I'm reconsidering some of my prior beliefs after reading this post - especially as someone who is more familiar with the "organize protests" form of political activism rather than the "build relationships" form.
I can't help but think about cases in which electeds are strongly against a particular course of action. For example, Southern segregationists against integration, suburban NIMBYs against more housing. I'd like to believe that you can leverage political capital to change their views - but I feel doubtful that one could ever assemble enough capital to overcome entrenched power interests. For example, desegregation required 10 years of non-violent protest that certainly did not involve building strong relationships with those in power.
Do you have specific examples where this approach works? Am I understanding this correctly?
Most politics, the kind that happens daily (but that goes largely unnoticed) is the result of political capital exchanges. This is 99% of politics. An NYC example, the form of which is very common: Erik Bottcher's (CCD3) district is front-and-center in attempts at sanitation reform (and bike lane improvements!) because he wrote about it, made it a central campaign issue, has an excellent relationship with his community board chair (who is also also the executive director of the Meatpacking District's BID), and more. Having smooth coordination across these people makes policy flow quickly and smoothly, and "smooth coordination" relies on trust that comes with good relationships. It's good when your community board doesn't oppose pilot programs in your overlapping city council district!
I don't think protests are inherently opposed to political capital. It's not an "either/or" situation; they're interrelated, and there are better and worse combinations of them. For example, protests can be arranged to supply more political capital to individual members of a government, and this is best arranged if you coordinate with that member. This is the idea (not always well executed) behind "rallying" in New York City and Albany.
Protests absolutely have a vital role to play in politics, but I think people often over-index on them as the only thing they ever do. For best effect, protests are paired with relationships. And, for best effect, the people who are building those relationships and organizing those protests have good, formal knowledge of the government and the law.
As you indicate, some things cannot be solved with relationships (or protest, for that matter)--that's why the American Civil War happened. But we are not in such circumstances today with almost any policy, and most individuals haven't even tried to build a portfolio of political capital in the first place to see if that would work.
As to what follows the colon, I think it's plainly untrue, and it's also a very strong claim that would require very strong evidence to support: "Desegregation required 10 years of non-violent protest that certainly did not involve building strong relationships with those in power." The amount of work done by advocates and legislators in Congress, and in various executive roles, was tremendous. Relationships were key to all of it (both within the government and extending outside of it), and protests alone cannot nearly account for pushing desegregation forward.
Although one can find ample evidence of this in various sets of presidential papers, I think Eisenhower's might be most instructive. Political capital determined who was appointed to which positions by the president, and that made all the difference: "When Eisenhower entered office, there were already two important Civil Rights issues at hand. First, Eisenhower continued President Harry Truman’s orders to desegrated the federal workforce and the armed forces. This process was essentially finished by the end of Eisenhower’s first year in office. The second and perhaps more important element was in the hands of the Supreme Court. When Eisenhower became the 34th President, the Brown vs the Board of Education case was already before the Court. Ultimately, it would become the landmark Civil Rights case of the 20th century.
Eisenhower would have a major impact on Brown vs. Board through two important appointments. The first was in his choice of Attorney General, Hebert Brownell. Brownell was a supporter of civil rights and in his brief argued that any state mandated inequality that came about from segregated schools was unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Brownell was also instrumental in helping Eisenhower make judicial appointments, including his most important one." (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/eisenhower-and-civil-rights.htm)
It's relationships all the way down in the excerpt above--the only question for many people is: have you positioned yourself to influence those relationships? Protests are a blunt instrument that often can't do this, especially regarding behind-the-scenes roles.
As to this claim: "I'd like to believe that you can leverage political capital to change their views - but I feel doubtful that one could ever assemble enough capital to overcome entrenched power interests." Well--then why are we undergoing a once-in-several-generations paradigm shift *against* NIMBYs? (https://twitter.com/NYCSpeakerAdams/status/1638966773927247873)? We're not nearly done on housing, but the state of the New York housing debate clearly shows that NIMBY power has been severely eroded, and continues to erode. This is mostly the result of advocacy work that focuses on educating legislators, and building relationships with those in power.
I'm reconsidering some of my prior beliefs after reading this post - especially as someone who is more familiar with the "organize protests" form of political activism rather than the "build relationships" form.
