. Properly understood and respected (and hence properly utilized), it has the potential to alter an entire culture. Approached incorrectly, it will turn on those who seek to exploit it.

For these reasons, today's major political movements tend to ignore the grassroots and focus almost exclusively on the use of media to gather winning support at the polls. This works fine as long as the media are susceptible to being courted. But a cause that seriously challenges the media's inherent or conventional tendencies cannot afford to rely alone on media exposure — including paid advertising. Positive gains by unconventional movements can easily be undone by the media through its powerful domination of the public mind. Freedom-minded Americans must therefore find ways to MOBILIZE THE GRASSROOTS if they are to have any hope of making enduring improvements to American society.

Definition

By definition, the grassroots is the bottom of the political pyramid, opposite the "establishment," which controls the top. While the establishment concentrates power in relatively few people in the highest echelons of power — typically party leaders, elected officials, appointed aides or bureaucrats, and others who wield considerable authority over others (and whose business is limiting others' choices) — the grassroots includes virtually everyone else, those common people who do not necessarily hold any political office and who may even be getting their first taste of politics in a particular cause.

It is important to understand, however, that the above model is overly simplified. The grassroots and the establishment can often be the same. People can function simultaneously in either realm, and many often do. In fact, a large proportion of grassroots activists are current office holders or party leaders who are deeply engaged, alongside common citizens, in what could only be described as grassroots activism — involving them in cooperative, advisory, or leadership roles with people of the lower echelons. At the same time, many at the grassroots are inseparable in the public mind from the highest levels of political power, because of their effectiveness in influencing elected officials to change public policy.

What this means is that, ultimately, "the grassroots" is an ATTITUDE. It is an attitude of freedom, of creativity, of unrestrained political enthusiasm, of willingness to band together with ordinary citizens for a common purpose. It has nothing inherently to do with holding a position. It is what some political leaders do outside or beyond their official duties when they get involved in popular causes. It is what regular people do politically alongside others of like minds, without undue concern for conventional roles or authority.

The grassroots is the very essence of politics. It is dumping tea in a harbor, or standing up and testifying at a local city council meeting, or taking a political candidate aside after a rally and giving him or her some advice, or handing out leaflets at a mall. It is that whole realm of politics beyond official station, although many of high station moonlight as grassroots activists — some unintentionally, by their willingness to rub shoulders with the citizenry.

Grassroots behavior

People at the grassroots are anxious to do something. They are especially anxious to do something MEANINGFUL — at least to them. They are politically-minded people who — when they find a cause worthy of their time, energy, and means — are willing to let go of inhibitions, fears, and preconceptions and jump into the cause with unusual passion.

Motivated grassroots activists can be counted on to carry the burden for any particular political cause. They will make phone calls, label envelopes, knock on doors, organize their friends and relatives, e-mail everybody on their lists, march in the streets, put up yard signs, attend rallies, volunteer for leadership, write letters to editors, lobby VIP's, distribute petitions, donate money, and in countless other ways make great personal sacrifice for what they believe in.


They do these things because of their belief in the ideals that define what it means to be an American. Nearly all true grassroots activists in our nation — unlike establishment authorities who control the political process (including those in academia and the media) — are thus FUNDAMENTALLY CONSERVATIVE. They are at least believers in the sanctity of American's founding ideals and are inclined to support the causes of economic liberty, natural law, and moral responsibility. They are rock-solid, sincere Americans.

And there are literally millions who fit this description. Given the right conditions, they will perform yeoman work indispensable to the success of any major political movement.

Activating the grassroots

The real grassroots strength of America has never been fully tapped, at least not since our founding, when a large proportion of common citizens rose up and made a difference. Whatever grassroots activity we see today is restricted mainly to those individuals who are the most assertive or outspoken. Millions of others would join these visible activists — in every movement from pro-life to pro-marriage to pro-Second Amendment to pro-property rights — if they knew where to turn for adequate leadership, and if they understood how far America has steadily moved toward the brink of social and political collapse. Unfortunately, the grassroots remain largely dormant, due to the fact that even principled political leaders have never learned to fully inspire the grassroots to meaningful action or enlist their full help.

Again, it is important to stress that virtually all truly grassroots activists are sympathetic to moral conservatism. The lawless radicals we often see on the news holding America hostage are not genuine grassroots. They tend to be avant-garde elitists from academia whose main interest is dismantling America's traditions, in preparation for a world of government-dictated servility. They take their orders from above — not below. They are an extension of top-down plans for disrupting our society, not common Americans who sincerely want to preserve our nation from their position at the bottom of the political spectrum. True grassroots activism springs from ordinary citizens and tends toward principled American liberty, not dependency on increased government power.

