Cooperation Part II
Several months ago I offered a few words on what I believe to be an extraordinarily important topic; Cooperation, specifically within the ranks of groups that have been calling for a kinder, more inclusive, and more intelligent form of government. Cooperation and collaboration between a wide range of organizations are a couple of the key ways in which those of us who vote under the banner of Progressive can make a substantial impact on stopping our current march towards brutality and ignorance.
As an example, about eight weeks ago I received an email from a person in my local Sierra Club chapter. As is usually the case, they were asking for donations. To be clear, I view the Sierra Club, along with dozens of other groups, as the main culprits in the ongoing lack of cooperation between these types of organizations. So I wrote back to the person suggesting that the Sierra Club consider greater cooperation with like-minded entities. Later that day I received a defensive and rather demeaning response. The person suggested that a cooperative effort was indeed being made by the local SC chapter to connect with a few small nonprofits in the immediate area. The person’s response suggested I didn’t know what I was talking about with regard to cooperation. After that reply I left it alone since there was no reason to have a debate.
And so I’m having another go at making this point. As I wrote in my first essay, according to Cause IQ, there are over 30,000 not-for-profit groups oriented towards fixing the environment in the United States alone. We are drowning in our own little fiefdoms of chest thumping groups, all of whom believe they have THE solution, even if it is just for local issues. Imagine if there were a gathering of these organizations, a conference where they would discuss the issues each of them is focused on, find answers that others may have already assembled, to give support to each other, and find ways to make a definitive singular statement of shared concern. They could formulate a national strategy that would be able to succinctly communicate the dire situation we find ourselves facing instead of scattershot emails that really don’t seem to end up making much of a difference.
To fully understand the dysfunctional nature of the egocentrism of many of these groups, all one has to do is begin looking at the fundraising efforts of entities such as The Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Climate Reality Project, Move On, Sunrise Movement, Galvanize Climate Solutions, Greenpeace, and hundreds of others, all of which are vying for dollars from you and me. They are spending a good portion of their funds on gathering more funds instead of fixing the issues that are dragging the planet towards the precipice of existential disaster.
In the earlier essay I suggested that readers write letters to a number of these groups, that begged them to begin the process of cooperation. Along with several other people, we did write these letters, addressing them personally to the CEOs and directors. Not a single response. Not a “thanks for your input” not a “good idea”, NOTHING!
So let’s try this again. There are things we can all do that may take some of your time but won’t cost a great deal of money. Send hard copy letters to these organizations by US mail since emails are easier to ignore. If enough of us do this, they will actually pay attention (or so I want to believe). Contact your local and national politicians. If enough public servants put pressure on these groups to work together, then we may make some headway. Ask your friends and family to participate and share this information on social media or get together to write letters as a group.
I’m including a link (Click Here) to a list of groups and the people who are in charge of those groups for you to contact them. We have witnessed first-hand the weakness inherent in a lack of cooperation. Every day we read the paper or watch the news to see the climate change deniers and proponents of fossil fuels successfully rally around the current administration where “Executive Orders” are processed to gut environmental regulations. And instead of getting together, as suggested here, all the progressive groups seem to do is send out more of the ubiquitous emails telling us we need to send $15 to XYZ Environmental Group and that will solve the problem. REALLY?!?!?!
As a caveat, I would like to mention that I take heart in the efforts made to produce a nationwide day of protests under the single banner of No Kings, where multiple organizations have placed their own agendas on hold to work together. But this is the tip of the iceberg, since for us to make a definitive change of course, this type of cooperation must continue and expand exponentially beyond a single day of marching. In David Brooks’ call to action in the latest Atlantic Monthly titled, America Needs a Mass Movement – NOW, he lays out the critical components of a much-needed social uprising as has happened multiple times in the past. But Mr. Brooks warns of a potential lack of commitment and a sense of inurement that can be pervasive and we cannot afford to be complacent.
We currently live in a country and a world where we are uncertain of the future and uncertain of what we can do to mitigate the very dark path humanity as a whole appears to be taking. Wringing our hands and reading about the horrors heaped upon us by authoritarian regimes does nothing. Our only hope is to work together to bring about change. And that change is possible, but time is running out. We owe a debt to our ancestors who fought and died for the principles of this nation, and we owe allegiance to future generations to do whatever we can to leave them a better world. We simply cannot become despondent and allow ourselves to be engulfed by defeatism. So please, let’s get busy.
