What struck me the most in Chapter 4 of David Meyer’s Politics of Protest was how similarly a social movement organization looked and behaved like a political campaign. In the beginning of the chapter, Meyer outlines the three goals of a social movement organization: “to pressure government to affect the policy changes it wants; to educate the public and persuade people of the urgency of the problems it addresses and the wisdom of its position; and to sustain a flow of resources that allows it to maintain existence and efforts” (61). Is this not what Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all trying to do right now? Are political parties not just big, flexible coalitions?

Meyer discusses the ebb and flow of social movement organizations in their attempt to maintain supporters and stay true to their original goals while also trying to build influence and gain members. For some types of social movement organizations, “it’s better to be right than large,” but for others, its better to be less politicized and appeal to a broader audience (67). Organizations have to balance their messages so that they are not only ideologically tight, but marketable.

To me, after reading Chapter 4, the social movement organization looks an awful lot like the radical twin of the political party. What I haven’t worked out, however, is if this is a good thing or a bad thing. As Meyer describes, social movements have been classified by some scholars as groups that function outside of the polity (74). In many ways, this is true. There are no elections for social movements. There is not designated date in which to vote and change the balance of power. The power of the social movement organizations is powered by the people, and their support can fall just as easily as it is built, unlike elected officials who we can be stuck with until the next election.

However, it seems that the popular structure of social movement organizations in the United States function too similarly to a political party for my own comfort. Part of this is due to government regulations. Social movement organizations are subject to taxation, with the exception of educational organizations. Educational organizations, however, are only qualified for exemption from taxation by submitting to further regulation and compliance. Thus, as seems all to common with power, civic speech is all too closely tied to the government’s wallet. How can an organization truly try to shift government power if it is forced to pay that power?

Part of the problem, however, lies with us. Meyer has pointed out several times that the level of political engagement in the United States is quite slim. Thus, the only organizations that get our (or should I say the media’s) attention are the larger ones that have amassed political power through goal shifting and coalition building. Is this democracy or some sort of political capitalism? Are marginal social movements important or should we constantly be compromising and building coalitions?

Amanda Lineberry