That being the case — all those who would like to mobilize the grassroots for a particular purpose must, themselves, embody and follow ideals that are consistent with those of America's founding, or the grassroots won't rise to the occasion. This doesn't mean simply rallying citizens to the cause of preserving our nation — although that is essential. It means respecting and exemplifying the very principles that rallied our forebears: treating the grassroots as equals; respecting the grassroots' need for freedom; and recognizing that no one controls the grassroots from the top down.

Below are principles for working with the grassroots, based on the typical behavior of those who join grassroots movements. These principles cannot be divorced from any serious attempt to reclaim America through broad grassroots activism.

1. The most important thing to remember in dealing with the grassroots is that the grassroots can't be "managed." You can enlist them, but you can't centrally contain, restrain, or coerce them. Any attempt to manage, manipulate, govern, direct, exploit, or otherwise "use" the grassroots from the top down will fail, because such oversight is intrinsically antithetical — even offensive — to grassroots activism. Instead, those who seek to involve the grassroots in their cause must largely defer to the grassroots, even cater to the grassroots' vision of the cause at issue. People at the grassroots can be led — within certain inviolable principles — but they can't be made subservient.

2.The secret to enlisting the enthusiastic support of the grassroots is to inspire citizens with patriotic, common-sense rhetoric that defines a cause worthy of their wholehearted support. Most Americans respond positively to sincere appeals to preserving America's distinctive ideals, and the more intelligent and sensible the appeal, the more effective. Any demagoguery or other calculated "motivational" techniques may rally some people for the short-term — but only the truth, spoken plainly and courageously without attempts at manipulation, will mobilize broad grassroots activity for the long haul. The goal is to persuade with reason, in a way that naturally evokes passionate support for the movement at hand.


3.Once inspired, grassroots activists want meaningful work to do. The role of organizers, therefore — besides inspiring the grassroots — is to give interested activists well-prepared resources that they can use to make their own unique contribution to the common cause. In fact, that is mainly all that enthusiastic activists need from those at the top of their movement. With a variety of good resources from which to choose — including self-instructional handbooks, guidelines for potential activities, effective literature, quality signs, comprehensive contact information, up-to-date voter and party lists, and other useful resources — volunteers are ready to hit the streets in search of opportunities to make a difference.


4.Those at the top of the movement need to see THEMSELVES mainly as RESOURCES. Since they can't do anything directly to "control" the movement, once it begins to attract strong activists, they will be most influential if they adopt a posture of doing all they can to help those below them. In fact, that is the essence of good leadership. Motivated grassroots followers will respond well to leaders who see themselves primarily as supports to those in the trenches. They will respond poorly to leaders who cross the line and try to use those in the trenches to further their own well-laid plans.

5.The grassroots absolutely must be trusted to take initiative. Because being "grassroots" is mainly an attitude that centers in wanting to preserve freedom, those who wish to mobilize the grassroots for a particular cause must respect and even nurture the attitude of freedom and creativity that is the very reason those at the grassroots are involved in the cause in the first place. Just as important, grassroots organizers must realize that there is more talent, wisdom, experience, and expertise concentrated at the grassroots than there is at the top of any political movement. Activists must be allowed — indeed, they must be ENCOURAGED — to take broad initiative and be creative in furthering the cause at issue. The results will exceed anything that detailed planning or micro-management by their leaders will ever produce.

6. Although grassroots workers need freedom in which to function, they also appreciate reasonable guidance to help them know how to participate effectively with others in a cooperative effort. Few grassroots activists expect unrestrained freedom to do whatever they choose in a major political movement. Most prefer — and expect — sensible leadership from experienced grassroots activists to guide them in working productively with others. A movement's leaders would therefore be well-advised to offer grassroots volunteers clear written guidelines for working collectively. The only problem with doing so arises when published or "official"-sounding guidelines lack common sense or treat volunteers without due respect. All "top-down" policies in a political movement must be self-evidently reasonable, or workers at the grassroots will quickly lose confidence in those who seek to lead.

more....

http://www.renewamerica.com/grassroots.htm
 
I didn't read this yet, Deborah. How are we defining the grassroots here? It's broad, you know. Any theoretical luxury of assumption that it consists of a prescribed lot probably isn't practical. There is this idea that "we" need to get "them" to accept our ideologies but we often ignore that we, too, must learn to co-exist. Synergy and all of that happy stuff. One only need to understand the relevance in yer sig line to see relevance. Anyhoo...I'll have a read...
 
