Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America
June 2, 2010 by SmallBiz-Resources.com
Product Description
“For a charmingly recherché complaint, check out Activism, Inc. by Dana R. Fisher. Fisher, who teaches sociology at Columbia, is upset about the professionalization of grass-roots campaigning, which she believes has sliced the bottom rung off the political ladder and keeps inspired young people from entering politics and pointing it in a more salubrious direction.”
–The New York Times Book Review
“This book describes how grassroots politics has withered and what must be done to revive it. A timely message for America in the 21st century.”
–Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley
“An original grassroots critique as to why progressive citizen groups and the Democratic Party are failing to prevail and weakening themselves. Dana Fisher argues that you cannot outsource democratic movements. Listen up, national progressive groups, Fisher’s insights are lighting up the path to greater effectiveness. Democrats would be well advised to put this book at the top of their reading list. That is, if they want to understand better how to win elections.”
–Ralph Nader
Activism, Inc. introduces America to an increasingly familiar political actor: the canvasser. She’s the twenty-something with the clipboard, stopping you on the street or knocking on your door, the foot soldier of political campaigns.
Granted unprecedented access to the “People’s Project,” an unknown yet influential organization driving left-leaning grassroots politics, Dana Fisher tells the true story of outsourcing politics in America. Like the major corporations that outsourced their customer service to companies abroad, the grassroots campaigns of national progressive movements–including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Save the Children, and the Human Rights Campaign–have been outsourced at different times to this single organization. During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democratic Party followed a similar outsourcing model for their canvassing.
Fisher examines the history and rationale behind political outsourcing on the Left, weaving together frank interviews with canvassers, high-ranking political officials across the political spectrum, and People’s Project management. She compares all of this to the grassroots efforts on the Right, which remain firmly grounded in communities and local politics.
This book offers a chilling review of the consequences of political outsourcing. Connecting local people on the streets throughout America to the national organizations and political campaigns that make up progressive politics, it shows what happens to the passionate young activists outsourced to the clients of Activism, Inc.
Buy from Amazon –> Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America
The basic premise of this book is incorrect, but is only one of many inaccuracies in this book. Sadly, this subject matter is valid, and there are other areas that could be improved in Democratic politics, but this book is completely off base. The author writes that young people that are hired as canvassers for fundraising and specific issues become discouraged because they are not appreciated. This might be true, but might also be said about any low-level entry-level job. However, her main point that this type of canvassing job is the entry point job into Democratic politics is simply not true. These jobs are not even in the pipeline for entry into other types of political jobs. She is comparing apples and oranges. This would be the equivalent of saying that the product testers/sample distributors in grocery stores are in line for management in those same stores. They might be working in the stores, but they usually are hired by outside companies to hand out the samples. A stockperson would be entry level into grocery store management, but not someone that is hired by an outside vendor to just comes in to hand out samples. It’s the same in politics. These are not jobs that lead to other jobs in politics, as they are somewhat parallel to campaign work. She also compares these jobs to electoral, campaign jobs. Again, not the same realm. The biggest inaccuracy is to say that Democrats hire these canvassers and Republicans use real volunteers that then talk to their friends and co-workers, and therefore have better results. She is not comparing similar items. She is comparing fundraising/data collection to actual field work…and outsider might think they are the same, but they are not at all the same. Since her basic premise is off, the inaccuracies are further magnified when she tries to expand her theory. I understand how she could have come up with her theory, since she thought that her personal experience as a hired canvasser was something that it clearly was not. However, it would be a worse injustice to continue to perpetuate her flawed ideas by widely distributing this book. It’s upsetting that the interview she did on the WNYC (NPR) radio program, “the Leonard Lopate Show”, is now one of the most widely shared e-mails on their website, since she clearly does not know what she is talking about. When I listened to it with other political folks, our jaws dropped, not because we were being exposed, but because of how factually untrue her book is. I could go on and on, but it’s not necessary–it should suffice to say that the entire book is based on flawed thinking.
