A.C. Townley was the founder of the Nonpartisan League, which within only three years of its founding in 1915 took over the government of North Dakota and enacted several major reforms. That makes the NPL one of the most impressive political organizations in American history. Townley was able to do this through a combination of luck, timing and a keen understanding of politics. He was determined to avoid the failings of past organizations that relied on loose commitment to principles.
The Nonpartisan League started with a clear, precise platform that was simple to understand. The NPL asked supporters to sign a pledge to support the platform, and it expected them to support candidates endorsed by the NPL, regardless of political party. It always stressed the importance of organizing into a tight association that could work as one toward a single goal. The NPL realized that the only reason farmers did not hold all the political power in North Dakota, despite making up the vast majority of the population, was because they weren’t organized.
To advance this, NPL asked potential supporters to become dues-paying members in the organization, and all received a subscription to the “Nonpartisan Leader,” which enabled the League to communicate directly to them. This created a clear unifying platform, a metric of success and a buy-in from the farmers. From “Political Prairie Fire” by Robert Morlan:
The dues for the new organization were first set at $2.50 a year, to be collected by the organizer on the spot, but when it was seen how expensive organizing and campaigning was going to be, they were raised to $6, within a year to $9, and after the first campaign were set at $16 for each two-year period corresponding with the term of state office holders. Townley argued with considerable logic that if a farmer had put his money into a project, he would stick with it even if only to get a return on his investment. He put the matter with characteristic profanity: “Make the rubes pay their God-damn money to join and they’ll stick—stick till hell freezes over.”
There are several key advantages to stocking a political organization with dues-paying members.
- Commitment: This is Townley’s most important point. Paying membership dues invests people in the organization. By paying, regardless of how small a fee, a member makes a continuous financial and psychological commitment to the organization and its goals. The process makes people more dedicated to the organization and increases their desire to see it succeed. It also makes it easier for people to quickly gauge the power of the organization by seeing how many individuals are invested in its goals.
- Long-term planning: Organizations with dues-paying members have the freedom to do proper long-term planning. It allows an organization to project what its financial resources will be in the future, making it possible to plan long- term actions. This is crucial for success in policy and politics. Political change is often a long and slow process that happens only with continuous pressure in the desired direction. A steady income stream also frees up time away from the constant struggle of fundraising.
- Independence from outside pressure: Dues-based groups rely only on their broad base of members for funding. They are not constantly chasing donations and grants. This provides freedom, which an organization can’t have if it becomes dependent on funding from just a few major sources. Any organization depending on only a few big outside sources of funding will always be at the mercy of those sources.
- Accountability: Dues-based organizations are accountable to the broad wishes of their membership, not to a few wealthy donors. To maintain membership, groups need clear goals, and they need to prove they’re working constantly toward those goals if they want support. They exist only as long as they have strong commitment from their members. This helps insure an organization that reflects the collective desire of its membership.
Financial independence combined with a committed and organized membership makes organizations with dues-paying members into serious political forces. They are capable of directing at once the three most important things in politics: votes, donations and volunteers. This is their source of power.
Both at the turn of the 20th century and today, wealthy corporate leaders have the money, desire and ability to buy our politics. The corrupting influence of corporate political spending is a huge obstacle to overcome. The only way regular people can fight it is by joining organizations that share their goals. Big money can’t buy committed voters and volunteers. When an organization is able to direct both of those and generate sufficient campaign funds from dues-paying members, it can be an even greater political force, not drowned out by overwhelming spending by corporations.
Not surprisingly, some of the most successful political associations of regular Americans are based on paying dues. In addition to the Nonpartisan League of the past, we have today the power of the NRA. Most of the politically powerful organizations now have dues-paying membership, from labor unions to the AMA and the AARP.




30 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
And again thanks for the lessons here Jon.
I’m glad you have enjoyed the series Dakine
I know a lot of history about my home state of Kentucky but not so much about a lot of the other states
Thank you for this series, Jon.
aka the operating principle of Dittoheadville and FoxBeckistan.