I can't help but think about cases in which electeds are strongly against a particular course of action. For example, Southern segregationists against integration, suburban NIMBYs against more housing. I'd like to believe that you can leverage political capital to change their views - but I feel doubtful that one could ever assemble enough capital to overcome entrenched power interests. For example, desegregation required 10 years of non-violent protest that certainly did not involve building strong relationships with those in power.
Do you have specific examples where this approach works? Am I understanding this correctly?
Most politics, the kind that happens daily (but that goes largely unnoticed) is the result of political capital exchanges. This is 99% of politics. An NYC example, the form of which is very common: Erik Bottcher's (CCD3) district is front-and-center in attempts at sanitation reform (and bike lane improvements!) because he wrote about it, made it a central campaign issue, has an excellent relationship with his community board chair (who is also also the executive director of the Meatpacking District's BID), and more. Having smooth coordination across these people makes policy flow quickly and smoothly, and "smooth coordination" relies on trust that comes with good relationships. It's good when your community board doesn't oppose pilot programs in your overlapping city council district!
I don't think protests are inherently opposed to political capital. It's not an "either/or" situation; they're interrelated, and there are better and worse combinations of them. For example, protests can be arranged to supply more political capital to individual members of a government, and this is best arranged if you coordinate with that member. This is the idea (not always well executed) behind "rallying" in New York City and Albany.
Protests absolutely have a vital role to play in politics, but I think people often over-index on them as the only thing they ever do. For best effect, protests are paired with relationships. And, for best effect, the people who are building those relationships and organizing those protests have good, formal knowledge of the government and the law.
As you indicate, some things cannot be solved with relationships (or protest, for that matter)--that's why the American Civil War happened. But we are not in such circumstances today with almost any policy, and most individuals haven't even tried to build a portfolio of political capital in the first place to see if that would work.
As to what follows the colon, I think it's plainly untrue, and it's also a very strong claim that would require very strong evidence to support: "Desegregation required 10 years of non-violent protest that certainly did not involve building strong relationships with those in power." The amount of work done by advocates and legislators in Congress, and in various executive roles, was tremendous. Relationships were key to all of it (both within the government and extending outside of it), and protests alone cannot nearly account for pushing desegregation forward.
Although one can find ample evidence of this in various sets of presidential papers, I think Eisenhower's might be most instructive. Political capital determined who was appointed to which positions by the president, and that made all the difference: "When Eisenhower entered office, there were already two important Civil Rights issues at hand. First, Eisenhower continued President Harry Truman’s orders to desegrated the federal workforce and the armed forces. This process was essentially finished by the end of Eisenhower’s first year in office. The second and perhaps more important element was in the hands of the Supreme Court. When Eisenhower became the 34th President, the Brown vs the Board of Education case was already before the Court. Ultimately, it would become the landmark Civil Rights case of the 20th century.
Eisenhower would have a major impact on Brown vs. Board through two important appointments. The first was in his choice of Attorney General, Hebert Brownell. Brownell was a supporter of civil rights and in his brief argued that any state mandated inequality that came about from segregated schools was unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Brownell was also instrumental in helping Eisenhower make judicial appointments, including his most important one." (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/eisenhower-and-civil-rights.htm)
It's relationships all the way down in the excerpt above--the only question for many people is: have you positioned yourself to influence those relationships? Protests are a blunt instrument that often can't do this, especially regarding behind-the-scenes roles.
Again, I'm not dismissing protests. But political capital is vital, and is at the core of 99% of politics as practiced on a daily basis. Relationships (and the trust they spring from) are why the Democratic mayor of Little Rock sided with a Republican Eisenhower when he sent in federal troops over the wishes of the segregationist Arkansas governor (https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock/1957-09-23-mann-to-dde.pdf).
As to this claim: "I'd like to believe that you can leverage political capital to change their views - but I feel doubtful that one could ever assemble enough capital to overcome entrenched power interests." Well--then why are we undergoing a once-in-several-generations paradigm shift *against* NIMBYs? (https://twitter.com/NYCSpeakerAdams/status/1638966773927247873)? We're not nearly done on housing, but the state of the New York housing debate clearly shows that NIMBY power has been severely eroded, and continues to erode. This is mostly the result of advocacy work that focuses on educating legislators, and building relationships with those in power.