[Note: The ©2025 cartoon at the top of this page is used by permission of the artist, Drew Dernavich and first appeared in The New Yorker Magazine. Thank you Drew!]
Thought provoking, and disturbing observations as always, Tobin. One wonders if any historian or anthropologist has managed to explain, or even observe, the situation you describe? [I’d ask for a Philosophical summary; however, the array of diverse Philosophical explanations over the centuries do more to illustrate your point rather than illuminate.]
We lament the tribalism of the Right –the knee-jerk reaction to reject anything not aligned with their existing certainty. We feel smug amusement watching comedian-interviewers drawing out MAGA’s thinking –stubborn stupid consistency, unchanging since the Reagan administration, maybe the Hoover administration. A stubborn stupid consistency surviving assault by any Facts.
The hierarchical tribes on the Right find common motivation in Fear. [We’ve asked our Comrades about this in the past, and were met with solid disagreement –withstanding any statistical measures of amygdala size or psychology testing.] The alignment of the Right, perhaps because of their ability to goose-step behind a Fearless Leader, has been able to plan for their goals much better than the Left. The Left are unable to even agree to call themselves the Left.
The examples you raise of environmental existential threat could easily be replaced by any number of different threats. One cannot find agreement on the Left about which set of threats is more existential than any other set. The Right are not encumbered by this difficulty –for the concerns of the Left, climate change, middle-East genocide, the perils of Artificial Intelligence, collapse of civilization caused by banning books –the Right can simply call these threats, “Fake.” The Right can happily rally against the concerns of their Fearless Leader, and support Fearless Leader’s solutions.
A common characteristic of the set of diverse Leftist concerns is they are all threats –perhaps abstracted from immediate threat to the tribe –solutions wrapped in altruistic language –benevolence and good-will towards humanity. To my thinking, concerns of those I’d call, “Good People.”
But still threats; fears held by Good People, by my tribe.
A common motivation in Fear. The actions we take to consolidate cooperation among tribes are different from those used by the Right. Gathering in groups showing solidarity through clever signage. [We seldom agree on wearing a baseball cap of standardized color.] Writing a STERN PETITION demanding solidarity from disagreeing tribes. Non-violent? Usually.
So, why are your observations disturbing? From the collective marching and petitions –maybe not a baseball cap, but the Frog-Suits are rather unifying –will a Savior Leader emerge? A cyclic Ouroboros Worm
Michael – In beginning this weekly offering of thoughts, my hope all along has been for intelligent engagement, responses that would not only expand on my concepts but expand my own perspective. You, Jerry, my brother along with several others have done just that and I can’t thank you enough.
The thoughts you’ve put down have an emotional impact on my POV since after I read your words I was both angry and profoundly sad. Perhaps this resistance to rallying around a central idea that could have a positive impact on the future of our species is ingrained. To me the intentions of the myriad groups on the left are altruistic, but what they don’t or can’t see is that all of these various issues are tied together. We cannot solve any of the problems mentioned in a vacuum, yet these disparate groups continue to believe they can find individual solutions to each problem.
Many times I’ve wondered if it’s just me who sees this dysfunctional quality in humans, but clearly that’s not the case, which is why, along with the anger and sadness, there is an upside to reading your reply in not feeling quite as isolated.
Anyway, thank you for your words. It is always a great pleasure to read your replies.
Michael, it is late. Thus I’ll spare both of us my usual paragraph by paragraph response to your thoughtful comments. (We really need to get together soon at Taste of Paris.)
I think the rightist minded, MAGA crowd really have one enemy in mind, – us. They blame whatever loose ends that American history has bedeviled us with, the ennui of capitalist success, the view that the job of government is public safety and the common good – as leftist tripe that is ripe for the dumpster. When they tire of going after the low-hanging fruit they will come after us, with the blessing of congress.
Jerry,
I know your note was directed to Michael, but here I am jumping in as well. You and I and Michael and tens of millions of others are not the enemy of the MAGA crowd. We may be victims of the movement towards a more authoritarian government, but all of us who are center or left of center only personify the fear felt by the right wing, not individually but as a body politic. They fully buy into the belief that we are a part of the great “THEM” who do not understand the perceived threat to a way of life embodied in their extremely skewed perception of reality. One on one, many times we can find common ground with those “across the aisle”, but as soon as we are out of sight, they will go right back to inhaling their own exhaust and vilifying, en masse, those who cannot see this threat.
