These are the necessities of politics: exposure, campaign contributions, volunteers and votes. If you want to reward or punish politicians, these are the tools at your disposal. If, like the Anti-Saloon League in the early 20th century, you hope to achieve massive national political change, you’ll need to cast your web wide to find dedicated allies across the country.
The ASL focused like a laser on one issue, Prohibition. Its goal was to pass anti-liquor laws. This tight focus allowed the ASL to reach out to a diverse coalition of allies.
[Texas Sen. Morris] Sheppard was a Yale man, a Shakespeare scholar and one of the Senate’s leading progressive figures. But all that mattered to [ASL lobbyist Wayne] Wheeler was that Sheppard also believed that the liquor sellers preyed most dangerously on the poor and uneducated.
In fact, Wheeler’s devotion to the dream of a dry America accommodated any number of unlikely allies. Billy Sunday, meet pioneering social worker Jane Addams: you’re working together now. The evangelical clergy of the age were motivated to support Prohibition because of their faith; reformers like Addams signed on because of the devastating effect that drunkenness had on the urban poor. Ku Klux Klan, shake hands with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW): you’re on the same team. The Klan’s anti-liquor sentiment was rooted in its hatred of the immigrant masses in liquor-soaked cities; the IWW believed that liquor was a capitalist weapon used to keep the working classes in a stupor.
Progressives, labor unions, evangelicals, the Klan and women’s suffragists did not have much in common. Although they all strongly agreed on the “evil” of alcohol, they had very different and sometimes counter-intuitive reasons for doing so.
The ASL realized this and was able to bring together a powerful cross-cultural coalition, spanning loyalties and ideologies. The Prohibition movement’s broad coalition helped it reach into communities all over the nation, and it became an overwhelming force.
The lesson is clear. If you want to achieve significant policy change, you need to look for allies who might be equally dedicated to this narrow cause, outside an obvious political or tribal identity. People can be dedicated advocates for your issue but for completely different reasons. This means not just working with your enemies but repackaging your sales pitch for different audiences. Finding out how to do that is critical for building popular support.





26 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I was just listening to a podcast by economist Russ Roberts, of George Mason University, about Prohibition and Daniel Okent author of the book “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition”.
From the description of the podcast:
You can download the podcast from
http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2010/Okrentprohibition.mp3
Episode details and comments at
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/okrent_on_prohi.html
Wow. I’d always wondered how the ASL had pulled this off. Thanks for the education, Jon!
Great series, Jon. I wish I didn’t have this awful feeling that the Democratic elite, with the ballast offered by their Democratic loyalists, weren’t actively working to prohibit the kinds of alliances you’ve outlined in this particular post. Almost as though Establishment Dems are very much aware of this dynamic, and will do what they can to encourage their Loyalists to resist… and, I’m including a few bloggers in that group as well who have become adept at demonizing, in their entirety, amorphous groups, thereby excluding potential allies within those groups for narrow issues such as you identify.
But what narrow issues can draw such diverse coalitions today? Campaign finance reform might work. Possibly to galvanize support for a constitutional amendment like Lessig wants to do. But I think that’s a pretty abstract subject for most people.
Sure there’s definitely a lot of anti-wallstreet anti-corporate sentiment that could be galvanized. But there’s no clear single policy aim that lots of people from diverse groups actually agree that we need. We agree about the problem but our solutions tend to be radically different.
Well you can probably find people from all different groups, greens, progressives, libertarians, etc… who might back election reform to increase number of viable parties like Instant runoff voting.
Jane did a very good job on this with audit the Fed.
I’ve often wondered what brought my votes in my 1994 campaign. I reckon some came from opposition to I-69, some from drug law reform, some from opening up the voting process with an IRV variant. Canvassing activities didn’t give me to good of an idea what was reaching voters, and I couldn’t afford to poll.
It seems pretty clear that most of the 10% I got came from people that would have voted for the Democratic candidate. Republican vote totals in the district were pretty consistent with 1992 and 1996.
One thing they all did have in common: a very unrealistic view on the effectiveness of prohibition, something that is still common today.
Excellent series. Thanks!
There may be some strange bedfellows coming together to get some control over Pentagon spending. Check out this piece by Winslow Wheeler at Counterpunch.
These posts have been very helpful, Jon, thanks for all your research and hard work.
It would be great to see this come to fruition.
Ron Paul has always been anti-war. I’ve typed here so often I’ve stopped repeating myself, but one more time: without combining with the libertarians, there is no anti-war movement.
Spencer Ackerman is upstairs!
‘If The Moral Value Of The Force Starts To Lower, Then We Shouldn’t Be Given The Power We’ve Got’
Abortion
For Liberals Solidarity with labor.
I respectfully disagree.
The Pauls and the libertarians are in my view corrupt. Their motives for ending the war have only an economic core, no moral base. Without a moral basis for opposing the violence of war, wars will continue.
“one more time: without combining with the libertarians, there is no anti-war movement.”
That’s more than a bit hyperbolic. There are many more people who are anti war than there are glibertarians. Few Americans want this war.
These wars.
The excessive evil power of giant corporations to remove any protection of the common and to protect the wealth of the rich and corporate – while transferring the cost of government onto those that can not afford to pay for it when it includes the military corporation welfare checks – and of late the corporate welfare checks from Obama to health, agriculture, and indeed any corporation – should be our talking point – IMHO.
Libertarian should mean fear of excessive power – not just gov. power. Tea Party should be against welfare for corporations. War is a waste unless it really is imminent danger. Union rights are human rights that corporations trample and libertarian and Tea Party folks should support. Why the left can not make some alliances is beyond me.
The key is control of corporate power via regulation and tax policy – for both we must sell the religious value of helping each other – and not go off on the atheists do sharing better/smarter song that so many on the left want to sing. Throw in spending on improving the common rather than spending on what can be identified as political sub-group – by race, sex, language, or region – wish lists, and we have a universal party where the election choice in the primary is on who can do the party objective more efficiently/effectively.
In practice the above may not be a large change in actions from what we would do if we had power now. BUT WE MUST SELL A NEW MEME – we are being defined as “special interests who look down on religion” – and that is killing us.
When people start going hungry, they’ll get lefty in a hurry.
true – revolution was on the mind of half the population until FDR co-opt’ed the urge with massive gov programs. But there is more to being on the left than Keynesian economics.
The drug war. Take a close look at it and you find raw fascism. The young people get it.
Or very effective, depending on what your objectives are.
Saving the environment.
I disagree, but that is an argument for another time.
that’s a completely erroneous assertion.
Yes! We can form a powerful anti-war movement with the Libertarians! As soon as Ron Paul is mentioned, there is sure to be someone who posts the typical anti-Paul, anti-Libertarian post. People have to realize that they can’t expect any meaningful movement without forming an alliance with the Libertarians. All sorts of groups came together to successfully protest the Viet Nam war: the Jesus Freaks, the SDL, the Weathermen, etc. We can’t afford to be so judgemental.