I've been debating whether or not to start with this question. I'm sure you get it a lot and I don't want to tick you off , but can you explain once and for all where the name "Drum Major" comes from?

Ha. We do *not* give drum lessons! DMI was initially founded during the civil rights movement by associates of Dr. King, and Dr. King used to speak of the "drum major instinct," that instinct to lead larger movements. It was actually the theme of the last sermon he ever gave at Ebenezer, in which he asked to be remembered as a "drum major for justice, a drum major for righteousness, a drum major for peace."

DMI is a pretty small organization, as far as these things go. But as we used to say in my soccer-playing days, you guys seem to "play big." Where do you see a small progressive think tank like DMI fitting into the scheme of things?

Well, thanks. DMI's size plays to our strengths: we are firmly committed to challenging what it means to be a "think tank." We are constantly thinking about how to be more innovative and more creative in our work, and this requires flexibility, one of the benefits of being a small shop as opposed to a large, entrenched one. Our motto around here is "if it isn't read, it wasn't written."

That goes for your reports, your blog...

Right. We are more interested in people using and reading the stuff than checking off that we published it. We're also challenging think tank-ness on other fronts. For example, DMI Fellows are all grassroots organizers and activists, instead of Ivory Tower academics. Our view is that you change the conversation by changing who participates in it, and so we engage people who actually understand what policy looks like when it works and when it doesn't. You know?

This is probably a enormous stretch, but your approach almost seems like one you hear about a lot in the programming world, called agile development. Small teams, working on the fly, focused on getting things done instead of planning one day to maybe get something done.

Right. I like that, agile development. I'll tell the team.

On the fellows, was that a conscious decision? Or does it just turn out that progressives tend to get their hands dirty?

It was a conscious decision. We sat down and thought about who we wanted to be the messengers of DMI. And we decided that what progressives were missing too often was credibility. So we had these people who are like professional pundits. I won't name names. But some of these people drive me nuts.

So we said, hey, there are these people who are like us -- they are progressive, they want to change things -- but they have decided to become grassroots activists and organizers. Yet they still want to weigh in on policy. Let's combine forces.

If your focus is on "getting stuff read." does that approach hurt you at all? Meaning, do you sometimes find the response to your advocates to be, hey, these aren't names we know -- we're not going to publish them, put 'em on TV?

Yes. You better believe it. But when it works it works. So for example, one of our fellows is Mark Winston Griffith. He started a credit union in Bushwick, Brooklyn, and he wrote a piece for TomPaine.com (they are one of the few always willing to publish our Fellows) on the myths of the ownership society -- as someone who had spent years trying to get people in it! Ron Brownstein, columnist for the L.A. Times, read it and said wow - this is the best formulation I've seen.

Practitioners vs. pundits...

He wrote a whole column just on Mark and his views because Mark was a practitioner. He had credibility. So yes, it's a risk we are willing to take. But no kidding it's a pain. I mean, look -- pundits can be super smart and have valuable things to say. But they should not have exclusive domain over the conversation. It doesn't have to be either/or.

This seems like a good time to bring up Lou Dobbs.

Oh boy!

You recently went toe-to-toe with him on his "broken borders" focus on immigration and the middle class. I think it might be fair to say that you see immigration done right as a net-positive for the middle class, and Dobbs sees it as more or less a threat. You'd probably rather talk policy, but I'm curious about what you learned about the process by going on a show like that.

Ha. Right. Well, let me tell you what happened. I wrote an open letter to Lou Dobbs. I sent it directly to him and posted it up on our blog, at which point it became viral. And basically I said in it that his analysis was off, and that there was another perspective he was missing. He called me himself and said - come on the show. (Like I picked up the phone, and it was Lou Dobbs.)

So I went, and basically he lectured me for 10 minutes. I got none of my points in. He introduced me as a border control critic. It was awful. I was embarrassed beyond belief. But what it did teach me is that a) you do not have to accept every invitation you are given, and b) you have to control the terms of the debate when it occurs. I should have said right from the start -- why are you calling me a border control critic? I came here to talk about other things.

On the other hand, I've turned talking into my experience on Dobbs into a cottage industry, so it all worked out just fine.

Yeah, I saw an op-ed. What was the title: Dobbs as Ideologue, something like that?

Something like that. Maybe Dobbs the Demagogue? I'll look. I also did NPR's On the Media.

Open floor, what is the DMI take on immigration? How do you combat the idea that 'immigrants come in, the American middle class slips a bit more'? Have to admit, it's compelling in its simplicity.

Yes it is. Here's the idea: the economy isn't a zero sum game. It's not just a job for a job. Immigrants create jobs because they start businesses, revitalize communities, purchase homes, and have huge buying power around which industry has organized to meet the demand.

We have absolutely no doubt that immigrants -- including the undocumented -- play a critical role in the economy. I mean, immigrants alone are a huge factor in keeping our Social Security system solvent for example. And yes they do pay taxes. And no, they are not on welfare -- they aren't even eligible.

But there are ways in which immigrants do indeed threaten the middle class and the working Americans who want to be middle class. But that race-to-the-bottom dynamic is created not by immigrants but by their employers. When you have a class of workers who are easily exploitable, they will be exploited!

In some ways, can it be framed from sort of a simplified Robert Wright "non-zero" perspective? We can all win in the end.

