Written by: Todd Fernandez, AOP Champion

The best stories are imbued with truth, but that doesn’t make the message true, and this seems to be the case with the colloquies and actions seeking to limit the significance of the March within the Movement.  Surely it cannot be that the shift in our community fabric being experienced by so many is a mere delusion of the press.  Rather it seems to me, what we are witnessing is organizational resistance to change, grasping to mollify the dynamic forces bent on evolution, operating from a perhaps well-intended but restricted vision.

While it is true that all-too-often the debate is misconstrued with false alternatives (either or), this is also the case with defending the status quo from a real or imagined schism.  In this vein, a prevalent theme permeates the airwaves intent on persuading us that everything is fine as is, that no real choice is at hand and that tomorrow will be the same as yesterday, but better.  This messaging is counter-evolutionary and seeks to bend the movement toward the stagnancy that the people have clearly and loudly decried.

I perceive it differently and am trying to embrace a seemingly inescapable and profound change in the movement, between generations, between organizing methods, between timing and strategy, and between institutions and people.    Fortunately, there are now two elephants in the room presenting a stark contrast, each with designs on the same Congress:  Equality Across America and the Human Rights Campaign.  This has many hues:  new verses old, money verses poor, grassroots verses corporate, capitalist democracy verses socialist democracy, and dare I say it?  Hilary vs. Obama.  None of which are wholly true, or untrue.   The middle is warmly filled with countless organizations bridging every imaginable connection, while familiar forces juxtapose, like a great brain torn between principle and survival, defiant confidence and genuine humility, between tradition and tomorrow.   No one is really comfortable, but this is the nature of big change.

Increasingly, the multitude of related but disjointed visions themselves clash like false enemies blind to the power of common cause and action.  Why?  Is it in our nature to smooth over social discontent and separate ourselves, rather than embrace structural change head on together? Or is this “nurture,” once again cultivating assimilation?  Does tranquility trump movement progress?   Peace at any cost?  If so, are we truly any more progressive than those who violate our human rights?

Regardless, the way forward is far from obvious, though likely at variation from more traditional movement ideology, structure and comfort.  Mixner alluded to it – that old dogs can learn new tricks — which he experienced first-hand dealing with new movement strategists and new philosophies we have yet to chart.  Then – somewhat miraculously – we all saw it manifest – a hugely successful March – beyond even its most ardent supporters’ wildest dreams and its opponents’ worst nightmares.  A march born almost of anti-organizing, but with a shared heartbeat and common intention.

How little faith we have in new dreams…

In the aftermath, minimizing differences seems a reasonable approach to “bridge different perspectives to bring folks together to get work done”* as we must, assuming that there are no new or better ways to do this.   It seems reasonable, if for no other reason, than to quiet the misguided press who, typically, only skimmed the surface, or more importantly perhaps, to present a united front.

However, in this time of reconceptualization,  perhaps before we sweep the March under the rug, it is better that we first strive to understand the differences it represents:  what the new is saying to the old — what the resistance is saying about the change — and what we are preaching to each other as movement gospel verses what is inevitable and useful change.   Although the individual organizational survival spirit has been the strategy for so long, perhaps the momentum at hand calls upon us to focus more on tapping into our collective community spirit, at least at the national strategic level.   With a deeper understanding of the forces at work and cross-organizational dialog instead of one-way blogs, perhaps we could build even better bridges at greater heights.

Understandably, however, because most of what the Task Force says is comforting and true, traditional activists are susceptible to the lullaby.   I am one of them and I agree that the March was not a referendum on all the great work by countless organizations, nor the diversity of the movement, or the many individuals who split ranks to participate.  But straw arguments aside, it was a loud and defiant statement to the national organizational structure which, like Congress, has failed to lead on human rights strategy or content, or even to keep pace with its own people, or our own collective enlightenment.  The overdue adjustment has only just begun and the post-March spin will not change this.

Split, shift, or polarization, the people have once again brought about change we can believe in.  The dangling question is:  whether the national organizations and their board members will seize the opportunity and embark on something new beyond praising the current situation as though it were the end of the strategic road.  The shift solidified the minute the grass roots had to go their own way to have a March, while virtually every organization and community newspaper older than Prop. 8 missed the boat, only to awake with self-righteous indignation.   “How dare they organize a March without consulting us!?” they felt.  While my jet-lagged bewildered mind was thinking:  “Why weren’t we organizing a march already!?”  The debate over whether to have the march was itself mind boggling and indicative of “the rift” already deeply present.  Ignoring its relevance now is of the same elk, while down-playing it is potentially devious.

Grounded in a different wisdom, the power that the marchers represent today is the force of change, and in a predominantly positive spirit, though not exclusively, they will continue to go around or through the movement to build a congressional federation of activists with fascinating new organizational ideas.    While I’m confident of this, only time will tell if the national organizations will embrace this new impetus in time to capitalize on it for our cause, or if they will continue their independent March-resistance and status-quo chant.

Despite early indications, there is still hope that the venerable organizations will begin to see the vision, explore it in earnest, and ultimately genuinely join the March they endorsed that is still in progress, well before the next major event, election or President.   Because, again, the Task Force’s sub-messaging is true – we need to do this together.  But do what?  Something big is called for.

Regrettably, the earnest plea: “Let’s continue the work!”** pales in comparison to the new March energy like the worn refrain of weary dreamers.   It would be much more inspiring if our movement stewards could reveal and announce a new bridge born of the spirit of the March and spanning from the Task Force to HRC to Equality Across America and into each congressional district like the rainbow that lingered magically in the rainless D.C. sky at noon on October 11, 2009.

Did you see it?  Did you feel that shared amazement?

Imagine the power of congressional-district-organizing if we were to WHIP Congress together!  If at every PTA, bowling league, baby shower, office party, city counsel meeting – someone stands up to say:  I’m working for my friend on congressional district support for his human rights and we need your help.  Imagine what we could do working together on a local congressional strategy.

Let’s expand the vision.  And then, continue the work.

* Quote is taken from  “A Movement Moving Forward,”  Rea Carey, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

(October 15, 2009) (http://www.bilerico.com/2009/10/a_movement_moving_forward.php).

** Closing line of Task Force letter.