If we want to change Washington, we have to change Washington

A small handful of folks began talking about something akin to the USDS during transition in 2009. We got laughed at for talking about the need for a cabinet-level technology role and for suggesting that digital report into the chief of staff. But the fact that it took the Healthcare.gov debacle and rescue to finally reshape the administration’s understanding of the difference between technology evangelism and technology execution wasn’t their fault, it was ours. Just because it’s easier to sustain the status quo, just because the bureaucracy holds nearly all the cards is a lame and boring excuse for failing to deliver on our promises to change the system. We have to stop being surprised by momentum and soothing ourselves with handwringing and blame and instead find ways to direct that momentum toward new goals. The new ideas may come from outside Washington, but some of the work has to happen inside it and (like it or not) by and with people who know the current systems.

There have been a series of conversations and proclamations in the last week about the collapse of the Obama movement— about the failure to sustain the energy of the ’08 campaign, to meaningfully change the culture of Washington, and to use that momentum to rebuild and reimagine the Democratic party. Regardless of the incomplete forensics and the perceived consequences, what matters most is the why and the way forward. To change these institutions the way we set out to, we have to be there and win in the room, to convince the people in power of the necessity of new approaches, and then to create opportunities for new people to remake the structures and processes that make up the system. When we lazily expect people to respond to the self-evident nature of our perspective, we are to blame when progress stalls. When existing systems don’t naturally evolve against their bureaucratic instincts, we should not interpret it as some personal slight or petulantly take our football and go home. We should interpret it as our failure to effectively and urgently inspire others in their terms to take new steps toward new paths.

We have another opportunity for a new path right now, and we cannot afford a similar failure — our ability to reclaim power from the current administration depends on it. While President Trump’s administration ransacks government, we must leverage the energy and outrage on the Left to change and elevate our civic habits and to rebuild our party. The most likely outcome of the upheaval at the DNC is that the party continues down some version of the “more, better” path — that we continue to do things much as we have, only better this time with more feeling. Maintaining this dispassionate status quo would be fatal. If we fail to embrace this moment to reexamine our values, to reorganize the relationship between elected officials and voters, to reexamine the balance between national and state responsibility, to restructure the organization, to embrace with urgency and passion the opportunity to remake our party for a new era of engagement and activism, it’s on us. The party is ours. It should be a vehicle for our desire to drive progress and engage in civic life just as OFA was in 2008, but it’s up to us to claim it, to find ways to earn respect and power so that we can make the changes that are desperately needed. The alternative is to wait for it to be handed to us or for the system to change itself — and that is the losing strategy we cannot repeat. Change is work, our work, and no one is going to do it for us.