Should progressive organizations involved in electoral politics try harder to work together?

Last year representatives from progressive groups involved in electoral politics (including ADA, Liberty City, Neighborhood Networks, NOW, Philly for Change etc.) formed a coalition of sorts to share information and, to the extent possible, endorse the same candidates.

We managed to pool our resources and set up website at www.takebackourcity.org which listed the endorsements of participating organizations and their criteria for endorsements.

Uniting around candidates proved to be more difficult than we thought. The only endorsement we had in common in the 2007 primary was for Maria Quinones Sanchez.

However, it was a beginning. The extent to which progressives join forces is all to the good. Our organizations are all too small to effect change on our own. At the very least, the website provided progressive voters with a kind of one stop shopping site where they could see the candidates endorsed by liberal/progressive organizations.

I have recently had some discussion with a few members of NOW, ADA, and NN about where we go from here. I picked up considerable ambivalence, reluctance from some members of these organizations. Some seemed to think: why should we be involved in publicizing the endorsements of other organizations when we have our own websites?

Feelings about this probably depend on whether one's primary loyalties are to a particular organization or to a broader progressive community. Much as I care about NOW, my allegiance is to a broader movement. Back in the old days, we just called ourselves "the movement"—-a term which masked all kinds of disagreements/ tensions but which did capture something real.

Another point raised was: Does the progressive community (to the extent that it exists) value having this information available on one website?

To what extent would the progressive community like to see progressive organizations communicating with each other, trying to reach common ground?

It’s been my experience that it is easier to reach (at least rough) consensus on issues than it is on candidates. Folks with similar political philosophies will disagree about which candidate would be the most effective standard bearer for progressive causes, the most electable etc.

Coalition building (even on this minimal level) is tough but critical for long-term success. Anyway, check out the website and share your thoughts about this effort.