IAVA and Cosmopolity

I'll try not to cover the same ground Mike did in his response.

I'm not really sure if DL ever actually accomplishes anything from an activism standpoint. Do they? They certainly enable a lot of other organizations, and provide a structure for progressives to congregate, (which is great) but MFA does an okay job of that online.

If MFA is simply organizing people online and not enabling and energizing people to bring those relationships and activities offline then it isn't really doing much at all. Yes, its nice to have a website where people can talk about things and connect with peers, but there are bigger and better websites that already accomplish this, for political and/or social purposes. What made MFA unique and important wasn't the website, even though it is an important aspect of what MFA did, it was the offline activities that it facilitated. If I had simply talked with Mike about what I thought was important and left it at that, then I'm positive that my life would be very different right now, and I probably wouldn't be working my current job, trying to start up a business/non-profit, and I probably wouldn't be blogging here.

Now, there were certainly problems with the volunteer efforts, much of that due, in my mind, to the total lack of managerial experience amongst MFA's staff (and I mean the entire '04 staff). But these problems didn't change the fact that the vast majority of the impact MFA had during the election was due to its offline activities, and the almost complete abandoning of this focus after MFA retreated into the cosy confines of the liberal oasis known as San Francisco shows, again in my mind, a complete lack of understanding of this reality. I won't even get into the absurdity of MFA's current claim to be a "gateway drug" to progressive politics, accept to say that by keeping the MFA staff locked away in the Northwest and focusing solely on online activities MFA is a gateway to one thing- disillusionment.

A lot of people talk about the "changes" that they are going to facilitate. They say all sorts of nice things about "making a difference," "empowering people," and so on. But, those sentiments and $25 will get you a Tim Gunn Bobblehead Doll. But we don't need catchy phrases, motivational speeches, or empowering writing, we need ACTION. And, to beat the dead horse once more, action doesn't happen online. For example, Ned Lamont's victory is chalked up to the power of blogs, but the power of blogs to do what? To bring people together offline and get to the real work of campaigning-- talking with people, collecting signatures, pounding the pavement, GOTV, etc.

MFA stumbles major league when volunteers, employees and young activists and partner bands start to get disillusioned with politics due to MFA and our inability to handle the enormous amounts of contacts we maintain.

Which says to me that given the importance of these connections MFA is doing more harm then good (in regards to the people whom leave because of their contact with the organization- which certainly isn't everyone) at the moment. Again, this says to me that MFA is a gateway to disillusionment, and with a group that progressives SORELY need to engage meaningfully if we are in fact to reach the future majority we aim for.

I can think of a handful of people who've been involved with the org who departed with a sour taste in their mouth

You must have really big hands. Seriously, go to any progressive convention or national event and talk to people about MFA. I think you'll be (unpleasantly) surprised.

Yes, we are very young, and we make a lot of mistakes. But leadership building is totally about making mistakes. For this to work the way it needs to, we gotta be able to handle mistakes, plan for them, build it into the system...

This is where things get really, really strange to me. I guess despite the fact that I worked in a non-profit environment for 7 years it's really hard for me to swallow your notions of leadership and learning.

Think for a second of examples of leadership under different circumstances, and lets see how this idea, which Molly also espoused, of leaders learning through failing works.

Think first of the military. Could you imagine the military promoting a private all the way to a general without training this person in non-critical environments first? Do you think it would be okay for a General, or hell even a Captain, to enter the field of battle without the knowledge, experience, and training necessary to succeed in that environment? Well, it is not okay, and placing someone in charge of forces in the field who does not posses these things leads to one thing: military defeat. That is why there is a hierarchy that one must climb, training one must receive, and evaluations one must pass. Because when the bullets start flying there are no do-overs. (And yes, I do believe that the failings we are experiencing in Iraq, and those we experienced in Vietnam, are do in large part to a lack of understanding of the battle environment we are/were operating on, which led to a lack of training for the war we face(d), which lead to a lack of effective leadership, esp. at the top).

I think a second place to look is the for-profit world, where the idea that "leadership building is totally about making mistakes" at the highest level of a business is laughable. If a company repeatedly fails to meet its objectives, which are usually pretty easy to measure in terms of a bottom-line, then it goes out of business. But on the not-for-profit side there is not this type of accountability, for a variety of reasons- the financiers of non-profits don't demand it, the people who the non-profit supposedly serve have no voice (unlike a business customers cannot protest by not buying a product/service and shareholders cannot vote to oust the leadership), and there is little-to-no incentive for positive change. To put it plainly- there is simply no accountability within most progressive institutions, and (IMO) without accountability there cannot be much meaningful learning by the leaders of the organization .

I also think that there's an implication here that the current MFA staff is composed of leaders, which I am not personally certain of, and/or managers, which I highly doubt. The question I would ask of you is: what do you mean by leader? The fact that someone is in charge of an organization, or works for that organization, does not make them a leader. I've been poking around the web looking for a good definition of leader, and this Wikipedia entry gets close:

House defines "leadership" organizationally and narrowly as "the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members" (House, R. J. 2004: page 15).

Using this definition the "learning" that you are talking about- the failing of the members of the community and the broader movement which it seeks to be a part of (which itself is largely, IMO, failing in almost any measure of leadership) is the opposite of leadership, not "bumps" on the way to becoming a leader.

But anyway, the question of whether the current MFA team are leaders is secondary in some respects, since what MFA lacks the most would fall more on the side of management. That is why I brought up Drinking Liberally and IAVA. Both of these groups may have a more limited mission at the moment, and both have far less resources than MFA. But both groups have the combination of leadership and management that gives me, for one, faith that the blood, sweat and tears that their many volunteers and supporters shed on their behalf will not be squandered, taken for granted, misused, abused, etc.

So, to get to your last part:

How does a staff of 6-12 maintain meaningful, personal contact with 70,000 kids?

It doesn't, especially not when all of the staff are located in one location, far from almost all of the nation's political action. This is something that I too would love to talk about more, and I have talked about it at length on MFA's forums, but I'll put out a few things that I have thought about:

1. Something on this scale needs to be much more decentralized to be effective. Instead of a single hierarchical organization, there should be local member groups who subscribe to/are part of a national group.
2. Accountability. These local groups would maintain contact with their regions and would both hold the national org. accountable, and be held accountable.
3. Since it is obvious that there is little-to-no money for progressive political groups, esp. those focusing on young people, these groups should attempt to become self-sufficient. We cannot rely on the good graces of a few wealthy individuals to maintain a movement. This probably means that it is necessary to combine progressive outreach with for-profit activities.