If young (or any age) people want to get involved in politics, they should volunteer on local campaigns, or even the next presidential election. They should contact their local Democratic club, or even reach out to the national party in Washington, D.C. Someone should have told this to the author years ago–before she was hired by a canvassing company, and before she wrote her book based on that experience. All my former colleagues and I did just that, and it led us to the highest reaches of Democratic politics. At the beginning, I’m sure I made less than a basic canvasser, but at least I was in the right ballpark for advancement into other jobs within the hierarchy of politics.
None of this is to say that hired canvassers are not valuable. They have a function, but it is not the same as the field canvassers that go out from campaigns.
By the way, I was involved in national Democratic politics for almost 15 years, and have worked for many national campaigns, the White House, the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, a major 527 and other organizations. I know what I am talking about, and know that she does not. I am not putting out a blanket defense of Democratic politics; I am just saying that she is way off in her basic premise, and this should have been corrected before she expanded it.
Rating: 1 / 5
“Just the Facts” needs to check his or her facts (beware of anonymous reviewers). The book is well-sourced and the author clearly documents how the Democratic Party has outsourced their campaigns which led to the 2004 disaster. That’s why Dean launched the 50-states campaign. I also suggest the following article from the American Prospect that addresses the problem of canvasser outsourcing (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11993).
Rating: 5 / 5
This is an interesting study and well worth reading if you are a young activist looking for a career in progressive politics or a student of progressive politics.
What drew me to this little book was the basic question of how much door-to-door canvassers for various progressive causes were paid? This very expensive 114-page book actually does not give a direct answer – but apparently it is something like minimum wage plus 30% of anything above a quota. A piece in Wikipedia on a sister organization indicates:
“All canvassers are expected to raise at least 80% of the average [earned by all the canvassers in the office] or $100 per day, whichever is greater. Once quota is met, canvassers receive
30% of all funds raised over the week’s quota. (Note: for single large contributions, the bonus is 30% up to $200, and 10% of anything above that. . . .) A canvasser who does not meet the quota in a week will not receive base pay, and will be paid $8.00 an hour for the hours worked. ” [...].
Dana Fisher, motivated in part by her own experience, decided to do an empirical research study of one type of organization that has come to dominate fund raising on the progressive side of the street. In the book it is called the People’s Project. In reality it is the Fund for Public Interest which in turn has close connections to the Public Interest Research Group that has chapters on many campuses plus some very active State organizations like MASSPIRG. The Fund has given rise to a number of private and for profit groups including Telefund and Grassroots Campaign,, Inc. Key executives show up in all 3 organizations at some point in time.
Dr. Fisher’s main thesis is that the outsourcing of grassroots campaigns to professional fundraising organizations damages progressive politics by alienating young activists and disconnecting progressive causes from activists and potential activists in local communities. She also argues that young progressives have no easy mechanism for building careers in politics. Dana does a good job illustrating, though by no means proving, the first part of her thesis by extensively quoting disenchanted young canvassers. Her case against the organization receives considerable support from a series of lawsuits brought by canvassers and/or Directors of Canvassers in California, Oregon and Illinois against their “progressive” employers for unfair labor practices including failure to pay local minimum wages, adhere to over-time regulations and unfair dismissals. All these are alluded to in the book along with charges of union busting. The charges of burn-out of young activists in canvassing jobs, however, are hyperbolic to say the least. Anyone who has been involved in selling and especially selling door to door would quickly note that some people can do it and some people cannot. It helps if you believe in the product that you are selling but it is a tough business where only the driven and those who can stand constant rejection will survive. Attrition rates for real estate, auto and insurance sales people are equally high.
From a strategic point of view, Dr. Fisher argues that progressive and Democratic decision-makers need to realize that they need to establish deeper connections in local communities in order to effectively mobilize them and that relying simply of the Man and the Message without fully engaging the Members increases the likelihood that Republicans and conservatives will continue to win more elections than they really should. Of course, the book was written in 2005 after Kerry’s humiliating loss to an apparently unpopular, incompetent and ineffective George W. Bush. Perhaps the Democrats listened to Dr. Fisher in 2008, though it seems that what they found again was a Man and a Message and the Republicans had neither. At the national level, 2010 and 2012 promise to be better tests of Dana Fisher’s thesis.
