Grassroots liberal activism is populated by three types of people, generally: community-oriented folks who volunteer because they almost compulsively work for the betterment of the community. People who should, or think they should, be working at a higher level in the political machine. And what I call “Coachella activists”. These people are the human embodiment of a “live, laugh, love” or “good vibes only” sign.
I love the first group with my whole heart and I’m happy to see them move up in the leadership structure because, they just kinda intrinsically get it. We’re all pulling together and they’re good about and good at doing their share.
I’ll admit, I’m in the second group, but I try to be part of the first. The second group is a mixed bag. You have folks who genuinely enjoy seeing how the political sausage is made as well as participating in making it — and you have people who are desperate for importance and because of that desperation should never have it. I could go on for a long time about power-seekers and what happens when those dogs catch their car, but that’s not today’s piece.
I’m seeing a lot of Coachella activists coming into the grassroots Harris campaign right now. While they’re useful for low-level outreach like flyer distribution, phone banking, and some door-knocking, there are downsides to working with them, especially in communications-heavy roles. Political campaigns can get difficult and deal with complicated topics, which the Pollyanna attitude of the Coachella activist is ill suited for. Coachella activists ask for talking points instead of researching a topic and if your answer to a policy question starts with any variant of the words “it’s complicated” or is in the least way negative, they tune out.
For a campaign as truncated as Harris/Walz, Coachella activists are the easiest to get but are ill-equipped to handle the intricacies and complexities the next few weeks will provide.
To be clear Coachella activists, if it wasn’t obvious from the name, are there for what they perceive as the fun parts of a political campaign only. They’re great for rallies and anything that takes boundless enthusiasm, but if it’s not an all-the-time party, they can be difficult.
For example, a Coachella activist called me a Debbie Downer for warning that “Free Palestine” protesters would be showing up at and disrupting Harris rallies soon (I was almost a week ahead of things on that prediction). And in the time since, it’s only gotten worse, including what looks like possible federal charges being levied against Free Palestine protestors at the DNC). After it started happening, I pointed it out to the activist and she stated that she didn’t care and that I was still a downer. While I understand the desire to be positive, ignoring things that could be actively bad for our chances is not something I think it’s wise to ignore.
Coachella activism and reactionary extremism
I’ve been trying to write this piece for what feels like two weeks. Initially, it seemed like all I was doing was complaining about a deeply un-serious group of people. Then, thanks to a YouTuber known as Suris, I discovered an article that tied it all together. If you prefer, you can watch this:
The above article is an interview with one of the best modern experts on right-wing extremist groups and how and when to report on them in the media. He issues some dire warnings about what is very likely to happen in the next several months, including after the election (especially if the Harris/Walz ticket wins out) and the average Coachella activist would laugh him off as a crank or a downer at their own peril — because David Neiwert has been covering extremist groups for longer than I’ve been alive.
Neiwert’s case is simple: Right-wing extremists need to be exposed as frequently as possible, because even though exposure is what they crave, the type of exposure matters — not to the extremist, but to the public at large. The public typically takes a dim view of the acts of extremist groups, so exposing them and what they do frequently, turns the heat of public attention up to the point that people in power are required to act.
My argument is that this level of scrutiny is useful, not just for right-wing groups, but reactionaries from either side of the Overton window.
I’ve seen Coachella activists deal with reactionary extremists, and it’s never pretty. The two major scenarios surrounding interactions between these two groups go as follows: Either the activist gets driven out of politics entirely by the reactionary; a lot of bitterness develops and someone who was once a boundless spring of enthusiasm for the political process becomes a non-voter, which is bad because a single reactionary can be a rhetorical IED, negatively effecting entire groups of people in a very short time-frame. Reactionaries are many things, but what they are primarily, is bad for turnout.
Or, a little too frequently for my liking, the activist gets radicalized. This is the real problem with Coachella activists and reactionaries. Coachella activists are hunting for easy answers and reactionary thinking is easy, if you don’t think about it too closely. Reactionaries can wrap atrocious beliefs in neat little reasonable sounding packages.
Where the driving off is a rhetorical IED, the reactionaries that can convert otherwise normal, politically active people are rhetorical zombies, and I’d argue that the zombie is far more dangerous, because that means their message has the opportunity to spread. Once radicalized, Pollyanna Goodtimes goes from talking about girl power to very sincerely asking how we solve the “Zionist” (Read Jewish) problem or some other awful ideology. (Though interestingly, the sheer volume of reactionaries that default to blaming “The Jews” for everything is kinda staggering).
If I hadn’t made it clear, these activists getting radicalized and suddenly going from DNC faithful to conspiracy theory-laden atrocity factories are also bad for voter turnout.
Either way, Coachella activists exist and are the left’s primary vulnerability this election cycle.