Thanks very much for your excellent three part series. I grew up in ND from the age of 9-22, 1950-63. At that time I thought my state was very backward compared to the states on the east and west coasts. You have shown me that some leaders were very forward looking and the ground they plowed certainly helped ND to suffer little in the current recession. I think you have also answered the question I had about why a very red and conservative state will elect Democrats as senators and sometimes governors. People living in isolated conditions can often think more sensibly and they also learn to work together to survive. We sure need more of that thinking today.
by rube he was using the name others called them but yeah general principle you see on the right. When people buy in it creates a huge mental connection and commitment.
I just read over on another thread that FDL is getting some software to do some local organizing. Do you all know any more about that? I think it is an excellent idea and I hope can evolve into some local “meetups.” I was impressed with MoveOn’s success with that in the campaigns.
I also just from experience agree that having at least a dues paying core works well in promoting a sense of ownership and responsibility, also discipline for activism.
during this last crisis many people have been pushing states and cities to take their money out of the big banks not North Dakota. Its state funds have always been in their own bank to help promote the state.
Jon – these series are amazing. Are you going to be pulling these pieces together in one place somewhere, either here at FDL or as a book?
I’m currently looking into other groups to write about. Thinking about perhaps the Farmer-Labor party in Minnesota or Huey Long’s share the wealth program and maybe some civil rights groups or christian right groups.
Hopefully we will eventually put them together in a single page and long term I have though about writing a book based on the general theme.
I’m really glad you have enjoyed them.
If you haven’t, definitely read T. Harry Williams bio of Long. Excellent read
I might also suggest United Farm Workers – or add the category of fighting unions.
Jon, be sure to look at the Townsend Plan. It was a serious contender with the Social Security Act, even farther to the left. It had very wide-spread support.
reminds me of the Canadian “Social Credit” party.
As someone who worked briefly as a staffer on the hill and now having a PhD in and teaching political science, count me in as one of the rubes.
Actually, I know how lucky I am that FDL does so much work to support the causes I believe in and all I do is just send in some money and sign some petitions.
As far as “buy in” you had me at “hello” (Well, ok, at Valerie Plame)
LOve that!
I love this series.
I could see FDL doing something like this.
I do have a concern though. I was saying from the beginning of the Health Care Reform debacle that FDL shouldn’t be supporting the public option, that we should be supporting single payer. That was my view and many others’. It’s still my view. Unfortunately, it got no traction. I don’t like taking a negotiating stance that already gives the farm away. My view is that you ask for what you actually want and press for what you actually want. You educate people about what you actually want. I believe people will work hard for causes they can really get passionate about, not for lukewarm measures that might turn out better than what we’ve got. As it turned out, we got something worse than what we already had.
I think there’s a lot to be said for rallying people behind what’s good and true and right. I’d get up in the morning and work hard for that. And I’d feel good about it.
Greenwarrior, as Jane explained a number of times, most notably back in September of last year, the congressional backing for single payer was nonexistent — a number of Congresscritters claimed to be SP fans but ran away from it the first chance they got. On the other hand, it took several months of severe battering from Rahm and Company before the core PO folks folded.
As Jane noted last fall:
Not exactly 100% on topic, but about 20 years ago I used to work in a restaurant on the ground floor of the Patterson Hotel, which was originally built by, and named for Alexander McKenzie
And ironically, considering the original owner, it eventually became sort of a HQ for the NPL
I don’t know anything about the secret tunnel mentioned in the link but I do know stories that some modern politicians wanted to be kept secret
BEFORE the NPL started collecting money, they had their ducks in a row. I my opinion, this was the hard part.
I didn’t think it would take long for a response of this kind.
I read that then and I didn’t agree with the strategy notwithstanding. And I wouldn’t agree with it now.
not to relive old fights. Obama did not promise single payer he promised a public option. It was heavily about forcing politicians to keep their stated promises. It is important to prove that Obama and the Democrats actively refuse to keep their promises.
If you are building a long term independent movement about an issue you should do that around your real goal.
Well said. Being able to be for what is good and true is more rewarding and powerful motivation than the other side has.
