March 11, 2005

"David Cohen, Advocacy Institute co-founder"

Welcome to Leadership Talks with David Cohen, co-founder of the Advocacy Institute. Questions and answers will appear below starting at 1 pm EST on Friday, March 11. In addition to answering your questions, Cohen will discuss lessons learned from working with Leadership for a Changing World awardees, as well as other lessons from his 40 plus years of public interest work.

Leadership for a Changing World
Thank you for joining us for today's Leadership Talks with David Cohen, co-founder of the Advocacy Institute. We're looking forward to an interesting discussion.

First, can you tell us David what motivated you to get involved in public interest work?

David Cohen
My parents were immigrants; my mother was sent home from Ellis Island in 1924 because of the restrictive quotas enacted into law by a nativist xenophobic wave. They had a hard time becoming citizens and were helped by the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. I grew up believing that FDR helped people deal with the absence of economic security. He did. Economically he worked to make us a more inclusive society. Of course it took World War II before we could begin to deal with what Gunnar Myrdal, the great Swedish sociologist, rightly called the “American Dilemma,” that is race. So my outlook and upbringing were really about the promise of America, the quest for the dream -- thinking it's possible to attain and worth working for.

I grew up in Philadelphia and we always took our visitors to Independence Hall. So I really believed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. One of my earliest memories was that of the Four Chaplains whose ship was sunk -- two Protestants, a Catholic and a Jew. So I felt included as a Jew and that is how it should be. I remember our elementary school took us to the Art museum and they showed us a movie and lots of people were included and I kept asking where were the Jews. I spoke out. Now I laugh about it and dream it might be in a Woody Allen movie.

I loved elections and sang a ditty in the 1944 election -- I was eight. “Roosevelt is in the White House waiting to be elected and Dewey is in the garbage can waiting to be collected.” I was assigned to run a precinct in a tough waterfront area when I was 15 and Philadelphia elected a reform Mayor and District Attorney -- both of whom I admired throughout their public life. I had already learned that the great muckraker Lincoln Steffens had called Philadelphia corrupt and contented and it wasn’t until Joe Clark and Richardson Dilworth -- in his college days he was like an F. Scott Fitzgerald character -- were elected that change occurred.

Charleston, SC
Everyone talks about how divided the country is right now, but a seasoned veteran like yourself would probably know better than the rest of us. Is this divisiveness just a hindrance/distraction, or is it somehow helpful? Do you see an issue where perhaps the Democrats and Republicans can come together and build some kind of consensus?

David Cohen
I think it’s both helpful and a hindrance, and I find myself just reflecting back to last weekend, when I was lucky enough to be part of a group that accompanied Rep. John Lewis to revisit the Civil Rights sites of Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery in Alabama. And of course, we walked across the Pettus Bridge as John Lewis and MLK has 40 years ago. The Voting Rights Act expires in 2007, and this is a perfect opportunity to build the kind of bipartisan consensus that existed in 1964 and 1965. There were many members of Congress present, and they included Republicans who are passionate believers in civil rights. And that is the kind of thing I am hopeful about. Of course the president has to be educated about because in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, he didn’t really know what it is and that it expired in 2007.

On the other hand, we have a lot of divisive issues about how resources are used in this country, particularly to help those most in need. We also have to address the fact that in our country right now, those who are most well-off are paying too little taxes, and those that are least well-off are paying too much taxes. Those who are poor are paying too great a percentage of their income for taxes. We have to recognize that the purpose of paying taxes is to help the whole society and to advance learning and knowledge and health and housing so that as the bible says, we are prepared to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked.

Gaithersburg, MD
How has advocacy in the US changed over the course of your career? Internationally?

David Cohen
You know, I think democracy in the U.S. in my lifetime has improved substantially, and we have taken steps backward and thereby created democratic gaps that are serious. To talk about the positive changes, the country is very different because of laws like voting rights act of 65 and all the various amendments to it. There are many African American officials holding office and making a difference in their communities. In Selma, I met with the mayor who was 12 years old. when the 1965 March happened. And this is the story of America, whether it involved African-Americans, Latinos, Latinas, or Asian- Americans. The picture of America begins to reflect our diversity. Of course, we have far to go, but we are a changed country. Where we’ve stepped backwards on is the kind of fear that exists in so many communities as a result of the harsh actions by immigrations officials, both at our borders and the kind of fear that exists in so many communities, especially Latin and Islamic communities. But even here, I am encouraged by the tremendous opposition that exists in local communities--whether by local elected officials or librarians--to the harsh effects of the Patriot Act. It will be re-debated this year, and I expect that there will be a very sharp debate in the Congress in part stimulated by this local and grass-roots opposition. I am old enough to have been a teenager in the Joseph McCarthy period, a time of great fear in our country. And I am encouraged now by there being much more articulated and articulate opposition to the abuses of civil liberties that occur in the United States today.

