Comments cjcg has made

taking the good with the bad

I spent two years at FFPIR, the group that runs nationwide canvasses for PIRG, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other groups.  I must say I both agreed and disagreed with the argument offered in this piece.  On one hand, there are some real problems with the canvass, both in terms of the model and its outcomes.  But on the other, I think the piece settles for a cynical critique that ignores all the positive aspects of canvassing.  (I'll leave aside direct mail, since I think it's a mistake to lump that together with door-to-door canvassing.)

First, it's a fact that most canvass operations only raise enough money to pay their own expenses.  This may seem a little disturbing, but ask yourself why groups keep on doing it.  The reason is that the canvass results in tangible, non-financial results that really do help the environment.  It helps to generate and maintain the large bases of members that actually give groups like PIRG and the Sierra Club their clout, and that clout sometimes goes a lot further than me and my small network of enviro friends could take it on our own.  We all know how to frown at "interest groups," but like it or not, these groups do a great deal of the heavy lifting in the policy world, and they are a real force when it comes to influencing big business to change its ways.  The canvass also provides real skills--in leadership, communication, and more--to the students who take it seriously.

That doesn't mean canvass groups can't work better than they do, or that some canvassers don't know too little or focus too much on the money.  Canvass groups should be held to a higher standard, but don't dismiss the crucial role they play, and don't bash the efforts of good-hearted people who are just as committed to the cause as you are.On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses