Who Has The Power?

In an analysis piece entitled "You Don't Have The Power," techPresident's Zephyr Teachout (Governor Howard Dean's internet coordinator in 2004) examines the redistribution and decentralization of force and the continued centralization of power in modern presidential campaigns.

Within that context, where is the average grassroots volunteer? Are they empowered by the campaigns to act at a local level? Teachout argues that they are not, and that campaigns are distributing work instead of any real campaign authority:

The key message in Hillary’s call for a million hours is “you are valuable as a collection of hours, not as a collection of autonomous, self-governing people (aka citizens).” The Reiner video is supposed to be funny, but it is a parody about what's wrong with this "decentralized" effort: YOU WILL BE TOLD HOW TO CANVAS AND PHONE BANK. BY A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HUMANS BETTER THAN YOU DO.

This may be opening up a much larger subject than I can hope to do justice within a short blog post. If I'm reading it correctly, the argument presented here is that the ends do not justify the means in large campaigns, and that a decentralized work effort — behold, the parable of the volunteers in the fields — is an obstacle to local, non-professional political volunteers from having real "power" to make operational decisions for that large campaigns regional effort, which is bad.

My feeling is that the nature of the volunteer — the non-professional, part-time volunteer — is more of an obstacle to operational discretion than a top-down campaign structure. Of course a local precinct chair for a presidential candidate cannot speak for the candidate; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But if a volunteer or a corps of volunteers lack the resources to commit to a fulltime effort for the campaign, the campaign probably has other resources that those volunteers would not otherwise have access to. Walk lists, phonebank lists, district analysis, polling: these are all tools that the campaign provides to its grassroots supporters to help the overall effort, rather than a list of busywork that prevents grassroots activists from taking the reins.

I could be wrong and I encourage conversation on this topic. Local volunteers will know more about details and personnel and individual talents available as campaign resources within their area than a national or even a statewide campaign would, but I argue that providing tools and an environment within which to work for the campaign — in effect, distributing the work, and calling for the specific work the campaign needs done in that area by grassroots activists — is empowerment in and of itself, and not a sinister block on local power designed to divest local grassroots supporters of any real "power" in the campaign. What do you guys think?