First Published: Frontline, Vol. 6, No. 21, April 24, 1989.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
For those who have been committed to building the National Rainbow Coalition (NRC) into a permanent, mass-based organization for progressive activism – as it was originally projected by Jesse Jackson in 1983-84 – the by-laws changes made by the Rainbow national board at its March meeting were an unwelcome, though not entirely unexpected, setback. The net effect of the changes is a step away from forging the Rainbow as a mass-based, democratic membership organization and a move in the direction of a more traditional campaign-oriented structure, with decision-making power concentrated in the board and especially its president, Jesse Jackson. (see “Rainbow Restructures,” Frontline, March 27.)
In my view, this will weaken the Rainbow’s ability to attract, mobilize and politically engage the broadest array of popular forces on behalf of the perspective and concrete action program articulated by Jackson himself. Yet even under these new conditions, the task of building the Rainbow remains central to the agenda of all serious progressives in the U.S. The Rainbow remains the most promising vehicle to institutionalize a progressive current within the U.S. and actively involve broad layers of people in ongoing progressive political life. The task ahead is to maximize that potential while working within the new Rainbow structure; any thought of retreating to passivity – much less of abandoning the organization – is an extreme case of tunnel vision.
Progressives in general and the left in particular have to view the current juncture in the Rainbow in context. In the six years since 1983, when Jackson announced his first run for the Democratic nomination and articulated the initial conception of the Rainbow, the prospects for progressive politics in the U.S. have changed dramatically. Millions of people have been drawn into motion, at least in a limited way, around an advanced set of antiwar, anti-racist, anti-corporate politics. On the ground and in the media, the national political debate has been enlarged to include positions previously relegated to the margins of legitimate discussion.
By recognizing the significance of the mass energy unleased by Jackson and the Rainbow and joining in on that motion, all but the most dogmatic sections of the left gained a new relevance and a new maturity. Through Jackson Action the left has regained at least an initial relationship to a mass-based, multisector popular movement for the first time in a long while. The Rainbow is the main nationwide organizational form embodying that connection, a vehicle for battle in the electoral arena, on the currently key terrain of the Democratic Party, and also for applying street heat. As such, the Rainbow remains an indispensable part of the protracted effort to build abroad-based people’s formation inside and outside of the electoral arena.
As for the by-laws changes, it is crucial to understand their content and significance, but pointless to dwell on a struggle that is over. For the foreseeable future, the voice vote taken at the board meeting settles a debate over the organizational structure of the Rainbow that has alternately simmered and raged since the 1986 founding convention. The new by-laws adopted by the board make the NRC akin to a campaign structure; the lines of accountability all clearly flow towards the top, not toward the activist base of the organization.
The previous structure adopted at the October 1987 Rainbow convention in Raleigh, North Carolina mandated that the board of directors be elected every two years by locally elected state delegates at a national convention; the new by-laws grant the board itself the power to elect new board members to three-year terms. The NRC executive committee, previously elected by the convention, will now have three members elected by the board, and three members appointed by the president.
Many of the powers explicitly delegated to the state chapters and to the biennial convention were rescinded. Under the old by-laws, state co-chairs were elected by the state convention; the new rules grant the power of appointment and removal of state co-chairs to the president. The processing of membership application, which up until this point was the job of the state chapters, has been turned over to the NRC board, which now must approve an application by a two-thirds majority. Delegates to the national convention (now to be held every four years instead of every two) are to be appointed by the NRC executive committee; the previous by-laws called for election of delegates by the membership on the basis of proportional representation.
In addition, the process by which the changes were adopted has come in for justified criticism. Even though the 1987 by-laws stated that the structure could only be amended by a delegated convention, the by-laws revisions and other changes were simply enacted by the Rainbow board.
All sides in the debate over these changes made their cases in the name of democracy. The top down, campaign-style structure that emerged was defended by leading Rainbow representatives and by Jackson himself as necessary to ensure democracy in the Rainbow. According to this argument, the seven million people who voted for Jackson are the Rainbow, and the new structure is designed to make certain that small groups within the Rainbow don’t lock out the broad potential base. But this set up a “straw man” argument: the concern to broaden the Rainbow was in fact shared by all. There was nothing inherent in the way the a Rainbow was structured previously that would prevent local and state Rainbows from developing a broader base. In fact, the Rainbow chapters with the broadest base and most active political presence were those built on the basis of – and still expressing support for – the previous by-laws. A structure that empowers the Rainbow’s active membership does not hold back, but pushes forward the process of inclusion and broad involvement. In addition, there was clearly a lot of room for compromise over the by-laws proposal, an opportunity that was passed up.
