Community Organizing: On the Liberal Barricades

THE COMMUNITY Action Program, component of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, falters into the '70's as a bureaucratic failure, Conceived in the early '60's by the energetic and supposedly visionary aides of the Kennedy Administration, the program has not served, attracted, or catalyzed the people of America. It has not rebuilt the social solidarity crucial to the health of the democratic systems.

The avowed purpose of the Community Action Program was to effect sructural reorganization within a community to serve the poor more effectively. Each local agency attempted (and still attempts) to develop local organizations and talent, who might initiate new ventures, such as public health clinics, housing developments, or day care centers, for the good of the community.

The poor in each community were to initiate, plan, and carry out the priority projects for the local agencies as much as possible. In Mavimum Feasible Misunder-standing Daniel P. Moynihan chronicles the internecine struggle within the initiating camp concerning the philosophy of CAP. Moynihan conceived the title of his critique by paraphrasing the most confusing phrase of the document outlining the CAP. No one has taken credit for the description, "maximum feasible participation," which outlines the nebulous federal requirements concerning the involvement of indigenous poor people within their local CAP.

The cities of America, cancerous sores reflecting most visibly the disease of this nation, illustrate vividly the chaos resulting from the attempts of the OEO to foster broad social change by relying on a structure based on "consensus." The "apathetic" poor, or rather the low income citizens already intimidated by the overwhelming bureaucracy of federal government, responded to a request for "participation" in this new program apathetically; when so-called democratic elections for representation to the directing boards of local CAP's were announced rarely did more than five per cent of the possible voters turn out. And when representatives of the poor did try to work with members of the political power structure and social and civic organizations, friction over priorities resulted more often than "consensus."

Perhaps the CAP was a victim of its own rhetoric; promising too much, when the structures the local agencies sought to change represented the very fabric of American, life, Certainly, many CAP's suffered from an "inversion of purpose." The administrators of local, agencies became concerned with maintaining alliances which perpetuated the organization (and alienated those who were to benefit from the CAP) rather than encouraging initiative and imagination.

In 1967, as Moynihan's book will testify for those interested in complete data, the Economic Opportunity Act barely passed in the U. S. Congress; troublesome and untimely eruptions in the cities-ostensibly indicating a failure in the CAP to some legislators-caused worry among the legislators. New federal directives to the local CAP's encouraged "maximum feasible participation" in the implementation of projects rather than in the planning stages. Any hope for success of the CAP throughout the country was buried by these new guidelines. The bureaucratic morass created in various local agencies, a general mismanagement of funds by the executives of the OEO, a lack of sensitivity of the community organizers to the principles of real organization-all of these factors which merely debilitated the CAP before the 1967 directive seemed trivial in comparison to the change of policy which took away any power the poor might have had in the CAP; the power to initiate and implement projects beneficial to the community.

"THE WHOLE concept of organizing people on an altruistic basis... is a lot of crap," according to a respected (or the respected) community organizer, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky raises questions fundamental to a discussion of the governmental CAP. A sense of personal dignity must precede a feeling of freedom; and a sense of dignity only results from self-determination. If people do not have a role in the decision-making process of institutions directly affecting their lives, such as new community organizations, the goals of CAP drift into the realm of the illusory. The clement of power rests at the heart of any discussion about CAP. Even if funds from the OEO or other governmental agencies stand behind the proposols of nationwide CAP's, the poor of each community must have the power, or some power, to decide how those funds will be utilized.

In Reveille for Radicals. Alinsky makes an eloquent plea for genuine democratic action. While the conceptual institution of American democracy may by revered by representatives of the Republican Democratic political spectrum, implementation of the basic tenets of the system, especially in governmental inventions such as the CAP, is weak. Must it be that way? As Alinsky underlines, "A fundamental issue that will resolve the fate of democracy is whether or not we really believe in democracy."

The definition of Radical represented by Saul Alinsky recalls the radicalism of the original Port Huron Statement of SDS in 1962. "America rests in national stalemate... its democratic system apathetic and manipulated, rather than, 'of, by, and for the people.'" Tom Hayden discouraged anyone from insisting that this nation, too large to be a true democracy, must rely on representative democracy when he pointed out. "The 'order of the country is based on people being taught to relinquish the right to order their own lives."

The indigenous leaders of a community, rather than those adopted by the local CAP, will catalyze trust, then activity, within a constituency. Organization remains the art of improvisation; working with existing organizations, taking advantage of qualities of ambition and self-interest, all to mold a truly democratic organization. As many segments as possible of a given area must participate in the mini-pluralism which leads to a healthy aspect towards growth. When an issue demands confrontation "calm, sound, factual, pithy, and sincere testimony" must document the proposals of the local organization.

In a new afterworld in "Reveille" Alinsky makes an unfortunate leap of faith in his criticism of Black political determination. His critique of the "new" Black polities and the new student left drifts hazily beyond the magnetism of his own commitment to democracy and political action. However, the energy he brings to bear on his own endeavors, the thoroughness of his commitment to the values at the base of democratic theory might inspire us to work in our own communities, patiently and honestly, to identify real local leadership and help those leaders, or their groups, to build an organization of people who are able to speak out and act to influence the power structures governing their lives.

The radicalism of this next decade will spin far beyond the theoretical idealism and energy of Alinsky; perhaps the suicidal gestures of the Weathermen and the "polities of despair" are so pervasive and convincing that Alinsky's rationalization that "the pursuit of happiness is never ending-the happiness lies in the pursuit" falls embarrassingly flat. Still, his admirable dedication to the struggle for "life after birth" and the results of thirty years of organizing lead me to quarrel with the social critics who argue that community organization failed in the 1930's and it will fail now.

When Donald Rumsfeld, the present director of the OEO, assumed his position at the end of 1969, he stated "The OEO is not the War on Poverty" in an attempt to "de-sloganize the agency." Rumor has it at least among CAP agencies in the Boston area that many local programs will not be refunded for 1971. Most positive aspects of the program have already been consumed by the negative elements of mismanagement. However, if the CAP agencies continue they might benefit from an application of Presidenta Nixon's espoused philosophy concerning the poor, delivered on February 19, 1969 in his Message on Poverty to Congress.

"If we are to make the most of experimental programs, we must frankly recognize their experimental nature and frankly acknowledge whatever shortcomings they develop. To do so is not to belittle the experiment, but to advance its essential purpose, that of finding new ways, better ways, of making progress in areas still inadequately understood.

"We often can learn more from a program that fails to achieve its purpose than from one that succeeds. If we apply these lessons, then even the failure' will have made a significant contribution to our larger purposes."

Let the local people most directly affected by the decisions of a CAP agency or the local government make the decisions. If they fail, it will be more educational than if they watch the continuing failures of the government. And if they fail continually, then the programs of the government may be justified. The slogan "Power to the People" reflects the essence of democracy. Those of us who are impressed by our own political or philosophical inclinations might benefit from an internalized confrontation of belief. We must recognize that, as one welfare mother of Boston told me, "When I had the money I couldn't see past the end of my nose. Now I know that it's important for the poor to determine, or at least help (determine), their own lives."

The two characters of the Chinese word for crisis indicate the confusing quality of our situation: one character being "danger," the other "opportunity." The opportunity for an orderly revolution advocated by Alinsky, may have passed us by. Meanwhile, the opportunity to work with "the substance of the world," the people, sits just beyond our indolence. By seizing this opportunity we may enjoy some momentary satisfaction. If enough of us realize a sense of urgency, we may justify the unquestioning faith in democracy that was socialized into us not so long ago, we may even outmode the necessity for essentially clumsy governmental instruments such as the Community Action Program.