top of the tree

Every day, the actions we take begin as decisions. Before we can do something, we have to decide to do it. These days it feels like someone else makes the decision for us. Actions are the result of the choices people in power make. Organizations and coalitions are full of people with their own ideas and perspectives. Actions happen because of the decisions they make—but those don't always come easy.

In most places, there's an instinct to grab for the low-hanging fruit. People also call this choice "moving the needle" or "getting a quick win." But often these are actions that someone thinks is doable in the current conditions. They're ideas that are popular (if absent details) or will meet little resistance. Or these actions may be nothing more than what people in power want to do (or feel they should do).

Action is often the reason that people join coalitions in the first place. We can pool our resources and connections when we work together. We can elect new decision-makers into office. We can make real change—the kind of change we want to happen. But we all know of an elected official who promises something they can't or won't deliver on. I keep hearing about Trump voters who thought, as President, he'd bring down the price of gas. They seem to be coming around to the idea that he's not going to deliver that to them. The ones who wanted more racism and oligarchy, on the other hand...

coalitions and power

I see groups go for the lowest-hanging fruit all the time. It's better than nothing, right? We could still have nothing. But I doubt that these groups don't know where the fruit is on the tree. Instead, a nonprofit's funding comes with the expectation to do the most with what little they get. Funders are driving this pressure to get the biggest bang for an ever-shrinking buck. They're part of a system that incentivizes helping people who need the least help.

Coalitions often form from smaller groups that come in with their own priorities. Sometimes these movements are unlikely coalitions of people who want similar goals. It's tempting to go for a quick win that solidifies the movement and galvanizes the public. But those quick wins can take the same amount of time to achieve. Compromises can meet as much resistance as the bigger gambles would have. And within those coalitions, decision-makers won't make equal progress on everyone's goals. Instead, decision-makers often choose options that are:

• aligned with their own goals
• are politically safe
• are easy to achieve

Still, some people will support the work of a coalition even if their own goals aren't met. Who loses out when the coalition chooses the popular path over the righteous ones?

People who are more "extreme" in the mind of leadership. LGBTQ+ groups like the (new) Mattachine Society chose to gain support by appearing respectable. Leaders there ousted its communist founders to escape FBI scrutiny. It didn't work, and queer folks who did not conform to those standards were cast out anyway. LGB groups are still trying to win acceptance by excluding trans and gender non-conforming folks.

People without decision-making power (direct or influential). The power of a coalition is that even small groups of people grow their power when they come together. But the smallest voices in that group can still face exclusion when getting their needs met. I've seen this to be true for leftists who support Democrats in elections. Those officials demand our votes while still trying to win points by rejecting us. Barney Frank is on his deathbed telling Democrats that "the left" is ruining the party!

People who have their rights taken from them. Politicians are diluting our voices in their race to extreme-gerrymander the country. Gerrymandering splits communities to dilute their power for the benefit of others. People incarcerated in prisons aren't allowed to vote at all. Imagine if the people in detention could still cast a ballot. Do you think conditions in these concentration camps would be this bad? Officials are free to make whatever decision they want when we lose the power to challenge them.

I try to keep in mind that people are not powerless for no reason. In american society, white supremacists work to strip non-white people of their power. Segregation, curfews, poll taxes, ID requirements, harassment, and intimidation all play a part. This has been true throughout our history and continues today. The electoral college and even the Senate is another example. Congress rushed to add western states to create more Republican senators. It's wild to think we could have had only one Dakota.

harvesting new fruit

I'm not opposed to easy wins. But I think we could choose more thoughtful wins. What are we missing because of our own biases and preferences? Could we play the long game if it meant more satisfying victories?

I am attending AORTA's Decision Making Intensive workshop series. I'm learning a lot even in the first week. They teach that decisions that move too fast or with too little planning often lead to bad outcomes. People consolidate power to tip the scales, breezing past disagreement. When we're all bringing priorities to the table, how can we make sure each gets a fair hearing?

Treat every priority seriously. That doesn't mean giving lip service to ideas that are offensive or even unrealistic. Instead: be honest about what you think is possible, but also accept that you could be wrong. Public sentiment can change at a surprising pace. Instead of saying no first, take the time to discuss all issues.

Scope out a rough process to achieve what each constituent group wants to achieve. What steps would we need to take to make each policy goal a reality? Imagine a stepwise approach to achieve each goal. I once had a fantastic idea for how we could make food free for everyone in america. Unfortunately, one of the steps was to nationalize all the food pantries in the country. Sad to say, that wasn't even the wildest step.

Focus on the next realistic step. If we moved forward on this agenda, what would we need to do next? A childcare-for-all campaign might need a budget analyst to figure out how to find it. We may need to increase public support through a broad campaign. We could host community conversations to build support for the idea. Whatever it is, everyone should know what the next step would be. We should be able to weigh in on its likelihood to reach the outcome we want.

No closed doors. Advocates should be part of the decision-making process. No one leader or subgroup should make priorities on behalf of the entire coalition. Instead, the coalition itself should review the steps for each goal. Confirm they're realistic. This is a good time to say I also needed help from the supreme court :( to make my free-food-for-all plan work. Even if the plan seems unrealistic, smaller incremental steps could be easier lifts.

seeing the forest

Who do we mean when we describe "low-hanging fruit?" These are people who are closest to getting what they need. I'm thinking of people near the border of a catchment area. Or people with a chronic illness with few complications. Of course these people deserve care. But those who are higher up on that tree could use help, too. They're also a part of our society. Rarely do we ever scope and fund programs so that these folks can reap the benefits we give everyone else. The folks at the top of tree stay disenfranchised. Decision-makers have already made the choice that they're unreachable. We don't have to make the same choice. We can't avoid the hard wins forever.