Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be critics...

Image by Barack Obama via Flickr

...or at least, teach them to offer criticism constructively with an eye to building up, not tearing down. Wasn't that one of the lessons of the Obama campaign? Bring a new tone, be respectful of others' efforts, allow for differences of opinion?

Well, not so much, at least when it comes to being a grassroots organizer. I've been locked in a debate over the past few days with Micah Sifry at techPresident over his claim that the grassroots movement which formed to elect the President was a "convenient myth" that has been emasculated and put out to pasture since the election.

Here's video of our debate on Laura Flanders' show today.

I admit: there was a part of me that wanted to be in that studio, face-to-face, mano a mano when I asked him what his goal is. I was raised to be sparing with criticism, especially when criticizing volunteer efforts and those who lead volunteer efforts. So when I was told it 'wasn't [his] job to make [volunteers] feel good, I felt myself having to suppress the urge to put on my 'mom voice'.

It's not really my job (or the President's) to unruffle disappointed feathers, either. Yet it was clear from the tone of the discussion and the repeated references to "party hacks" and "health care reform disaster" that the current source of disappointment is the compromises that have been made in the name of getting health care reform passed.

This December/January meme centers around a hive of angry progressives. They're right to be angry and they're right to be disappointed. I've had discussions with fellow MOMocrats who are disappointed, frustrated and angry that abortion has been used as a wedge in the health care reform bill by a Congressman and Senator, both Democrats. I'm angry too, by the way. It was a cynical and backhanded effort to make women responsible for either the failure of the entire bill or punish them for its passage.

What makes me crazy about some critics, Sifry included, is the tendency to make President Obama into "Super-POTUS". I'm waiting for the cartoons of him in the red cape and tights to finish the picture. Because this is the fact: Nothing Barack Obama said, did, threatened, or otherwise tried would have budged Lieberman or Nelson. They knew it, Harry Reid knew it, Nancy Pelosi knows it, and so does President Obama.

Yet the beat goes on and on and on. Today's across-the-bow, lay it at your feet missile involves Sifry's posting of dispirited and disappointed OFA field coordinator Marta Evry's story of being de-friended on Facebook by Jeremy Bird, OFA deputy director. Once again, it appears the disconnect and subsequent split with OFA stems from disappointment over her sense that her goals are not jiving with the goals of the administration. [As a side note, Evry includes an update to her post indicating that Jeremy Bird did track her down, call her, and try to work things out with her -- something I can't recall seeing in other political organizations I've participated in...and something Sifry has not updated on his own post.]

Here's the problem: It's very difficult to move a huge grassroots organization like OFA from campaign mode where there is a clear goal and a clear, bright-line winner's circle to governing/policy mode where the lines are less bright and the victories less clear. When a policy campaign is defined by one piece of the overall policy like the public option, not having a public option feels a lot like a loss. For those on the outside looking in, like Sifry, giving up on the public option, watering down other provisions, allowing abortion to become a wedge issue and then asking for members' support feels like a sellout.

To him and those like him, I ask this: What's worse? Losing the opportunity to pass any health care reform at all, leaving all those people uninsured (like us)? The sure knowledge that losing this opportunity would guarantee President Obama's place in history as a one-term President? The promise of another 8 years of Republican governance?

Is compromise really so odious that those stakes are somehow better?

I've heard a lot of good things about Personal Democracy Forum - Sifry's enterprise and work. I've read some negative reviews, too. I don't think it's particularly constructive to post an extended narrative of someone's personal disappointment with his efforts or those of the speakers who work hard to put on excellent presentations. Similarly, I remain of the opinion that he is directing his criticism at the wrong people while ignoring his own powerful platform for change.

His conference seems to be a complement and an opportunity for people to self-organize around issues, push from the outside in, get some decent Representatives and Senators elected, and push for a farther-left-to-progressive agenda with people who can get it done. The only thing better than one grassroots movement is many more. It seems to me the goals of his organization, OFA and the administration are not completely at cross-purposes.

So why not leave the criticism behind unless it's intended to be constructive, and join forces whenever possible to make change without tearing down the folks with the best chance to even get the momentum moving toward change? Marta Evry asked the right questions:

How do you constructively push an administration you helped elect that isn't always working for the agenda you want? And do it effectively with extremely limited resources?

Marta, here's my answer: Elect a Congress that the administration can work with toward goals more closely aligned with yours. It's 2010. Midterms are 300 days away. Let's get busy. Here in California, we've got some work to do. It seems to me that it's far more important to find common areas with other organizations and get to a common goal than to continue this silly sniping contest that seems to be continuing between Mr. Sifry and OFA. I wish that it were as easy to retire this dispute with him as it was for you to have a conversation with Jeremy Bird and re-friend him on Facebook.

After all, it isn't like there isn't enough turf for everyone.