Fayetteville, Arkansas
Those of us new to the field may be unfamiliar with the rights-based approach. Can you elaborate on what it is and how it is different from other approaches?

David Cohen
In a nutshell, the Rights Based Approach (RBA) is about comprehensive human rights: political, civil, social, cultural and economic. It recognizes that rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and interdependent. They are domestic and international. It has inspired provisions of the South African Constitution, Dalits have organized around it in India to create a place of dignity in their harsh society, and in many Latin American countries they have built participation as a means of organizing and aspiring to these rights.

International NGOs such as Oxfam, Save the Children, and Action Aid have worked to popularize its understanding. It is based on many international conventions, covenants and treaties ratified by most countries in the world except the US. So it is rooted in international law. I think we should start talking about RBA in the US. We're hot on political and civil rights -- though some question that -- and we are in absolute denial about economic, social and cultural rights.

The rootedness of RBA in international law must not substitute for its moral imperative of insisting on people having a life of dignity. RBA says young people should have a life of opportunity, a fair chance, even if they’re not born with silver spoons in their mouths. It says livelihoods should be sustained so that people have the dignity of their own income. It recognizes that rights are tied to the security of having decent housing, health and food. It focuses on specific problems, such as making sure that girls have as much chance at education as boys.

The key lesson in RBA is that all rights matter and countries that step on political and civil rights as a matter of course, such as Myanmar, China and Cuba do have to be criticized for those, but so do countries that deny economic, social and cultural rights, as in the US, even when we have a robust politics.

I don't expect the US to ratify the various treaties on children, women and unfulfilled rights such as education and health. I do want the US to adopt the provisions of these documents as a matter of public policy. In a nutshell these important positive freedoms must be part of our institutional and cultural fabric. It can all be done by organizing, advancing ideas and putting pressure on elected and appointed officials at all levels of government. It's about building majorities and that's why, strategically, I don't want the emphasis on RBA to require the extra-ordinary majorities required for the provisions of a US Constitutional amendment. Our Constitution gives us plenty of room to do the work by majority rule. We just need the political will to do it as a people, and that of course means modifying US culture so that it embraces social, economic and cultural rights as part of human rights as it adds to our norm of the Bill of Rights and equal protection that is part of our 14th Amendment.

Georgia
I have developed a way that I can work with Democrats and Republicans, but I have been branded as a sellout. I'm ok, but how do you deal with this to help others?

David Cohen
More power to you if you can get Democrats and Republicans to work together to advance your ideas and cause and proposals! The great ideas that last have bipartisan support. That doesn’t mean they need majority support from both parties, but they do need some support form the party that provides less support for the idea. Now, one way the U.S. has changed is that there are fewer Republicans who support progressive causes than in the past. The Republican party of Tom DeLay, the House Whip, is not the party of Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt or even of Dwight Eisenhowr. But when you look at people who are governors who are Reps, many of them are making efforts to try to deal with the serious problems in their states. Their answers are not fully satisfactory, but they do not have their head in the sand either. We have an important opportunity for Republican senators and Democratic senators to actively advise President Bush on the appointment of federal judges. There are many sensible and moderate Republicans who passionately believe in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, which calls for equal protection under the law, and they are the names that the elected officials should put forward to the White House to serve as judges. So as frustrating as it might be, it is important to think in bipartisan terms. I remember when I was working on Civil Rights, and the Kennedy admin was laggard and slack in confronting the isuse. It was civil rights Republicans who kept the pressure on the Kennedy administration so that it would address the problem properly. I want to return to those days, and they’re worth working for.

Baltimore
Will this 'rights-based' framework help bring the current 'issue-based' disparate approaches into a cohesive movement for equity and justice? What are the steps needed to make that happen?

David Cohen
We are certainly laggards in the United States., both officially and culturally, in recognizing the central importance of social, economic and cultural rights. We pay proper deference to political and civil rights, which of course, are fundamental, but so are social, economic, and cultural rights. We have a lot to learn from our sisters and brothers in South Africa, India, Brazil, and many other countries which recognize these rights. They are all recognized internationally, and our challenge is to help frame issues in a rights-based framework. I am beginning to see that happen in the United States. at the grassroots level in places as distant as Montana is from Miami. When the living wage is talked about, it is not just talked about in terms of an amount, but it’s also talked about in the framework of dignity for those who are working. So we’re beginning to make some progress and understanding the importance of the rights-based approach. It’s important not to think of it in terms of amendments to our Constitution or ratifying international treaties; it’s important to recognize that our governing institutions can do this by majority vote if we the people and the elected officials have the political will to do it. Our job is to create that will and stand with people in other lands. At the World Social Forum in Brazil, a global campaign against poverty was launched with the support of President Lula of Brazil. That is an important start, and our job here in the United States is to organize, develop the ideas and do the generic politics to make this rights-based approach work so that it is central to eliminating poverty in our land of plenty.