As a former management consultant, I always appreciate it when an author goes to the trouble of doing real empirical research, collecting and analyzing data and providing readers with first-hand accounts of life within an organization. One fundamental drawback to the book, however, is Dr. Fisher’s failure to question her own fundamental premises. The tone of the book is that of whining and unrealistic expectations. If you are looking for a summer job, why would you expect compensation above that of other college students? If you join a company that organizes campaigns around the country why would you not expect to go where you are most needed? Which entry level job holders aren’t better off living rent free at home? If you join a fund raising organization why wouldn’t the primary positions be in fundraising? Why should young college graduates expect a paid career in politics?
More generally, the charges of burn-out of young activists in canvassing jobs are hyperbolic to say the least. Anyone who has been involved in selling and especially selling door to door would quickly note that some people can do it and some people cannot – it certainly is not just a matter of how smart you are. It helps if you believe in the product that you are selling but it is a tough business where only the driven and thick-skinned, i.e., those who can stand constant rejection, will survive. For most recent college students serial rejection is a totally new experience. Most students have lived sheltered lives, where their assumptions have seldom been aggressively questioned thanks to benefits of political correctness on campus. Attrition rates among entry-level real estate, auto and insurance sales people are equally high.
In addition, young canvassers have to deal with the fundamental dissonance of asking people for money for a good and noble cause when their pay depends on the amount given. The next time one of these idealists comes to the door, ask them how they are paid and how much of what they are asking for actually goes into their pocket. Watch their eyes. It is a very painful position to be in. Dr. Fisher makes too little of this fundamental conflict in explaining the attrition and disenchantment of young activists.
In short, the author seems to suffer from the same idealism and naiveté as her subjects. Dr. Fisher seems oblivious to the fundamental autocratic nature of organized politics and especially of progressive politics. The repeated disregard of labor laws by such “progressive” organizations, besides being ironic and hypocritical, is symptomatic of any organization or movement that presumes that it knows best what is good for others. Her young activists are both perpetrators and victims of an “ends justifies the means” calculus. How else does one explain the frequency with which young progressive activists on campuses deny others free speech?
I gave the book only three stars because Dr Fisher actually fails to prove her thesis, uses a methodology that suffers enormously from confirmation bias and misuses statistics in the appendix where she attempts to compare the results of her survey to those of a large national survey.
Rating: 3 / 5
… where a few organizations serve as the umbrella for the activism of many. Interesting premise of how the shift toward centralized activism has hurt liberal/left political causes by distancing them from true grassroots. It’s missed the value of community relationships and narrows a pipeline through which future leadership develops. Certainly the Democratic party did better nationally when they focused on party infrastructure closer to the grassroots. And that’s this author’s premise: to shift the democrartic party away from a more top-down elitist structure to the more grassroot egalitarian approach of the republican party.
While candidates and issues matter, her book is strictly about presentation of these. And she underscores the idea that people who know their neighbors and are involved in a community are more likely to win votes. Good documentation (4 stars) and dry until nearly the end (2 stars) but worthy reading.
Rating: 3 / 5
Reviews on this book are going to be slanted based on whether the reviewer agrees with the author’s thesis. I feel that the author did a good job of presenting both the positive and negative aspects of canvassing, and of doing her research. More often people’s opinions on canvassing tend to fall to the extremes.
Interestingly the most vehement defenders tend to come from the 1% or so of canvassers who have stuck with it, and secured higher-level positions in canvassing or social change organizations.
What’s missing is a model for an alternative form of getting people started in activism. For me, that model would be to get involved in community organizations that get to choose their own local campaigns, run themselves, and fund their own positions by doing grassroots fundraising (and raise the money from people who are involved in the democratic decision-making of the organization – for instance by having regular membership meetings). These organizations would stay in a community for ten years or more, build deep relationships with its members and other progressive organizations, and create a base for longterm social change.
Rating: 5 / 5