Jon, I am very much enjoying this series. Glad to see you taking on the important work of unearthing and analyzing our own national history of progressive political movements. There’s a lot to be learned here, particularly because of the very similar political and economic contexts.
I’d love to engage in a discussion of the early 20th century Socialist Party, which had quite a lot of success at the local level – electing over 1,000 members to public office – but was less successful in state and federal governments. The NPL was an example of a party that did very well in state politics, but it’s an interesting question as to just how well it would translate to a very different political landscape, such as California.
But the lessons you’re laying out, including the need for a clear agenda that isn’t abandoned or weakened, a clear media presence, and an ethos that asks people to sustain a long-term effort, are all ones that we ought to be able to adapt for the present day without much trouble.
Except that there were lots and lots of motivated anti-war protesters on February 15 of 2003 whose protests didn’t do diddly to move the Congresscritters who voted for the AUMF. Hell, most of these protests were lucky to make it to local TV screens, whereas it seems that any five right-wing protesters who can hold up a sign can almost be guaranteed to get their mugs on at least one TV network’s evening news.
As Jane pointed out last fall, we simply didn’t have the Congresscritters for SP and we knew that from the start — there were a lot of lip servicers but they ran away from SP the moment it met its first test, whereas there were far more supporters of the PO and they lasted far longer — and they lasted longer in large part because we did to them what the anti-choicers do to their congresspeople: We made them pledge not to vote for bills that didn’t have what we wanted in them. It took months and months of increasingly severe arm-twisting and demonization and finally various unspoken secret deals to which we’re not privy to finally break them — whereas the alleged single-payer “advocates” folded like Superman on laundry day before they even had a chance to be pressured.
I think that the key was providing alternate media. Ironically, this is a lesson that the left soon forgot just as the right learned it. See also the Powell Memo and the history of Olin Foundation head (and Nixon cabinet member) William Simon, as well as the history of another Nixon cabinet member, Pete Peterson.
The way to anything that obviously benefits a large percentage of the population is greater political power for the voter. Example: Get rid of the filibusterer.
The way to ensure that all, or at least many interest groups, get a piece of the pie is a trusted political platform. ( In the absence of a proportionally elected legislature using multi-member districts. )
I would support a media that supports greater political power for the voter; and and also specifically targets the 3 middle economic quintiles, as opposed to the upper middle class that most non-profits target. They probably are unaware of what they are doing, but that is were the donations are – and they never have enough donations! They provide a living for the paid staff, but IMO accomplish little or nothing politically.
Low income or non-knowledge workers, and a non advertiser funded political media platform.
Your average manual laborer or store clerk would not read FDL Yet you need to reach them somehow. IMO: They can be reached. When discussing the funding of newspapers and TV at a low income bus terminal the phrase Them medias hate decent people. was universally accepted as the consensus view.
They don’t always use such ambiguous language, At another time a person who had heard me talk about the advertiser funded media issue more than once before, came up with a simpler description of the effects of advertiser funding than I had ever used myself! Oh, Your not trying to say them crooks is crooks, because everyone already knows that! Your telling how them crooks manage to work together without slitting each others throats.
Excellent point about the Powell Memo, something most of the left has never really grasped (especially the funder class). Also agree about the need to provide alternative media. We seem to have let that slide around 2008, when everyone thought that we could just elect Obama and the progressive millennium would arrive.
The subsequent 18 months have been a hard jolt back to reality, and a reminder that we need to build our own institutions, now more than ever.
Phoenix Woman:
You keep saying this, and while I don’t want to fight old battles either, I do want to learn from experience.
Not having the votes within the existing establishment is no reason to stop advocating for something. Had we kept pushing those Congresscritters for SP, the likelihood of getting a PO would have only increased. By digging our fire line at PO instead, we put compromise on the table.
Sometimes one must take an uncompromising stand. It is that truth which I think is driving the growing notion here that if an organization does not vet its membership and candidates on its core issues and hold them accountable to those issues, we will continue to get from our representatives exactly what we do now: Lip service.