to the mayor, they would have recognized that they would gain more credibility with the mayor by refusing his delaying tactic than by agreeing to it. Because they caved in at the outset, Agnos came to count on their subservience to his political agenda in the years ahead. The result four years later was a landslide defeat on rent-control activists’ chief issue, the temporary decline of San Francisco’s once-powerful tenant movement, and the election of a new mayor openly beholden to real estate interests. The bright hope of the Agnos years ended in tragedy for progressive interests.
The model of the relationship between rent-control activists and Art Agnos has been repeated many times with other constituencies and other elected Officials throughout the country. San Francisco’s rent-control activists are certainly not alone in erroneously identifying elected Officials by their promises rather than their actual performance. And to their credit, when Willie Brown was elected as a “pro-tenant” mayor in 1995 and began breaking commitments after taking office, San Francisco tenant activists responded differently. Tenants became the first group to hold a protest event against Brown, encircling his car in a direct action that brought multiple arrests. Unlike Agnos, Brown saw tenants as a constituency that would cause him trouble if he failed to deliver on his commitments. The most sweeping pro-tenant legislation in the city’s history would pass during Brown’s first term.
Today’s self-styled progressive politicians are uniquely adept at using their power and winning public personalities to distract social change activists from their agendas. These politicians are experts at the psychology of “win-win”—they know how to make their campaign supporters feel bad for demanding action instead of promises. Moreover, their patronage power enables them to make strategic allies of social change leaders. By appointing such leaders to prestigious boards, commissions, or task forces, the politician can display loyalty to social change constituencies without implementing their agendas. The elected Official can also use these leaders to suppress dissatisfaction with Official policies at the grassroots level and to provide press quotes disputing charges that the officeholder has betrayed her or his base. Neighborhood activists who have toiled for years in obscurity are understandably flattered at being invited to meet with the mayor, the governor, or a legislator. It is not easy to attend such a meeting and then strongly oppose the Official’s reasonable-sounding plans.
Political leaders have such an array of tactics to divert social change that tactical activists must demand results and the fulfillment of campaign promises. Once activists understand and accept this fundamental relationship between social change groups and elected Officials, they will avoid the principal pitfalls preventing change. Elected Officials spend millions of dollars on campaign consultants to develop tactics and strategies to woo voters; social change activists must engage in their own, less costly but equally productive tactical sessions to create the relationships with politicians necessary to achieve progressive aims.
PURSUE YOUR AGENDA, NOT THE POLITICIAN’S
Self-styled grassroots officials are also effective at subordinating activists’ agendas to their own. This commonly occurs when politicians and activist groups start out on the same page but then find their agendas diverging. In one typical scenario, a politician commits to an issue and then learns that certain other constituency groups oppose it. The politician does not want a big political fight with the opposition group, but he or she also does not wish to be seen as having betrayed the social change organization. The solution? Reframe and repackage the activists’ agenda so that the politician can claim “victory” and convince the activists of the same.
Politicians commonly accomplish this by vowing action to address a problem but then forming a task force to find the “best” solution. The creation of a task force is an ideal strategy for new-style “win-win” politicians to subsume activists’ agendas into their own. They subtly switch the agenda from “We demand action now” to “We created a task force to address this critical problem.” As the politician gives victory pats on the back, the activists’ goal of getting something concrete done disappears.
Task forces sponsored by government Officials are usually boondoggles. Approach them with caution. Elected Officials seeking to avoid real change often use them as appeasement measures. How many times have you seen the announcement, amid great fanfare, of a new task force, one that will take twelve months to produce a report on an “urgent” problem? Task forces are excellent weapons for slowing activist momentum. They can divert activists from their real goal, and nearly always eat up a lot of time that could be better spent. Yet serving on a task force can be an attractive proposition for a grassroots organizer, who may get no other sign of recognition from the powers that be. However, such Official flattery can undermine activist goals. Similarly, serving on a task force may appeal to politically ambitious activists whose real agenda is personal advancement. Those personal goals often end up conflicting with the goals of social change. Activist organizations should determine the function of any member assigned to serve on a government task force and hold him or her rigorously accountable for promoting the organization’s views.
Progressive social activists who enthusiastically participate on task forces usually argue, “If we don’t participate on a task force, it will come out with horrible recommendations.” I say, so what? If that happens, discredit the recommendations. Discrediting task force reports is a fairly simple exercise. One can point to the group’s biased composition, question individual member’s agendas, point to the heavy political pressures placed on the task force, or note its failure to consider vital information. In any case, after an initial splash, most reports from task forces, commissions, and the like are widely ignored. The task force tactic has become so transparent that it is a wonder that anybody outside the Official’s staff accepts its legitimacy.
Besides creating task forces, politicians also supplant activist groups’ agendas with their own by holding a public hearing to address an activist organization’s concerns. Public hearings may be more effective even than task forces in funneling activist energy into the politician’s agenda. Typically, the social change organization seeks a government response to a problem. A politician, seeking to play the white knight, announces a hearing to investigate the issue. Social change groups agree to the hearing because it gives them both a chance to mobilize their members and the expectation of tangible results. The organizers pack the hearing room, and the crowd cheers as speaker after speaker rails against the injustice in question. The Official who called the hearing plays to the crowd and shows that he or she is squarely in its corner. The media are out in force, and excitement is in the air.
There is only one problem. All too often, such hearings are held by Officials with no legal authority to address the targeted problem. Or the hearings occur prior to the drafting of legislation on the subject, whereas the real work for accomplishing change—through either legislation or public-pressure campaigns—occurs afterward. The politician accomplishes his or her goal through the hearing itself, gaining the audience’s loyalty and the general public’s approval for promptly responding to an injustice. After the hearing, the politician moves on to other issues, leaving the activist organization on its own. Social change organizations rarely achieve their goals through public hearings. Tactical activists can avoid this pitfall by making their agenda clear at the outset to the politician seeking involvement. If a politician is not committed to fighting beyond the hearing, do not allow said Official to reap the publicity benefits of the event.
Hearings can energize a constituency base, but this benefit will backfire if people see that nothing concrete has come from their trip to City Hall. Tactical activism requires that groups work only with Officials committed to fulfilling the social change agenda. The smart politician understands that working for the group’s agenda is also the best strategy for achieving his or her own political aims.
FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRAIL
Since Earth Day 1970, the United States environmental movement has made tremendous gains. The nation’s air is cleaner, its waterways are less polluted, its communities are healthier, and a mass environmental consciousness has prompted mandatory