San Francisco, CA
What are some lessons you can share from your work with the Leadership for a Changing World awardees?

David Cohen
Advocates can learn lots from the awardees -- each of them. They don't think vision and dreamy are synonymous. They know what their vision is, which is critical. They think very strategically, understand power and are very unromantic about it or overwhelmed by it, they want to know how systems work and where there might be enough give in the system to make a difference. They are persistent and more of them are beginning to understand the centrality of sustenance for themselves and their colleagues. You can have a balanced life. That's why singing, dancing, laughing, games and having a sense of play are critical. Folks in South Asia, Latin America and Southern Africa understand that very human point. I've seen it. I want more people in the US to understand that. The LCW awardees invariably, with few exceptions, understand and feel the importance of cultural influences and how those influences shape identity and create their own sources of power. They are practical -- they want results -- and they also understand symbol and metaphor as a way of explaining complexity so people can grapple with it. So even as they confront power they want the people to be there with them exercising their own power and agency.

Beltsville, MD
I met you personally in 1996 when you organized an International leadership training in Washington, DC. Your expertise in leadership for a changing world is so powerful in personal level as well as others. Question is based in focusing developing country, such as Bangladesh--how would the rights-based approach work when leaders give most priority to maintaining their power rather than developing the country as a whole?

David Cohen
This is an ongoing struggle in so many countries. It’s ongoing because people continuously have to build on the experience of practicing democracy. For example, it shows up in many countries around the importance of making sure that girl children have a fair chance to complete their schooling and not drop out when they’re 9 or 10 years old. That is why it is so important for people to be able to organize and to become aware – as many parents are not – that if their children are to have a chance to live a better life than they have, that they need to be educated. So with that, we begin to confront lots of problems from gender issues to cultural issues to economic issues because when the child drops out of school, she begins to work and brings in income to the family. What I think is impressive is that we are beginning to see changes in places such as Bangladesh and India, where the literacy rate is improving and more children are staying in school for a lengthier period of time. We are also seeing the decline of early childhood death from disease and malnourishment. So even though many leaders may be cynical and authoritarian, the drive of the people and their ability to come together and organize begins to make a difference in their lives. In many of these countries, there are dedicated people who are working in professions and in government and are supportive of these changes. Many are not, and they are horribly corrupt, but what needs to be remembered is there are voices that are effective to challenge those who are corrupt and authoritarian.

New York City
Given the multiplicity of non-profit and community organizations organizing for social justice in the U.S., how can we focus on larger shared interests, such as RBA, while also addressing our own particular priorities? Where have you found vehicles/ models for shaping a unified agenda that reflects core concerns?

David Cohen
I’ve just had a wonderful experience of working with a group of human rights organizations that are deeply disturbed and determined to change U.S. policy on the toleration of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment. Each of these organizations has a perfect policy, and they have their own particular niche, which they are very possessive of. But they were determined to talk it out and to try to find some common areas where they can intervene together to change policy. So whether we are working at the national level or the local level or the international level, it becomes important to take time to talk things out and recognize that by working together, we are grater and stronger than we can work individually. This takes effort, and it is not easy, it requires time to build trust and understanding among people who have shared values; but it is absolutely essential. And models can be found in countries outside of the U.S. So part of our challenge is to be less insular and parochial than U.S. people tend to be. Right now, there will be efforts to make use of the official Army manual, which has very good policy on why there should not be not only torture, but also there should be no cruel or inhumane treatment as a protection for our own armed forces. This came about because people have begun to collaborate and cooperate together. In time, it will be a riveting answer to Secretary Rumsfeld and the other defenders of cruel and inhumane treatment.

Washington, DC
David, who are some of your heroes who have inspired you in your career?

David Cohen
My heroes are not household names. When asked this by US News when I headed Common Cause, I said the unsung heroes are those who volunteer their time to improve matters for others, including doing policy and advocacy. They include my principal mentors: Jack Conway, who was a critical person in the US labor movement and served in government; and John Gardner, who was LBJ's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and founded the Urban Coalition and Common Cause. They challenged me and pointed out my gaps -- firmly and gently. They inspired me, taught me, and modeled for me how to behave.

