Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Marching Progressives Back into Power

By Ruth Conniff, The Nation. Posted November 2, 2005.


EMILY's List has done wonders for women in politics. But after 20 years of successes, the obstacles left to overcome are clear.
Advertisement

Everything about freshman Congresswoman Gwen Moore is fabulous -- from her rhinestone glasses and her cackling laugh to her passionate grassroots politics and blunt outspokenness (something the professional handlers, if they can get hold of her, might try to tamp down). Moore represents Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District in Milwaukee, with areas of black unemployment as high as 59 percent. She's the second woman and the first African-American the state has ever sent to the nation's Capitol.

When Moore was a young single mother of three, the repo man came for the washer and dryer she got from the local rent-to-own shop. "I'd paid for it two or three times, I'm sure," she says. "That's how it works." In response, Moore organized a march on her local bank and helped form a community development credit union. Today she's on the House Financial Services committee.

If you want progressive politics, Moore has the whole package. She fought for women's reproductive rights as a state senator. She battled former governor Tommy Thompson over his welfare "reform" experiments and still gets worked up when she talks about it: "Ten thousand women got kicked out of college and technical college!" (Moore herself finished college while on welfare.) She's a big supporter of labor. She's also, perhaps surprisingly, a star candidate for EMILY's List, the political action committee best known for using the power of the purse to propel such heavy hitters as senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to "Year of the Woman" victories.

As EMILY's List -- the name is an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast (it makes the dough rise...) -- turns twenty this year, it has built an impressive track record with its innovative fundraising and its simple mission of electing pro-choice, Democratic women to office. The group has helped elect sixty-one women to the House and eleven to the Senate, along with eight governors and hundreds of state officeholders. Members gave $10.7 million to EMILY's List candidates in the last election cycle, making it the wealthiest PAC in America.

But EMILY's List has not been known for working with grassroots, progressive campaigns. So when the group began calling Moore during her primary, she says, frankly, "I was irritated." When the group had reached out to a woman candidate for governor in Wisconsin, Moore says, "They courted her and talked to her and smiled, and in the end they didn't do much." Moore figured EMILY's List wouldn't put any real energy into her race either, especially since she was running against other pro-choice Democrats. She finally agreed to go to lunch with an EMILY's List representative, whom she told, "I know all about you. You're the people waiting on the shoreline with the warm towels and the hot chocolate after the woman swims the English Channel."

To Moore's surprise, EMILY's List put more than $685,000 into Wisconsin last year -- not only helping send her to Washington but filling the State Senate seat she left behind with another African-American woman, Lena Taylor. EMILY's List also helped a third candidate, Tamara Grigsby, win Taylor's seat in the State Assembly. "I was stunned that they got in and they got in as deeply as they did," says Moore. EMILY's List supported Moore not so much because of her progressive values, but because she was a viable candidate. With the group's expert advice, Moore built her own crack fundraising operation -- a good thing, because she didn't have a dime of her own to put into the race. No one was more surprised by it all than Tamara Grigsby, a social worker whose initial thought when her friend Lena Taylor suggested that she run to fill her State Assembly seat was, "You must be crazy!"

The trifecta of victories in Wisconsin illustrates a favorite point for EMILY's List -- that by working together, women can achieve more in politics than they thought possible. But the broader lesson is about taking back the country from the right. Especially since 2004, progressives have been talking about the need to replicate the right-wing takeover of American politics. After Barry Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964, the hard right began a long march to power, taking over local school boards and Republican Party machinery, grooming candidates for higher office, building networks, coordinating strategy.

The Recipe for Success

How can the left begin its march back to power? EMILY's List has a big piece of the answer. The group is doing work long neglected by both the Democratic Party and progressive groups: training and funding political newcomers to get them into office, then helping them move up.

From the beginning, women's status as political outsiders spurred EMILY's List's entrepreneurial approach. When it started in 1985, at a "Rolodex party" in founder Ellen Malcolm's basement, the goal was to help Maryland's Barbara Mikulski become the first Democratic woman to win a Senate election (other Democratic women had served by appointment). Malcolm's innovation was "bundling" contributions -- getting members to write small checks to individual candidates, which the group then pools for maximum impact. Two decades later, there are more than 100,000 members who write checks averaging $93 each election year to candidates EMILY's List supports.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Right on!
Posted by: eastcoker on Nov 2, 2005 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh Lord here is my kid. Yes I am a single mother and yes I am inspired by this article. Thank you! I recently desired to become involved with Parent Voices to lobby for childcare and my daughter's school's PTA and what else...Girl Scouts, hey, it's a start!
I enjoy reading these articles about women's empowerment. I need it! Keep on publishing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressives have a broader focus
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 2, 2005 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you say is great for single issue voters. What is needed is to ally all "single issue voters" to take control of both pollitical parties. This will force each party to decide which issues they will support. In some cases both parties will support the same issue, in some cases only one party will support an issue, and in some cases neither party will support an issue. In any case the voter will know who to vote for. Click on a new idea