Last edited:
I didn't read this yet, Deborah. How are we defining the grassroots here? It's broad, you know. Any theoretical luxury of assumption that it consists of a prescribed lot probably isn't practical. There is this idea that "we" need to get "them" to accept our ideologies but we often ignore that we, too, must learn to co-exist. Synergy and all of that happy stuff. One only need to understand the relevance in yer sig line to see relevance. Anyhoo...I'll have a read...

Yeah, read it. I think you'll find that some of what you wrote is in there.
 
Yeah, read it. I think you'll find that some of what you wrote is in there.

Yes, I did. There really isn't much that I could add to it other than detailing what I personally do and with whom. Specific issues that I view as important. A lot of my work does, indeed, exist outside of the parameters of what many in this particular neck of the "woods" accept as a grassroots issue. Of course, that is not to say that it functions against that fragment of the grassroots. At least not in scope. If we manage ourselves in a way that allows us room to view scope then a phenomenon develops that puts a leash on those aspects of political structure that generally seek to "manage" them from the outside. And, again, I'd revert to explaining the phenomenon that we see in some of these political education courses. Too often we see folks who carry ..oh....let's say Ron Paul's principles. But then when they go take those courses they are trained to work toward the personal agenda(s) of the feller who may be teaching the course(s). An example would be that one feels very strongly about foreign policy but then when he decides to become involved he loses that vision and instead sees himself working toward someones right to work agenda.

But anyhow. Will think on it. Maybe see what some others chime in with here.
 
Something else that I would add is a recollection of a very brief discussion some place around here with Matt. I'm not one to specifically seek out low hanging fruit. I'm more opt to pick everything at the same time. And this leads us to a larger understanding of what the grassroots consists of across the board. Cherry picking, to me, is an indicator of a very limited vision of scope, inability to grasp the entirety of that which grows on the tree or tendency to be lazy and self serving. Which reflects the latter of my previous posting here. Is very destructive to the grassroots as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Can't herd cat's. Either they wanna give ya love or they show ya the brown eye and shake a tail at ya.
 
1. The most important thing to remember in dealing with the grassroots is that the grassroots can't be "managed." You can enlist them, but you can't centrally contain, restrain, or coerce them. Any attempt to manage, manipulate, govern, direct, exploit, or otherwise "use" the grassroots from the top down will fail, because such oversight is intrinsically antithetical — even offensive — to grassroots activism. Instead, those who seek to involve the grassroots in their cause must largely defer to the grassroots, even cater to the grassroots' vision of the cause at issue. People at the grassroots can be led — within certain inviolable principles — but they can't be made subservient.


1. The most important thing to remember in dealing with the grassroots is that the grassroots can't be "managed." You can enlist them, but you can't centrally contain, restrain, or coerce them. Any attempt to manage, manipulate, govern, direct, exploit, or otherwise "use" the grassroots from the top down will fail, because such oversight is intrinsically antithetical — even offensive — to grassroots activism. Instead, those who seek to involve the grassroots in their cause must largely defer to the grassroots, even cater to the grassroots' vision of the cause at issue. People at the grassroots can be led — within certain inviolable principles — but they can't be made subservient.


1. The most important thing to remember in dealing with the grassroots is that the grassroots can't be "managed." You can enlist them, but you can't centrally contain, restrain, or coerce them. Any attempt to manage, manipulate, govern, direct, exploit, or otherwise "use" the grassroots from the top down will fail, because such oversight is intrinsically antithetical — even offensive — to grassroots activism. Instead, those who seek to involve the grassroots in their cause must largely defer to the grassroots, even cater to the grassroots' vision of the cause at issue. People at the grassroots can be led — within certain inviolable principles — but they can't be made subservient.
 
In b4 Matt ...

iJz7TcL.png
 
GREAT find, Deborah, and thanks for posting.

I know AF has already spiked the ball on this quote, but when reading the article, this line jumped right off the page at me - as it did to him, too, apparently:

1. The most important thing to remember in dealing with the grassroots is that the grassroots can't be "managed." You can enlist them, but you can't centrally contain, restrain, or coerce them. Any attempt to manage, manipulate, govern, direct, exploit, or otherwise "use" the grassroots from the top down will fail, because such oversight is intrinsically antithetical — even offensive — to grassroots activism.

