Progressives Need Widespread Support
The decision of the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee to disband must be greeted with dismay by women and men who are involved in progressive politics. We’re all discouraged by the daily barrage of headlines about fund-raising scandals. Personally, I believe that public financing of campaigns is at least part of the answer to reforming the current system. But while we work toward that reform, we must continue to make the progressive voice heard and elect progressive candidates.
Major elections will occur in 18 months, whether we participate in them or not. Candidates will need money to communicate with voters. When campaign money is necessary, we should differentiate between money that enhances the electoral democratic process and special interest money that is merely a tool to promote legislation for economic gain.
Many organizations, such as EMILY’s List and the Women’s Campaign Fund, only work to elect candidates. They do not follow up their electoral successes with lobbying efforts. These organizations encourage thousands of small contributors to participate, helping to offset the economic power of the special interests. EMILY’s List recommends candidates to its more than 45,000 members, who write checks directly to the candidates they choose. More than 65,000 candidate contributions, averaging less than $95, went through EMILY’s List in the last election cycle, making this grass-roots network one of the biggest funders of federal races.
Contributors to organizations like these should be encouraged. They provide resources to candidates that give them independence from the wealthy special interests. For example, they provided a political foundation for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., so that she could stand up to the National Rifle Association and vote to ban assault weapons. They gave Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., political strength to take on the nuclear industry interests that want to dump nuclear waste in Ward Valley.
The system works better when individuals are encouraged to give to campaigns, but individuals also have a tremendous stake in participating. Certainly progressives, witnessing the rise of the radical religious right, know that we must provide a political counterforce to that conservative ideology.
Those of us similarly angered by the right wing’s constant assault on a woman’s right to choose or determined to find help for women weighted down by work and family responsibilities know we need renewed participation from every progressive to elect candidates who will fight for our interests.
The abrupt ideological swing between the 1992 and ‘94 congressional elections illustrates how undecided the political debate still is. Issues such as the role of women in our society, the role of government in our culture and the role of business in the international economy have vast repercussions.
Social historian John D’Emilio talks of the “leaping and creeping” of social change: long periods of energy building to change, followed by sudden bursts of reform. The business of moving our country toward progressive change in this new world is a slow, arduous process. Such change is both attainable and imperative but it takes more than a fancy party or a high-level sleep-over to make a difference.
It takes hard work and perseverance through the “creeping” to get to the joys of the “leaping” toward social change.
Certainly, economic interests and radical religious conservatives believe political power is necessary for their success - and they will find a way to pursue that power, whatever campaign finance system is in place. What progressive political activists cannot do is abandon the system. If we don’t stay in the game, we’ll never win. xxxx