Last week, we posted some highlights from an interview with David Broockman and Josh Kalla of UC Berkeley, two political scientists making waves by rigorously testing advocacy strategies. Their comments emphasized (1) the importance of mobilizing people for a cause on their own terms, which often requires providing tangible benefits outside the political realm (e.g., social groups), and (2) the need for better canvassing that focuses on quality conversations with potential supporters, not just the number of door-knocks.
These ideas provide great fodder for philanthropies, nonprofits, and others looking to build broad-based grassroots movements. At the same time, David and Josh covered a parallel point that is equally important to keep in mind:
Remember the inside game, even if it’s “not our M.O.”
For all their work on grassroots mobilization, David and Josh sometimes feel that “it’s not clear that the right question for advocates is always how to engage more voters.” For example, advocacy NGO Public Citizen found that on a key financial reform measure, anti-reform lobbyists outnumbered pro-reform lobbyists 11-to-1.
“Why does that matter?” they asked. “Because when a member of Congress has 12 appointments on her calendar about an issue with which she has limited familiarity, and 11 of them are people saying ‘if you do this, it’s going to really hurt people,’” don’t be surprised when reform proves difficult. “Maybe on highly politicized bills like Waxman-Markey [a failed 2009 cap-and-trade bill], that wasn’t the deciding factor” – indeed, Theda Skocpol and others have attributed the failure partly to insufficient grassroots mobilization – “but on the long tail of policies that in sum matter a lot, there often isn’t anyone there making the progressive case.”
When a bill is up for debate, “the Right has a CEO call their representative and say, ‘Here are the reasons you should do X.’ The Left sends a petition with 500 names on it. We on the Left have smart people who can also pick up the phone, but that’s just not our M.O.”
Embedded in their critique actually lies an optimistic view of policymaking: “Politicians don’t just care about elections. All these people who are community servants and public activists don’t just lose that part of themselves when they get elected. They know they have to win to keep doing the work, but when someone shows up with 500 petitions saying ‘vote for this bill now!’ versus a lobbyist who says, ‘Don’t vote for this bill because here is a very tangible harm it will inflict on people in your district,’ a responsible legislator might well follow the lobbyist’s advice.”
In other words, facts do matter in politics, but it is important to ensure the right people are communicating them. Foundations cannot lobby, but they can certainly consider whether all the right stakeholders are engaged in the advocacy campaign writ large – and whether the most compelling community members, experts, and other stakeholders are educating policymakers on the key issues. Even as we in the social sector become more committed to, focused on, and rigorous about broad-based mobilization, David and Josh’s comments are important reminders of the need to ensure all cylinders are firing if we hope to achieve substantial policy change.
Overall, although their critiques of current approaches are manifold, we came away excited by the growing evidence base to inform advocacy efforts and the fact that there are clear steps to take in service of more effective advocacy. Thanks again to David and Josh for taking the time to chat.