While progressives in the US lack the resources and politically favorable context they need to make important social changes, there is a significant opportunity that is available. Will the left take on the challenge?

Two issues stand in the way of important progress that could be made in the United States. First, those calling and campaigning for progressive change often lack the necessary resources to challenge the heavily-funded and resource-rich status quo and conservative forces. Second, openings within political institutions that would make progressive changes easier to come by are rarely present. The deck is stacked against us.

Corporate interests play a major role in US domestic and foreign policy. These corporate interests overshadow whatever resources the left has to engage in campaigns, raise awareness for their causes, influence public opinion, and disrupt the daily functioning of economic and political institutions. Financially, the left can never out-compete corporate lobby groups, right-wing think tanks, and election campaign contributions by the elite.

Where the left may have an advantage is ‘human resources’, or people power. If enough people can sustain enough pressure on political, economic or social institutions then progressive changes can happen despite resource-rich corporate interests. In some cases, people power can outweigh the power of money. But here too the left has a problem.

Progressive causes are nearly infinite. So many people are being damaged by the political, social, economic systems that we are in that the number of problems the left is trying to tackle is endless. Poverty. Exploitation. Racism. Sexism. Inequality. Alienation. Illness. Under-education. The list goes on and you don’t need me to tell you that. Beyond the individuals being hurt are also plants, animals and our very planet. Looking at any one of these problems leads to a hundred possible solutions or strategies to try to tackle them. Indeed, hundreds of organizations exist to try and address each one of these problems, with organizations often approaching a problem from different angles.

The numerous causes leave progressives divided when it comes to campaigns. As individuals we have limited time and energy we can spend campaigning so we cannot engage with all the different issues and be involved in all the different organizations. For any one issue, the left is lacking in people power. For the most part, simply too few people are campaigning on any one goal for any consistent amount of time to create enough pressure to produce change.

How do we get people power? One strand in the multidisciplinary field of social movement studies argues that people join movements when there are resources available to facilitate: the recruitment of activists, spreading the word, gaining media attention, building effective organizations, etc… This school of thought is known as resource mobilization.

What about movements that are able to grow? What about movements that do make a difference? Well, resource mobilization theorists argue that the effective use of resources was an important factor in a movement’s growth and its successes. But there are other schools of thought too. The political process approach argues that another important factor is the openness of the political system to the change being called for.

Let’s take an example of immigrant rights in the US. Some may argue that this movement can grow and make a serious impact on policy because the two main political parties will be trying to attract the allegiance of pro-immigration voters in key battleground states. The competition between Republicans and Democrats for votes may make it easier for progressive forces to have a voice in creating pro-immigration legislation since these progressive forces can help inform the public about how good or how bad each party is doing on the issue.

But it is not always the case that political opportunities are available for progressive causes. In fact, it is usually the case that political opportunities are generally closed. On the other hand, political opportunities are usually open for those who have an agenda that is antagonist to progressives: corporate institutions.

Corporations have constant access to political parties. It is not just that the political parties have an inherent interest in economic growth for the rich, and economic decline for the rest – although that interest does exist. But it is also the case that these corporations are giving money to political parties. The Democrats and the Republicans have to compete for this money which the parties then use to mobilize voters during elections. Corporations aren’t ignorant institutions. They want a return on their investment and that return will come in the form of favorable policies – policies that are opposed to the interests of progressives.

So while progressives lack resources and political opportunities, corporations have lots of resources and lots of opportunities. When progressives build up their resource base and whenever an opportunity opens up there is no guarantee that they’ll get concessions out of the political system. They still have to compete against big business. If progressives are applying pressure from one side, big business may be applying pressure from the other. Even if progressives get a wealth of people power, big business still has the political opportunities that make them very powerful. They are incorporated into the system of policymaking through their ability to affectively fund political parties in exchange for legislation. Sure, progressives have the same ability but they don’t have anywhere near the level of money to throw at the political system.

So how can progressives increase their relative power? Progressives’ leverage comes from people power. So first progressives must unite. Together we may be many but we’ll need to join forces. A united progressive alliance around one issue must create pressure long enough for changes to be made before moving on to the next issue. This is a very hard ask. Who is willing to drop the work they are doing and simply join another group because it seems like the right thing to do at the moment? Even if we wanted to do that, how would we all decide on the issue that we should all get involved with?

Progressives also have to compete with corporate financial power which has significant sway over policymakers. So, another strategy would be to reduce the power of these corporate interests. We cannot easily take away their money. But there is an opportunity to reduce the structural link between their money and the political parties that we are trying to pressure.

I’m talking about campaign finance reform. It might sound dull and you may have heard it many times before: Get money out of politics. Reform the context in which our elected officials govern. Stop the ability of corporate interests to buy our (so-called) representatives.

Campaign finance reform is no panacea. No utopia will naturally spring forth from a political system that strictly limits campaign contributions. But what campaign finance reform can do is increase the relative power of progressive forces by reducing some of the power corporate interests have over political parties and politicians. Instead of having to compete against both the inherent structural incentives for policymakers to promote corporate interests AND their financial contributions that keep the political parties electorally competitive – we would just need to compete with the former. The structural incentives are big, but corporate financing is no joke. One reason that the US is so far behind other Western democracies on welfare spending is that corporations can basically buy congressional bills. Whereas all capitalist countries have to deal with the structural incentives of economic growth and other inherent corporate interests, the US is in a rather unique position when it comes to how political campaigns can be financed.

If we recognize campaign financing as a problem that should be addressed by progressive forces we should see a key benefit of trying to unite around this cause. Whereas uniting progressive forces around an issue of race, or class, or the environment is in effect asking them to privilege one struggle over another, uniting around campaign finance reform is different. Winning campaign finance reforms means that progressives across all these struggles can increase their leverage over political parties relative to corporate interest. Uniting together around a movement for campaign finance reform benefiting all progressive causes independently.

If organizations and activists coming from all the various progressive causes realize that campaign finance reform is important they can invest some time and resources to promote the issue. They can still focus on their specific cause but contribute meaningfully to a movement toward campaign finance reform. Such unity is already being displayed in opposition to the TPP and TTIP trade agreements. However, these are defensive moves. It is very important to push against these free trade agreements that will have significant impact on progressive causes across the board, but winning these battles will not make winning future battles any easier. (Although losing these battles will make them harder.)

Imagine a world in which progressives did unite around campaign finance reform and won. Our struggle against TPP and TTIP would be easier now. Even if we stop TPP and TTIP now, we may not be able to stop similar policies later, but a victory of campaign finance reform will mean we have more leverage to try and stop them.

A movement for campaign finance reform should be reinvigorated by a united progressive front that works together in a sustained and concerted effort. Until we achieve serious campaign finance reform each policy we try to change, each person we try to help, each cause we fight for will only become harder. Let’s work together to get money out of politics and make all our lives easier.

---