This is the part of "grassroots" that Ron Paul knew and understood instinctively. Every other campaign - EVERY one, including (as much as I really hate to say it) that of Rand Paul has really failed to comprehend.

I think there is still a very valuable and powerful grassroots base just sitting by the phone, waiting for the call. The problem is, only Ron Paul ever really knew the number. :(
 
Someone should do a line graph of the 2008 money bombs versus the commoditized ones from the 2012 campaign to highlight the differences.

I don't remember the hard numbers but the big three grassroots money bombs in 2007/2008 each raised at least 1 million+ (average of about 3.8 millions or so?) in 24 hours, whereas 2012's money bombs which dragged on for days never broke out of 6 figures IIRC.
 
Thanks for posting. This article is great because it starts debate that is much needed. I have been trolling and ranting about this for a very long time. I annoyed quite a few people with it. Then I gave up and said I will not mention it again... now I am talking about it again...because I am big fat liar...except I am not fat. Management, guidance, leadership, organization, distribution of responsibilities are needed!!! Being anarchist/miniarchist/libertarian doesnt mean you are always against management or some sort of structure. Sometimes I get a feeling that some anarchist dont understand that.

Article has some doublespeak:
"Grassroots cant be managed" and then it says: "they appreciate reasonable guidance"; "participate...in cooperative effort" (cooperative effort requires some sort of management); "asking for leadership and guidance(which is management)".

Recently I called activist model practiced "socialist model of activism". Everyone owns it, everyone is in charge, everyone is responsible... Which means exactly the opposite. This is how resources are lost, wasted and miss-allocated (eg. everyone makes cool moneybomb pictures and no one is distributing them and marketing moneybomb), every activity starts from zero etc. One example of losing and wasting valuable resources: every money-bombs contact infos are lost (emails, list of Facebook, Meetup groups and RP friendly sites). If those lists were passed on, compiled and preserved they would have thousands of contact informations of people that combined can reach millions by passing info given to them.

images

who is bothered with this? When I am involved in some project and when I see waste and this kind of repetitive insanity I feel like someone is sticking hot needles in my brain...professional deformation...I guess.

Campaigns, this forum, other sites and grassroots need to find a way to work together, cooperate, share resources yada yada yada.

P.s.

Dont interpret this as malicious spitting on activists or that I am in favor of dictatorial structure of activities. I am opposed to both extremes(total control and socialist commune-everyone is everything).
 
Last edited:
Article has some doublespeak:
"Grassroots cant be managed" and then it says: "they appreciate reasonable guidance"; "participate...in cooperative effort" (cooperative effort requires some sort of management); "asking for leadership and guidance(which is management)".

Nice post.

I would like to note that guidance is more of an advisory position, whereas management is more of a 'take control' position. Volunteers (which is what the grassroots is made up of) have no tolerance for being made to feel like they are in the employ of someone. They will take guidance, organization, planning, and structure from leaders on a project (event) as long as they believe that said leaders (which are usually the people who come up with the idea of the project) are in keeping with the goals and objectives as they were laid out. This works well for individual grassroots events. I know this first hand. And, I know that in order to pull off an event, you have to have planning, organization, structure, and leadership.

In our case, we have a grassroots movement, and thus, many factions within that movement. If a candidate wants to utilize our support for his/her philosophies, ideas, and goals, then it behooves that candidate (and staff) to refrain from deliberate marginalization of certain factions within that movement, and to refrain from trying to control our creativity.

To cause division within a movement, in an attempt to ostracize that which one may believe is damaging to the cause as a whole, is the death knell to the strength, vitality, cohesiveness, purpose, and future of that movement. What needs to be done, is to unite all the factions under one cause: the cause of freedom. Period. Drive that message home. Answer all criticism with it. Allow people to believe what they want to believe. If they're misguided, patiently inform and educate them, but if they - like you - believe in the cause of freedom, you'll know it because their actions and their words will prove it. This, in and of itself, speaks truth to power.

We have a presidential election coming up. Those of us who believe that Rand could change the course of history for the better will want to be involved. We have an opportunity now to have a huge impact through our grassroots efforts. And, even if you don't like Rand, or don't believe in the political process, you do believe in the cause of freedom, and so we can still collaborate and work side by side in achieving that goal.

We've built something great together. We are special, because we're pure - we aren't bought and paid for. We cannot allow anyone, or anything to divide and conquer us, or try to control us any longer.
 
Back
Top