Most Portlanders have probably never heard of Randy Shaw,
but the author's two books have strong Oregon connections.
One spawned a revolution. The other chronicles a corporate
titan's downfall.
Shaw was the inspiration behind the voter-approved
Ballot Measure 58, which (if it ever gets out of court)
will open birth certificates to adult adoptees. His
1996 book, The Activist's Handbook, is considered
a bible of activism by Bastard Nation. It's the
definitive book on running grass-roots campaigns--a
step-by-step guide for legislative strategy, ballot
initiatives, direct action and dealing with the media.
Helen Hill, chief petitioner of Measure 58, says she
was spurred to launch the campaign after hearing Shaw
speak in 1997.
In his new book, Reclaiming America: Nike, Clean
Air, and the New National Activism, Shaw points
to Bastard Nation as a model of modern activism--ballsy,
organized and wired--and to Nike as having been brought
to its public-relations knees by a savvy grass-roots
campaign. Reporter Patty Wentz interviewed him prior
to his upcoming visit to Portland.
Willamette Week: Your new book is another
call for activism. Why did you single out Nike?
Randy Shaw: The whole purpose of the book is to show
people models of what can work. People too easily give
up and say they can't fight big companies or big money
in government. Nike was the pinnacle--it had the most
positive image of any corporation, and the success of
the campaign shows you can take on any corporation and
win.
In spite of Nike's great advertising campaigns,
the company was ill-equipped to deal with attacks against
its carefully cultivated image. Why?
A lot of what happened during that campaign was directly
linked to Phil Knight's ego. They could have doubled
wages in Indonesia and it wouldn't have made any difference
in their bottom line. Nike could have been, and could
still be, a great hero. People would have wanted to
buy Nike because they're so public-spirited. Instead,
Knight's ego got in the way. He insisted everything
was fine in these factories even when there was evidence
to the contrary. It was as if by raising wages he would
have given in to his critics. He just wouldn't do it,
and that hurt them.
You call the campaign a success, and yet you report
that workers in Indonesia and Vietnam are still not
getting a living wage. Where's the success?
The main impact of the campaign has been to change
Americans' views on free trade. When people think "free
trade," they now think sweatshops, and they oppose it.
Also, public perception of Nike is permanently changed.
When people talk about image problems, Nike is now always
used as an example and they now represent the negative
side of the global economy. That's a different symbol
than they used to be.
Let's talk about Bastard Nation. No one had heard
of adoptees' rights, adoptees had never been organized
politically before, yet these "bastards" managed to
win a ballot measure. You've said that initiatives never
win the first time out.
It was amazing that they pulled it off. It was an idea
no one had ever thought of, and they got 55 percent
of the vote. This is a group that didn't even exist
before 1996. This puts them out in front of so many
other groups who think in their first few years they
have to go slowly. They took an issue that wasn't on
the plate at all and won.
How did they do it?
First of all, Bastard Nation used the Internet to mobilize
people who weren't already organized. Theoretically,
that should be the greatest strength of the Net, but
I haven't seen too much of it. Second, they have no
problem fusing Internet activism with grass-roots activism.
Too often people think all they have to do is monitor
their electronic mailing lists and dash off protest
e-mails, but they aren't willing to stand on the street
corner and pass out literature.
In that respect, it was enormously helpful with this
new issue to have a signature-drive campaign. That meant
85,000 people heard BN's side and signed the petition.
In your book you talk about how people are giving
up national battles and focusing on local issues. Why's
that?
People feel they can't win nationally, that big money
always wins. There is a lot of evidence of big money
controlling politics, but big money can be overcome.
In 1997, environmentalists were able to mobilize nationally
and get stricter clean-air standards out of Congress.
The opposition spent $30 million in a four-month period
and they lost. Big money doesn't always win, but it's
guaranteed to win if there is no local grass-roots organizing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published September 22,
1999