In Doctor Strangelove, Sterling Hayden’s character,General Jack Ripper, was fixated on protecting our Precious Bodily Fluids, which can be seen as a metaphor for the purity of race. Nothing has changed, it rarely does. Many people continue to believe that we must safeguard some whacked-out preconceived notion of the purity of our heritage, which is, of course, total nonsense. We are almost all mongrels of some sort, crossbred through the ages, but that matters not to those steeped in fear of change, of the unknown, of those who look different from what is seen in the mirror. Ultimately this type of behavior is a form of mental illness that cannot be treated unless the patient is first willing to admit the problem and then seek treatment. But when the echo chambers of Fox News and the myriad websites that espouse the underlying tenets of this type of mental illness are free to exacerbate the problems, there is little hope of a cure.
Tobin,
I am reminded of the great awakening I had some twenty years ago of the key that unlocks action. It is called big money.
I had proposed to North Bend’s mayor that what the town needed was a carousel. The mayor exclaimed “YES! And it needs to be RIGHT THERE!”, pointing to the large bare ground parking lot directly across the street from his hamburger joint. “Talk to the principle at the high school, she’ll get the kids to do the carving.” Two days later in the principle’s office I heard the most beautiful sound in the world; “wONDERFUL IDEA… I just LOVE Carousels.” I thank the principle profusely for her warm endorsement and floated out the door, confident the chips would soon start flying. But before the door closed behind me came the great revelation appreciated only by those in positions of power: ”WHEN YOU’VE RAISED A HALF-MILLION DOLLARS COME BACK AND TALK TO ME.”
The problem you have described is not that there is no cohesion’s between the groups but that the little dribbles each contributes to the politicians are perceived as only that; dribbles. Now, if all those dribbles were put in one big bucket and offered to the highest bidder, corruption in congress would be a thing of the past.. well, perhaps not, but at least the collective contributor’s bucket would get noticed.
Make a collective.
Hi Ern,
Thanks for your thoughts on this offering. I certainly agree that in many ways large wads of cash can open doors and for a great number of corporations and lobbying groups, that’s exactly how it works. On the other hand mass social movements rarely have funding other than enough to make some signs. As David Brooks noted in his piece in the Atlantic, the most successful revolutions were based on people being fed up with authoritarianism along with a huge gap in wealth between the haves and have nots. At least for me, it comes down to an ability to set aside one’s specific personal goal to work cooperatively for the greater good, understanding that in the long run, everyone wins (or at least those who want to make the world a better place win).
Greed and egotism are incredibly short-sighted characteristics. Many times, these types of individuals act for their own perceived well-being while destroying the environment (both physical and social) around them and ultimately everyone loses. Elon Musk may think he can create a Valhalla on Mars, but he’s nuts, so we should not be paying attention to crackpots. Our home, for the far, far foreseeable future, is Earth and until we fully grasp that concept, we’re in for a very rocky ride, big money or not.
In my Philosophy 101 class back at the Big U I observed one consistency that has served me well (or adversely) over the years: At the start of every week Professor Ammerman would lay out the main points of one of Civilization’s Great Philosophers. Some of the students would raise questions or refute arguments –for each, Professor Ammerman easily squashed with well-thought-out, reasonable, support of the presented Philosophy. By the end of the first two lectures every student was complacently nodding their head in agreement, though one guesses this visible compliance often was motivated by wanting a passing grade.
In the Friday lecture Professor Ammerman would thoroughly rip open the previous two-days’ material. Again, using well-thought-out, reasonable, arguments showing the idiocy, narrowness, and simple-minded wrongness of the Philosopher, their school of thought, and any of our students who had fallen into the trap.
A recent article in Huffpost [Critics Sound The Alarm As Steve Bannon Teases Trump 2028 Plan | HuffPost Latest News] outlines a podcast where Steve Bannon said he has a plan allowing President Donald Trump to serve another term in office ― and critics are warning Americans to take that threat very seriously.
