“If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us”

Advocacy Myths That Need to Die

Day 7: “If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us.”

Somewhere along the way, advocacy became tribal.

Support the bill or you're against veterans.

Support the organization or you're attacking the mission.

Question the strategy and you're creating division.

Work with the “wrong” politician and apparently you've joined the enemy.

Disagree publicly and you're disloyal.

And God help you if you say:

“I support most of this, but I have a problem with Section X.”

Apparently legislation now comes with friendship bracelets and team jerseys.

No.

Advocacy is not supposed to be a loyalty test.

And if we want to accomplish difficult things in a country of more than 300 million people represented by 535 members of Congress, we are going to have to get considerably more comfortable working with people we don't always agree with.

You Can Support Veterans and Oppose a Veterans Bill

This shouldn't need explaining.

Yet apparently it does.

Putting the word “veterans” in the title of legislation does not automatically make the legislation good for veterans.

A veterans bill can contain bad policy.

It can have a bad funding mechanism.

It can exclude veterans who should have been included.

It can create Kudzu (unintended consequences).

It can give one group something while taking something from another.

It can contain 97 pages you enthusiastically support and one provision you absolutely oppose.

Opposing that provision does not mean you oppose veterans.

It means you read past the title.

We should want more people doing that.

You Can Support Survivors and Question a Survivor Organization

The same applies to organizations.

You can believe deeply in the mission of an organization while disagreeing with something the organization does.

You can support its programs and question its advocacy.

You can respect its leadership and challenge a policy position.

You can donate money and still ask how money is spent.

You can volunteer and still ask questions.

You can be a member and still disagree.

Organizations are not the communities they serve.

A veterans organization is not “the veterans.”

A survivor organization is not “the survivors.”

A military-family organization is not “the military families.”

They represent people.

They advocate for people.

They may do extraordinary work for people.

But questioning an organization is not the same as attacking the population it serves.

That distinction matters.

Disagreement Is Not Betrayal

This may be one of the most damaging ideas in advocacy.

Someone questions the strategy.

They're not a team player.

Someone points out a problem with legislation.

They're hurting the cause.

Someone refuses to repeat the approved talking points.

They're difficult.

Someone talks to an organization we don't like.

Whose side are they on?

Maybe their own.

Maybe the side of the people affected by the policy.

Maybe they don't think advocacy requires choosing a tribe.

Good.

We need more of that.

There Are More Than Two Positions

Advocacy conversations are constantly reduced to:

Support.

or

Oppose.

But policy is rarely that simple.

There is another position:

Support if amended.

And another:

Support the goal, oppose the mechanism.

And another:

Support these provisions, oppose those provisions.

And another:

I don't have enough information yet.

And perhaps the most endangered position on social media:

I changed my mind.

Those aren't weaknesses.

They're evidence that someone is actually thinking.

You Are Allowed to Change Your Mind

Changing your position after learning new information should not be embarrassing.

It should be normal.

Maybe you supported a bill when it was introduced.

Then an amendment was added.

You read it.

Now you oppose the bill unless the amendment is removed.

Or maybe you originally opposed legislation.

Then someone explained something you misunderstood.

You researched it.

You realized you were wrong.

Now you support it.

Excellent.

That's how this is supposed to work.

The alternative is deciding your position first and spending the rest of your time searching for information that confirms it.

That's not advocacy.

That's marketing with confirmation bias.

You Don't Have to Like Someone to Work With Them

Here is where advocacy gets particularly uncomfortable.

Sometimes the person who can help accomplish your goal is someone you don't like.

Maybe you disagree with them politically.

Maybe you disagree with them on 90 percent of everything else.

Maybe they supported legislation you despised last year.

Maybe they belong to an organization you don't particularly trust.

Maybe you wouldn't voluntarily spend five minutes with them outside the issue you're working on.

So what?

If you agree on the specific objective sitting in front of you, work together on the specific objective.

You don't have to endorse their worldview.

You don't have to join their organization.

You don't have to campaign for them.

You don't have to become friends.

You don't even have to particularly enjoy the meeting.

You have to determine whether cooperation helps accomplish the mission.

Strange Bedfellows Can Make Good Policy

Some of the strongest legislative coalitions are built around people who agree on the outcome for completely different reasons.

A progressive member and a conservative member may support the same veterans bill.

Their reasons may be completely different.

Fine.

Their votes count exactly the same.

A fiscal conservative may support reform because the existing system wastes money.

A progressive may support the same reform because the existing system harms vulnerable people.

An organization may support legislation because it benefits its members.

Another organization may support it because of broader policy implications.

The motivations don't have to match. The objective does.

You don't need identical motivations.

You need enough agreement to move the policy.

Stop Demanding Ideological Purity

This is particularly destructive in bipartisan advocacy.

If you advocate only with people who share your political worldview, you have voluntarily eliminated a significant portion of Congress before you even begin.

