The Problem With Coalitions
Customize your message. (Lydia DePillis)
David Alpert and Matt Yglesias have noticed that the Respect DC group's list of demands includes some strange contradictions: Both confined hours of operation (which would reduce the number of hours available to employees) and labor benefits like a living wage, for example. Also, a minimum amount of free parking–which tends to encourage driving–as well as accommodation for bikes and pedestrians. The underlying question: Is there any coherent philosophy here?
The answer is not really–but necessarily so. The Respect DC coalition is full of different interest groups with various priorities, and they know that nobody will listen if they just yell about what they want. The consensus document, then, tries to please everybody all at once. Residents closest to the proposed locations don't necessarily care about maximum employment opportunities, but some have expressed concerns about 24-hour activity near their homes. Environmental types might not be happy about oceans of parking, but they're willing to ask that it be free (which Walmart would do anyway) as long as alternative modes of transportation are provided for. It's the classic big tent coalition–just like David Alpert is trying to put together with Greater Greater Washington.
For the Walmart organizers, it's not an easy tent to prop up. Those who say "we're not anti-Walmart, we're just trying to get them to agree to our conditions" are challenged constantly by the people who want no Walmart, no way. Thus, it would be nice to have Ward 4 ANC Commissioner Brenda Speaks' support, but giving her a mic is a really bad idea, because it muddies up the message. To keep the anti-Walmart-at-all-costs people satisfied, Respect DC's lawn signs have an optional "or STAY OUT" sticker that people can append if they are so moved. The whole exercise is an attempt to keep people feeling like their concerns are represented, while presenting a front of reasonableness to the world.
Activism is easy–organizing is hard.
5:16 pm
Bingo. Good piece here LDP.
9:45 am
Good post as always, Lydia. But just an observation about political reality - do you really think the "No Walmart" and "Walmart can come in only if they meet a long list of conditions" positions are really that different? If the conditions are onerous enough for Walmart or the developer or both, and the coalition has the political clout to obstruct a development that does not meet the conditions, don't you think Walmart will choose to walk away instead?
9:46 am
As someone who's been involved in the campaign, I think this article is generally right on the money. Coalition, by their very nature, will present some demands that some stakeholders fund undesirable. But this is inevitable if you want to obtain a broad base of support.
The organizers of this campaign deserve credit for handling the concerns of a wide variety of stakeholders and presenting firm, yet realistic demands.
10:17 am
You forgot the most interesting and glaring contradiction in their demands...Walmart is not to ask if potential employees have been convicted of crimes, yet 2 DC off duty cops are to be employed at all times. Oh well, who is John Galt?
7:10 am
I'm curious. Has this coalition demanded that all existing businesses in the area meet these demands as well?
No? They are just singling out one business?
Awesome.
7:13 am
I'm also curious if everyone supporting this coalition has met all these conditions themselves, for everyone they employ, even casually.
No?
My favorite I think is the not asking employees if they have a criminal record.
Can I now assume that everyone supporting this coalition will allow any worker, including, say, construction and landscaping guys, into their homes and will not feel the need to inquire about their criminal records?
Until they can answer yes, then their coalition is hypocritical at best.
5:08 pm
Personally I like that the CBA demand list is complex. It represents a strong, powerful attempt to address complex needs and issues--like with any policy debate, we know that there are multiple concerns to be addressed, and the answers may not be simple.
Getting a wide coalition together is key--they're sending a message that even though groups may have different priorities, the core issue is that we as citizens have the right and responsibility to speak together (if multivocally) about how we want our city, and our neighbors, to be well served by a megabusiness (that can well afford a reasonable array of responsible business choices as the CBA asks for).
Whether Walmart walks away is the company's choice--but why make it seem as if the coalition is somehow hurting their feelings or shaming them? If there is a broad consensus that these are the conditions for responsible business practices, and the company walks, that has taught us that they are not willing to be responsible and would rather profit off of exploitative dealings elsewhere.
Hillman, as an armchair coalition supporter, I would for sure support other businesses taking on CBAs and showing their respect for and responsibility to the community. Winning a CBA with Walmart would strengthen a future campaign with similar demands on all District businesses, and I do support, e.g., Councilmember Mendelson's bill requiring CBAs and living wages for large retailers. But the way we do campaigns is one issue and one target at a time, building strength--it's not hypocrisy but planning.