“He’s gonna get a third term,” Bannon said in an interview with The Economist published Thursday. “Trump is gonna be president in ’28, and people just ought to get accommodated with that.”
Truly we live at a quarter-century inflection point, where all things may be believed possible. Trivial norms, traditions, and beliefs may be discarded with impunity –clear wording in the Constitution, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” may easily be set-aside simply by re-defining our assumptions about the word, “Elected.”
Bannon claims Trump is a “vehicle of divine providence” and “instrument of divine will” who needs “at least one more term.” Beliefs already aligned with MAGA constituents.
Or, if we follow the money and Maria-Viktoria’s warning about resurrection as an AI Avatar, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or any of this century’s robber barons could keep a shadow of Donald Trump cranking out Executive Orders from his ball-room mausoleum well into the next century.
The MAGA-crowd would believe this totally, and embrace the Devine Wisdom. Even Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, even Franklin Roosevelt, could live on as Hellish Demons –foiling the Project 2100 agenda.
I’m certain Tobin and Jerry will try to refute this using mindfulness and calm rationality. [On the subject of cooperation and striving towards a common goal; have folks noticed that essays from the Left are ALWAYS followed by more essays –pointing out the flaws, errors, and wrong-thinking? Does one see this on the Right? –where any nonsense, if loosely fitting the ideology, will be supported and embraced, blending into the goose-step synchrony.]
Steve Bannon has no need for such mindfulness. He could not care less about winning some subtle point –it is doubtful he has any second thoughts when staring at his own mirror reflection –if indeed there is any reflection. Like a pathetic shell of a Coyote or Loki Diety, Bannon gets his sustenance from the Chaos he causes.
Au contraire mon ami. I actually believe that anything is possible. The rules, as they were, have flown the coop with the blessing of the so-called “originalists” on the Supreme Court. As Cole Porter wrote, “Anything Goes” and I mean anything, including your 3-D DT that could easily be programmed to spit out insults and idiotic remarks as if they were candy on Halloween for millennia. In David Brooks’ recent essay he believes that we may be in for a social uprising that could upend the Utopian Billionaire class. But when those who are striving to be multi-trillionaires control every aspect of information and are geared up for deep-sixing all who even peep about a revolution, there may not be a path for the return of liberalism.
In that case we can only hope that Mother nature will have her revenge and even the creeps who believe they are god-like will have to pay the piper, for an uninhabitable planet is not going to make exceptions for anyone just because they’re uber-wealthy. Musk thinks he can live on Mars. Good luck buddy. The sooner you leave for the red planet, the better off we’ll all be.
Well said, my friend.
I think it may be part of Loki/Bannon plan that everything must get REALLY bad to motivate any positive change. [Not sure if these Tricksters have ever said what they think positive change would look like –much like the plans of others I won’t name –for environment, health-care, economy… As long as they can call everything a “Joke” they are happy.]
Your essay raises an important and valid concern. Environmental and progressive groups often compete for the same attention and funding, which can fragment efforts and weaken collective influence. A coordinated strategy could amplify their message, reduce administrative waste, and create a more powerful voice in shaping environmental policy.
That said, there are also reasons why full cooperation is difficult. Diversity among organizations allows for experimentation, specialization, and local focus—things that can be lost in a single, centralized movement. Merging agendas risks bureaucracy and dilution of unique missions. Real collaboration requires compatible goals, leadership structures, and financial transparency—conditions that are rarely aligned across thousands of nonprofits.
Your call for greater coordination makes sense in principle, but practical implementation would need shared governance and clear incentives. The challenge isn’t lack of agreement on the problem; it’s designing a structure that preserves diversity while achieving unity of purpose.
Dear Ms. Juelich,
I agree. The intent of cooperation, in my opinion, is not to give up autonomy but to find common ground and make a concerted effort to fix the most egregious issues, i.e. Donald Trump and in a broader term, Trump style authoritarianism. The various disparate groups could still focus on their area of concern but imagine if there was a national conference of progressive organizations where they could discuss how to cooperate and develop a cohesive statement of action that would include anyone who would be interested in participating. And then, during this conference, concepts of what works and what doesn’t work could be traded and implemented without each of these groups reinventing the wheel. Right now, again this is just my POV, they are all trying to solve the bigger picture problems but without truly seeing the bigger picture.