Here are some others: Diane Nash, a brilliant civil rights organizer who taught the generation of young people around Martin Luther King; Florence Nightingale, the great nurse in the Crimean War 150 years ago and who was a champion networker and therefore a great organizer; Emma Goldman, known as an anarchist, but really a great organizer who understood repression whether it was in the US or in the Soviet Union; George Orwell, for his integrity; and theologians Dietrich Bonhoeffer who resisted Hitler, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel for his clear insights into morality and Reinhold Niebuhr who understood the capacity for wrong among people who mean well.

Of course I have a pantheon of the greats like Gandhi, King, Mandela, Lincoln and FDR. None should be expected to be perfect. Remember, all the Old Testament Biblical stars had serious faults. Heroes don't have to be perfect to be heroes. They are not saviors either. We have to create the change by working with others.

Seattle
Conservative foundations have strategically and successfully funded right-wing movement building for decades. How can the social justice movement mobilize progressive foundations to do the same - or should we look to other resources to help support our movement?

David Cohen
The conservative foundations have had a 40-year agenda. They have been very disciplined, but more importantly, they have been strategic that in order to change attitudes and policy, it requires a long-term effort. They had a simple idea that government is the problem and not the solution, and that libertarian and laissez-faire economics would appeal to people’s greed and bring about social Darwinism in the U.S. in which only the fittest survive. Progressive foundations will be mobilized only if they hear clear voices from people who are organized and organizing, as they did in the Civil Rights days. So we shouldn’t depend on foundations, but recognize that it is possible to take steps without foundation support, but to take those steps in ways that gain the recognition of elected and appointed officials and create tremendous demands inside our political and policy systems. The foundations will follow when these demands begin to be created as they have in the protests in Seattle on globalization, as they have in the Living Wage campaigns, as they have by students who are opposed to sweatshops, as they have when they’ve challenged universities on their inappropriate investment policies in South Africa. These are all examples of putting demands into the system. What foundations need to recognize is, it is important to have a long attention span and not a short one. Foundations need to have as much stamina and persistence as the people who are who are organizing in the grass roots. Foundations also need to recognize that there is a lot of value in enabling people to spend time together, to talk things out, and not look for immediate payoffs. That’s providing the respect necessary to do the public work that is needed to begin to make our own union in the United States a more perfect one. It’s exactly the kind of action that will advance the rights-based approach in America so that it is real for all of our people.

Denver, CO
Do you see a limit to how effective government can be in fixing the social problems of its nation? Is it always the government's responsibility, or should some of the change come directly from the community? What else is there besides lobbying?

David Cohen
Government is best as a catalyst. How it directs resources and how government revenues are spent and where it gets its revenues from is critical for government. One of the things that we learned from the 1960s is that it is important for people to be able to organize, even when they receive government funds – maybe especially when they receive government funds. The authentic voices are the voices of the community, provided they are organized, they have accountable governance in their organizations, and give people the space to come together to be cohesive and united. When they lobby, it reflects that unity and cohesiveness. So before there is effective lobbying, there must be effective organizing. That’s how people will be able to exercise their rights while meeting their basic needs of health, housing, education, and transportation. Then, they will, in effect, change the system they are living under so that its resources are distributed equitably. And of course, that includes the right to a livelihood so that people can be able to earn enough to live on and have sufficient independence.

Leadership for a Changing World
We're about out of time, this will have to be our last question today:

Greetings David!

While in the process of creating positive social change, what is your philosophy about staying centered and how do you to stay centered?

Thank you, Bev. Owen

David Cohen
You always need support from others. I've always had it from my wife and I still do. That's a deep anchor.

Then a network of friends and colleagues provide strength, and I hope I provide it to others. I'm better now at dividing the week and I make every effort on my Sabbath -- Friday night and Saturday -- to do nothing mundane, from shopping to writing memos. I love to play tennis and that's part of friendship, and I have another community that goes to synagogue on Saturdays to be together, whether I’m at home or traveling in other big cities. As I get older I try to take time to enjoy my grandchildren. So I'm constantly working at it.

Leadership for a Changing World
Thank you again for joining us for today's Leadership Talk with David Cohen. For more information about David and the Advocacy Institute:

David Cohen
Co-Founder
Advocacy Institute
1629 K St., NW, #200
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-777-7546
Fax: 202-777-7577
Email: dcohen@advocacy.org
Web: www.advocacy.org

David Cohen

Copyright © 2010 Institute for Sustainable Communities
Leadership for a Changing World, Institute for Sustainable Communities
1629 K Street, NW  Suite 200  Washington DC  20006-1629
p 202.777.7560    f 202.777.7577

Site by NetCampaign