If one man in America understands the right, it’s Lee Cokorinos, who has spent the better part of 30 years charting their every move. A specialist in political mapping, and prolific writer, Mr. Cokorinos has worked extensively with the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) and currently heads the Capacity Development Group. Recently, he visited LAANE to discuss his most recent publication, Target San Diego: The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government, which takes a look at how the right-wing gathers its forces to lay siege to local communities and municipalities.

NEW VISION: Based on your research on the right-wing infrastructure, what has the right accomplished, and what steps can progressives take to fight back?

LEE COKORINOS: The right has accomplished a great deal, going from a beleaguered minority party that regularly lost battles on childhood/ family issues, executive accountability (e.g. Watergate), consumer rights, civil rights and environmental issues to now controlling all three branches of the Federal government, the majority of governorships, and forcing the political culture to the right.

A large part of their success came from building a solid infrastructure of think tanks, media capacities and lobbying structures that defined a coherent program and helped the right’s politicians and spokespeople talk about it in a way people understand.

The right has stigmatized the idea of effective public policy with the idea of government as the enemy, and has waged a relentless negative campaign against the progressive movement. They really study the ideas of progressives and adapt their message and strategies accordingly. They are far clearer on who we are and why we succeeded than we are on them.

As for steps we can take: We need to embark on a broadbased renewal of the progressive movement, beginning with what unites us philosophically, followed by a clear statement as to what practical solutions we envision. We need to rebuild our frontline base-building structures to connect to working and middle class people. The American Dream is increasingly closed off to millions of people, and this is a powerful basis to build a political movement on.

NV: Should we duplicate their methods or take a different approach?

LC: We shouldn’t be afraid to learn from what they’ve done. Some folks think that if we do so we are taking on their negative values and emulating their hierarchical top-down structure. But, when they emulated our methods, they didn’t take on our values. It’s about how to effectively move ideas and policies

In organizing, we should do something different. We need to build closer ties between union and community organizers. We have to be where people are.

NV: Why aren't progressive think tanks framing issues as effectively as the right?

LC: It isn’t just not framing. We need more capacity on the ground, on the frontlines. It took three decades for the right to get to where they are.

There are not enough think tanks and they are under-resourced. As I point out in my report (Target San Diego: The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government), there’s a lot of fragmentation and stove-piping in progressive organizations. One activist in New York characterizes it as the difference between a thousand points of light versus the one focused beam of the right. The right has established multi-issue think tanks, with coherent messaging and policy research, that support one another. We have to build up this area in order to have a presence as policy debates unfold. We need good research and to do a better job of networking with our allies in academia.

We’ve also confused the roles of public advocacy and research. We need both: good research to back up policy agendas, in debates and public meetings; and good advocacy done in understandable language that connects with people. But they’re not the same. Frontline organizing by itself isn’t enough, nor is producing lists of issues we support, such as on voter brochures. These ‘lists’ appear policy wonkish, or as pandering—they don’t connect with real people. They send a message that seems poll-driven and spin-doctored, which leads to questions about the Democrats’ authenticity.

NV: What do we as progressives have going for us that we can use more effectively?

LC: A big picture message. The idea of building a good society that delivers life chances and fairness connects with Americans. As the African freedom fighter Amilcar Cabral of Guinea-Bissau said, always bear in mind people are not fighting for ideas; they’re fighting for material benefits, to live in peace and for the future of their children.

NV: What do you think Los Angeles has to contribute to the progressive movement?

LC: L.A. is a complex city with lots of cynicism about government. If that can be turned around it would be huge. The election of Villaraigosa has created a political opening for labor and community benefits and is symbolically important nationally. What is happening now is a beginning and will involve a continuing power struggle between the corporate power structure and the community-based movement. The right has stigmatized urban America, put forth an idea/myth of the failure of cities. A fierce debate is building over the future of America’s cities, basically over whether the urban model is over and we should succumb to the continuing suburbanization of American life; or whether the metro areas can be vitalized and redeveloped as vibrant centers of economic life, decent living standards for a rising generation of immigrants and a model of workable race relations. So L.A. has a story to tell.