There's a debate brewing about whether or not to organize a national march on Washington demanding full equality for LGBT people. Activist Cleve Jones has called for a march to be held on October 11 and has outlined plans for a simple gathering in the nation's capital. He argues that a march is the best way to launch a national movement, and thinks it can put into motion a ground game on the local level that includes lobbying and canvassing. There'll be no bells and whistles at the march, he says, just bodies, a direct message, a short program, and port-a-potties. What we might call Frugalista Organizing.
This back-to-basics part, I like a lot. But I agree with Matt Comer of Interstate Q on this one: the funds and energy necessary for even a simple march could be better spent through funding targeted efforts on the local and state level. Check out Comer's "Five Effective Alternatives to a March on Washington" here.
Marches and rallies can be one effective component of a broader well-organized campaign. But so too can they be a relatively empty form of political theater: they may inspire participants on the day of, but they also have a short half-life.
Timed as it is to coincide with a Congressional recess and absent the infrastructure to support a national ground game to follow the march, Jones' proposal falls into this latter category. We also have to bear in mind that Obama's inauguration, pictured here, set a new standard in the national imagination for what a political gathering in DC can look like: epic in scope, highly diverse and hopeful in tone. Marches which aim to be rousing national calls for change now have a high bar to meet.
But in Jones' vision, I also see three characteristics that I like:
1) Frugalista Organizing: the best kept secret of community organizing is that it doesn't actually take a lot of money. It takes people + time;
2) A 50-state and 435-precinct Scope: this national scope is critical, but to implement it we need resources directed in a targeted manner and flowing into those areas that are the most under-resourced; and
3) Grassroots Rather Than Top-Down Leadership: the LGBT movement will be more effective if its course is determined by leaders on the grassroots level -- particuarly in those areas where persecution is most acute -- rather than based on the directives of organizations based in DC, NYC, SF and LA. But when we call for action on the grassroots level, we need to ensure that it's strategic. The march isn't, but other things -- lobbying efforts, relationship building with unlikely allies on the local level -- are.
Comments