The whys and wherefores of the shift towards a more conservative Rainbow structure have everything to do with the historic and current political alignments internal to the organization. The Rainbow has always been a coalition spanning not only color and issue lines, but political and class lines as well. Forces in the Rainbow range from anti-capitalist leftists to consistent progressives (personified in Jackson himself) to moderate, basically “establishment” elements. The by-laws changes are an indication of who is now in the driver’s seat.
Initially, the Rainbow was dominated by a progressive-left coalition, though moderates like Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry have always held important posts in the hierarchy. In the period around the 1984 campaign, Jackson, disowned by the moderate Black establishment and ignored by white voters and the Democratic Party muckety-mucks, relied heavily on the left to organize support for his politics and his candidacy.
Since then, and particularly since the 1988 elections, the balance of forces within the Rainbow has shifted, reflecting the increased influence of the more moderate sections of the Democratic Party and the electorate that Jackson has successfully courted.
Jackson’s heightened influence and legitimacy is a gain for the popular movement and should be actively supported. Unfortunately, this advance also has a cost: putting the Rainbow on a shorter leash. Grassroots initiative and aggressive political action are now seen in some quarters as potential embarrassments or even threats, not as the driving force from below which gives the Rainbow and the candidate much of their vitality – and their leverage with forces further to the right. It was the idea of creating and stabilizing just this kind of grassroots force that infused the original conception of the Rainbow as a permanent, mass-based progressive institution.
While the political balance of forces within the Rainbow helps explain the current controversy, support or non-support of the by-laws changes did not fall neatly along these lines. A lot of progressives and even some moderates were dismayed at the violations of democracy embodied in the process and content of the by-laws changes. On the other hand, some leftists, both independents and organized left groupings, apparently calculated that support for Jackson at this time required abandoning the original project of building the Rainbow as a mass-based, permanent progressive formation. (Not surprisingly, left forces advocating this view tended to have influence in the Rainbow due to positioning in the organizational apparatus rather than leadership of activist chapters.)
But by and large, the bulk of the left opposed the changes and could be seen and heard ranting and raving when the news about the by-laws changes circulated around the country. Many have registered their complaints with the national leadership, which is certainly legitimate. But as hot heads began to cool, most on the left have come to the same conclusion: the Rainbow is still the place to be.
Reflection on the reasons for the shift has replaced immediate emotional responses, and what stands out is the continuing relative weakness of the left in U.S. politics. While the vision of a mass-based, democratic and progressive organization still sustains us, we have had to come to grips with the realities of the objective balance of forces within the Rainbow and within U.S. society. The left can only mature by grappling in practice with this balance of forces, not trying to circumvent it.
There are also bright spots in the picture. Jackson, the progressive standard-bearer, continues to be a major force in national politics on the basis of an advanced program. Whatever the structure of the Rainbow, he goes to the site of popular struggles and helps build them when they have a mass base. And at least in the immediate future, it is unlikely that the by-laws changes will affect the operation of local Rainbows. The new by-laws give Jackson control of the Rainbow when he wants to exert it, but Jesse is not about to completely disrupt local Rainbows on a whim. In many places, the Rainbow is reliant upon the left for whatever local organizing capacity it has. As long as left forces continue to deliver on their commitment to expanding the reach and the clout of the Rainbow, there should be no reason for a confrontation with the national hierarchy. For now, at the local level it should be business as usual – broadening the base and leadership of the Rainbow, organizing around vital issues and, in that context, building the base and the unity of the left.
The present juncture requires level-headed analysis, tactical precision and a long view. It demands that the left be creative in developing new forms for strategic discussion and debate. And it challenges us to maintain the unity of the Rainbow, while at the same time struggling for the vision of a mass-based, democratic, progressive organization – a vision for which the Rainbow, for all its problems, has given us a first real glimpse.