top of page
Search

OP-ED: Grassroots in Perspective

  • chaoscubed
  • May 13
  • 4 min read

Updated: May 14

One of the biggest challenges for successful organizing at the grassroots level is to overcome what is known as the collective action problem. In collective action theory public goods are things that, once made available, can be enjoyed by everyone. People cannot be excluded just because they did not contribute. An example is a municipal park. Assuming there is not a fence with a gatekeeper, no one can be excluded from it whether or not they contributed to the costs of providing it. 


This is applicable to the agenda and prospects of Lake Effect Change. Any one ordinary individual’s contribution is not going to make a difference in the group's potential impact. Economists use the phrase “free rider” to describe someone who enjoys the benefits of something without contributing to it. Back in 1965 the economist Mancur Olson put this issue in formal terms. He argued that because of the collective action problem, small groups form more easily than large groups. Further, wealthy individuals can overcome the collective action problem more easily by supplying resources on their own. The result is that things people want are often underfunded, or not provided at all. In fact, this is one of the roles of government: It enforces the payment of taxes, and uses them for things people would not provide on their own, including parks.  


To build a grassroots organization, the free rider challenge must be overcome: people must be willing to pay, even though their contribution will not be decisive. They could get the benefit of the group while free riding. 


There are additional headwinds that include the ordinary practice of organizing groups. Political Scientist Robert Putnam argued in Bowling Alone that in the past 75 years, Americans have become increasingly isolated. He measured this by things like the numbers of civic organizations people belonged to. He found that on many dimensions, American civic life had declined. This is emblematic of an impersonal world where people are increasingly isolated, and less connected to others. This is a contrast to an interpersonal environment built on regular and longstanding human interactions. 


A similar pattern occurred in electoral campaign organization. Prior to 1970 campaigns were labor intensive, involving many people hand-writing envelopes used in mailers, knocking on doors, and canvassing neighborhoods. It required a heavy dose of volunteers. California led the way towards the opposite: campaigns that instead were capital intensive: they were composed of paid professionals funded by big donors. Campaigns were carried out on the airwaves. This accelerated with the introduction of the Internet. By 2004, online contributions were technically feasible, and campaigning became about fundraising to pay for professionals and ads. Regular involvement of ordinary citizens became marginalized. 


Given the decline in individual civic participation, the emergence of the Tea Party movement in 2009 deserves notice. It did involve a grassroots base, and activism by ordinary Americans. This led Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson to investigate the movement: did it represent the reemergence of grassroots base activism? What motivated participants? They found that the Tea Party was composed of three major elements. One was the grassroots activists. Millions of ordinary Americans joined local groups, met to exchange ideas, raise money, and plan public demonstrations. A second component became known as astroturf. This was state and national level organizations funded by wealthy donors. They were led by sophisticated political activists, often seeking to use the grassroots for their own purposes. The third component was the already existing conservative media that promoted the relevance of the Tea Party, in both radio and Television. 


For the moment, ignore that the initial impetus for the Tea Party was a CNBC rant from a reporter on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, supported by floor traders that were far wealthier than ordinary Americans. Instead note that it received attention and support from an entire media ecosystem: right wing radio and Fox News. The rant struck a chord, and became an impetus for building grassroots organizations. 


We now live in a much-changed media environment, even since 2009. Many legacy media organizations have or are being purchased by wealthy persons: this includes the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, and CBS. Social media is now every bit as influential: but in many instances algorithms determine who is heard, something that became clear when many journalists' postings were truncated in the days and weeks prior to election day of November 5, 2024. Campaign finance restrictions have been obliterated by court decisions, permitting extremely wealthy persons to spend huge sums to shape elections.


A nascent social movement such as Lake Effect Change must navigate this environment. Otherwise disconnected people must be creative to connect with each other. After all, people like connecting in person: a movement must provide community as well as activism and hope. Second, the large benefactors such as the Tea Party depended on will not be available. Instead, many small contributions will be needed. This presents real challenges, but they can be overcome. It has the distinct advantage of not being beholden to wealthy donors who insist on policy. Third, a movement must harness the current media environment creatively; it will not have a major legacy organization to promote it. Movements will need to reach out to similar groups both in the area and beyond. It is in combination that we can put pressure on the political system.


Notes







 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page