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't let Hillary run!
Posted by: aebartle on Nov 2, 2005 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is disappointing to realize that EMILY's List, an organization that I have put much faith in over the years, will support Hillary Clinton 100% if she decides to run for President in 2008. I would be beyond thrilled if we elect a woman president, but Hillary has done nothing since she entered the Senate but kowtow to the Republican majority on everything, including the war in Iraq and abortion. Perhaps she feels that she needs to appear more centrist in order to be electable, but she is merely losing the respect of those of us who care deeply about the issues she is using to gain political capital. The Democratic Party should not nominate her in 2008. We need someone who is actually progressive, regardless of gender, not a woman who says whatever she thinks her particular audience wants to hear. I hope EMILY's List comes to its senses, but, after reading this article, I kind of doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A great effort!
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Nov 2, 2005 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd heard of it before, but never more than a brief mention. I think it's great and hope that it will continue to gather momentum for a long time to come.

I couldn't help but chuckle, though, at the description of the practice sessions. They quote a source as saying that men are twice as likely to consider themselves highly qualified for office. That's a laugh, too. Political hacks are 10 times as likely to CLAIM they are highly qualified as they actually are. And shameless in their efforts to pass the hat.

The image of the women finding it awkward to ask and forgetting to stop talking when they need a response seemed humorous, but it's probably a good indication of their sincerity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, "females at any cost?" That makes as much sense as the Aryan Brotherhood.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 2, 2005 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever happened to meritocracy? If you're gonna give ANY credit for our current situation, you're giving credit for making a big mess. Thanks $EMILY$ for showing us the vulnerabilities of democracy to anyone who wants the best candidate money can buy.

It's a free country. So anyone who thinks that females are always the better choice can pour their money down that rat hole. I was glad to see the writer told the Washington State story. I did not see enough discussion above about the more progressive candidates who lost to Bush-supporting foot-on-the-necks-of-the-poor war mongerers because $EMILY$ split the progressive vote. Last I heard that was called A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush.

What about Minnesotta? and the other places where $EMILY$ just had to show us, that women could be just as ambitious as men (how did that emerge as the criterion of the women's movement?) gave us the mess we have now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

XX Chromosomes have the survival genes for the family
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 2, 2005 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me try this again. I spent two hours at 3 am writing my post and then it was lost. This is a great article. A woman usually does not have the muscles to fight, so she tends to look for the best compromise in order to keep her family/group safe. This trait has been handed down from the dawn of time. We have too many cavemen in the government already, who cannot compromise.

We must start at the political grassroots in our towns, cities and counties. We need more organizations that will support the poor candidates. Somehow we must take back our country one elected office at a time. I think most women realize voting for third parties on a national level means wasting their votes. That protest vote got us Bush both times. We may not get another time to vote these guys out. We have to capture the Senate once again 2006, so we can have some sanity in national government. Look at ABC's "Commander and Chief" on Tuesday's, where a woman can be as tough as the situation calls for and get things done. We need a little less testosterone in Washington.

There are a lot of brilliant women out there who really need this type of support in order to get elected. We have to care what goes on in our school broads, where science is being created by intelligent design and no sex education for fear of kids having sex, so kids get STDs or pregnant instead. No thinking person would create something that passes on HIV or make babies because of their lack of information. I am for supporting the best candidate, male of female. We just need more of the best ones to run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having your cake and eating it, too?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 2, 2005 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EMILY supports only women. That makes it a big sorority.

I want to know how the women's movement, which argued that both sexes are equal and that Americans should be judged on merit, has now come to foster discrimination against men? EMILY says, no men allowed.

I realize that such is not against the law, but it sure seems to me to be a gross betrayal of what I have understood the women's movement to stand for.

EMILY tells us to stuff meritocracy up our you know whats. That makes it nothing but just another bunch of ambitious greed-heads. Virtue is identified by the shape of your genitals? Rather, put them in the same package with Know-Nothings and the Flat Earth Society. Go ahead. Tell me how that is 'progressive.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Somebody needs to ask her...
Posted by: Sabientouset on Nov 9, 2005 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why her son was arrested for slashing tires on vans that were rented (by the GOP) to get voters to the polls in Milwaukee on election day in 2004.

As a proud progressive, it pains me to bring it up - but people this just isn't right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]