That's not strategy.

That's a social club.

Veterans exist across the political spectrum.

So do survivors.

So do caregivers.

So do military spouses.

So do the members of Congress representing them.

If an issue genuinely affects the military-connected community, advocates should be able to explain it to Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and anyone else with the ability to influence the policy.

The argument may need different emphasis depending on the audience.

The underlying facts should not change.

Bipartisan Does Not Mean Politically Homeless

Working across the aisle does not require pretending you don't have personal political beliefs.

Of course you do.

Everyone does.

You can vote however you want.

Support candidates.

Donate.

Campaign.

Protest.

Complain about politicians at dinner.

Whatever.

But when you walk into a congressional office as an advocate, the question should be:

“How can this office help solve this problem?”

Not:

“Did this person vote the way I wanted on every unrelated issue?”

You are advocating for policy.

Act accordingly.

Coalitions Should Be Built Around Objectives

You do not need to agree with coalition partners about everything.

You need to agree about the thing the coalition exists to accomplish.

That's it.

If ten organizations agree that a particular survivor benefit needs reform, they can work together on that reform.

They don't need identical positions on every other veterans issue.

They certainly don't need identical positions on immigration, taxes, abortion, guns, health care, climate policy, foreign policy, or whatever political fight is consuming the internet that week.

Stay on mission.

If the coalition exists to fix Problem X, fix Problem X.

You can go back to arguing about Problems Y and Z afterward.

Stop Making People Pick Teams

One of the fastest ways to destroy useful collaboration is demanding that people prove loyalty.

Don't work with them.

Don't attend their event.

Don't share their research.

Don't talk to that congressional office.

Don't criticize our organization.

Don't question our legislation.

Don't associate with those people.

Eventually advocacy becomes less about solving problems and more about maintaining alliances and enemies.

And the people who were supposed to benefit from the advocacy?

They're still waiting.

I don't particularly care whose logo is on the solution.

I care whether the solution works.

Criticism Can Come From an Ally

This is something organizations, politicians, and advocates should remember.

The person criticizing your proposal may not be your enemy.

They may be trying to prevent you from making a mistake.

The person asking uncomfortable questions may actually support your mission enough to want the policy done correctly.

The person saying:

“I think this provision is harmful.”

may still be willing to spend the next six months helping you fix it.

Don't confuse compliance with loyalty.

And don't confuse criticism with hostility.

Sometimes the people willing to tell you that you're wrong are considerably more useful than the people willing to tell you you're wonderful.

Your Opponent Today May Be Your Ally Tomorrow

Advocacy relationships are complicated.

The organization fighting you on one bill may stand beside you on the next.

The member of Congress who refuses to support today's legislation may become the champion of tomorrow's.

The staffer who challenged your numbers may later help draft the amendment you desperately need.

Don't burn every bridge because someone disagreed with you once.

Challenge them.

Debate them.

Correct them when necessary.

Oppose their legislation when necessary.

Then, when you share an objective:

Work with them.

You are not getting married.

You're trying to pass policy.

The Mission Has to Be Bigger Than the Team

This is the thread running through this entire week.

Something is not always better than nothing.

Cosponsors do not guarantee passage.

Organizations are not infallible.

“We can't afford it” deserves deeper examination.

Criticizing legislation can improve it.

Congress is not one giant uncaring organism.

And disagreement does not automatically make someone your enemy.

All of these myths survive because advocacy is easier when everything is simple.

Good guys.

Bad guys.

Supporters.

Opponents.

Wins.

Losses.

Our team.

Their team.

But policy isn't simple.

Neither are people.

Effective advocacy requires enough intellectual independence to evaluate each issue on its merits.

Kill the Myth

You can support veterans while opposing a veterans bill.

You can support survivors while questioning a survivor organization.

You can respect a politician while criticizing their legislation.

You can dislike a politician and still work with their office.

You can oppose one provision while supporting the other 97 pages.

You can disagree with an organization today and stand beside it tomorrow.

You can change your mind when the facts change.

And you can work with people you profoundly disagree with when you share a specific objective.

None of that makes you disloyal.

It makes you an advocate.

Myth: If you're not with us, you're against us.

Reality: Advocacy does not require permanent allies, permanent enemies, or ideological conformity. It requires knowing the mission, understanding the policy, and working with whoever can responsibly help accomplish the objective.

Stop asking:

“Whose side are you on?”

Start asking:

“What are we trying to accomplish?”

Because the mission should matter more than the team.

The people should matter more than the organization.

The policy should matter more than the politics.

And the facts should matter more than being right.

You don't have to agree with me.

You don't have to like me.

You don't have to join my organization, vote for my candidate, share my politics, or sit at my table.

If we agree that this specific problem needs to be fixed, pull up a chair.

We'll argue about everything else tomorrow.

And whatever you do...

Read the damn bill.