What does President Obama want his supporters to do? For that matter, what does President Obama want the American people to do? We are in the midst of a major crisis right now, and shown time and time again that we are willing to take action to help remedy the problem. Millions, tens of millions, of people feel incredibly frustrated, trapped even, and are unsure what to do next. While they are ready to act, someone needs to make the ask. Right now, the person to make the ask is President Obama, but he isn't doing it. What does President Obama want us to do? The silence is deafening.

...he was simply wrong. Moreover, Obama spelled out his argument (again) in this morning's Washington Post. But that's not the end of the story. For Bowers, the issue isn't whether or not to support passage of the stimulus bill, but figuring out just exactly what President Obama wants in the stimulus bill. What amendments does he support and what amendments does he oppose? What is essential and what is negotiable? How are Obama's minions supposed to know what to advocate if they are not provided with better guidance?

Giordano glosses over this point as he explains how Organizing for America is proceeding and why they are proceeding in that way. Giordano's insights into organizing are incredibly valuable and accurate, but they don't address Bowers' concerns. And there are issues of concern that Bowers did not raise in this particular piece but which have been obviously disturbing the whole OpenLeft team since early on in the primaries.

Chief among them is what to do when activism and organizing goals are at odds or differ in priorities with the Obama administration and/or the Democratic Congress. Giordano, rightfully, emphasizes the feedback loop features of Organizing for America which allow members to influence policy and priorities. But Bowers is more concerned with what to do when that influence is ignored or rejected.

Left-wing activism isn't synonymous with the Obama administration or the Democratic Party, and it is not desirable that all left-wing activism be absorbed into the Organizing for America borg. Moreover, Organizing for America is just getting started and will always remain somewhat of a lumbering beast. The blogosphere is much more nimble and prepared to act and mobilize at a moment's notice. Rallying opposition to an unanticipated amendment or tactic is something that requires an alacrity Organizing for America is likely to lack.

And, in addition, it's simply not in the nature of the blogosphere to docilely wait for direction from on high before expressing its own opinions and taking its own actions. There is a constitutional mistrust of the idea that organizing and advocacy should be brought under the Organizing for America umbrella. That mistrust leads to a minimization of the value and symbiotic feedback potential of what David Plouffe is building (a point Giordano attempts to remind about time and time again). But potential and value aside, there will remain differences of opinion and we should want it no other way. It's all well and good for Obama supporters to make clear that they place a high priority on marijuana decriminalization or renegotiating NAFTA, but when those opinions are not respected or prioritized, that cannot be the end of the story.

What this comes down to is two different philosophical positions. One position sees the way forward as pushing for change through traditional activism (in an Internet age) by directing donations, providing free media, mobilizing Congressional contacts, and emphasizing message. The other position sees the way forward in building synergistic citizen/government organizing structures that, by their very nature, will carry forward a more perfect, populist, and progressive agenda.

I am decidedly in the latter (Giordano) camp. But I don't kid myself that Organizing for America is a cure-all. It will remain primarily focused on passing Obama's agenda and getting him reelected. I share Giordano's faith that it will eventually change what is politically possible by injecting a truer sense of the will of the people into the political process. But it will still be used to advance Obama's interests even when he is, for good or ill, bucking the will of his movement. And that places limitations on its usefulness.

To get back to Bowers' point, does Obama want to reduce the size of the stimulus package, or not? Does he support any of the proposed amendments, or not? He's told his supporters how and why to support the passage of the bill, but he hasn't given them the finer grained direction to influence the construction of the bill. I think that's what caused Bowers' frustration.