We can all win in the end if everyone's basic rights in the workplace are protected. And that's our test for any policy to truly be in the interest of America's middle class -- does it recognize the critical role immigrants play in the economy, but does it also strengthen their rights in the workplace so we don't have a competition that undermines American workers?

Sorry to ask you to walk me through it, but how do we go about protecting their rights in the workplace? Are we talking minimum wage?

We're talking about protecting and expanding the right to unionize without the threats and coercion workers face today. We're talking about creating sensible realistic pathways to legalization, since it is a lack of status that is the main contributor to their precarious, exploitable status. We're talking about avoiding guest worker programs. Those institutionalize two tiers of workers and are bad news

So, are you tracking where politicians are on guest worker programs? And if so, what are you finding?

Yes ma'am. First, we have a blog series where we profile presidential candidates and their stances on immigration reform, including their thoughts about guest worker programs. And, in our middle-class Congressional scorecard, we'll highlight the bills raised this session and grade lawmakers on whether they truly supported what was not just "comprehensive" but actually in the best interest of their middle-class constituents.

On the middle class scorecard, you guys ran a great campaign this past election cycle where if you Googled a particular candidate's name, up popped a text ad that said "Rep. Smith scored an A+." When it comes to the presidential, it's so easy for people to fall for who talks the prettiest or who strokes whose ego. I know it's a ways off, but will DMI be there to help voters make sense of the 2008 field?

It's a good question and we definitely want to.We are deeply committed to figuring out how to use the Net to make information more accessible - and not just about the horse race of politics, but also about public policy. We will definitely do the Google scorecard campaign again with members of Congress. When it comes to the policy positions of presidential candidates, we are definitely working on using DMIBlog.com as a place to turn to for some of that information - like through our series on immigration. We'll follow up with additional profiles on a variety of issue areas.

I read somewhere where you said that winning elections is all well and good, but that we need to get to a point where people associate their everyday lives with the consequences of a governing philosophy.

I said that? That sounds smart. You sure it was me?

Ha. I'm paraphrasing.

I like your paraphrase. I may steal it!

Going on faith that you said something like that, that seemed to start to happen a bit right after Hurricane Katrina and even in the 2006 congressional elections some...

Yes. Absolutely. In fact that is why I think Democrats won in the mid-term elections - the vast majority of people in this country feel that life is harder than it has to be, and they want government to play a role in making it easier. And that's the line in the sand between the left and right. What's the role of government? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that our country is guided by our values? The market? I don't think so. It's not just about electoral victories. It's about shaping minds.

But it seems like we're several steps away from that being the way that politics, and therefore policy, gets done.

Look, I love politics, the ins and outs of it. But the reason I do think tank work is because I believe you have to actually create a constituency for progressive policy, and that means impacting people's world views. You have to create the environment in which progressive policy can be passed. That's why I do what I do.

Is it fair to make a connection then, between what DMI is doing day in and day out, this corner of the progressive infrastructure you're trying to build, and the idea that maybe we shouldn't go around just pouring all of our money into candidates every two years?

Well! I do want to win in the electoral landscape, but yes, if we simply invest our money in political races, we will miss the opportunity to shift mindsets. Take Social Security. The privatization debate that took place and will take place again, because we are absolutely going to have to deal with the Baby Boom retirement. Do people truly understand that Social Security is social insurance, not an investment program? Do they understand -- particularly younger generations -- that the creation of Social Security responded to a very serious need and that it has played a critical role in creating "the American dream"? We have to make sure there is a base of people who get it.

Otherwise the outcome will be dependent upon politics and the media. No good. Not a long term base. But that doesn't mean we should then invest all of our dough into these huge idea generating institutions if they are not having an impact on public opinion. At DMI we say our goals are two: shape the public debate and influence public policy. We must do both. One cannot happen without the other.

Without giving away company secrets, how do you go about doing that? And I'm hoping you can talk about how you do that nationally and in New York as well.

Well, we're still learning how to do it. On shaping public opinion - go to the public. Our op-eds run in places like the New York Daily News. We do morning-time talk radio. We get covered in places like the Chicago Sun-Times, Bangor Daily News and the New Jersey Star Gazette. We do Google campaigns - and we got 24 million hits on that, by the way. You don't shape debate by only doing Russert and WaPo. It's a part of the mix, but cannot be the strategy. So we try really, really hard to reach out to media that actually target the vast majority of America. Not just the insiders.

End run around Lou Dobbs...

Right. If he can do it, we can do it. The Manhattan Institute knows this. They are the right-wing think tank in NYC. We try to emulate a lot of their strategy -- for example, being a national institute but having a strong presence in NYC, using the city as a laboratory for the discussion of their ideas. They publish op-eds in the New York Post for God's sake. You go to what people are reading and watching if you want to reach them. We don't have to do trickle down ideas. Trickle down ideanomics? Oy, forget it.

Oh, no. it's on record. Belongs to the world now.

Ha. For a little while, I was a regular contributor to the New York Daily News, too. It's just about trying. Now, of course we also publish in other places. I have an article that just an hour ago came out in The Nation about the new populists elected to the Senate, where they fall short on immigration, and how immigration can be used to advance a progressive agenda. We have published in the [New York] Times and we do progressive things like Air America, but it's about broadening our approach to truly amplify the ideas.

On immigration, it seems like a bit of an uphill battle, with people like Ted Kennedy supporting guest-worker programs and the like...

But it's a fight we have to fight. I don't believe in starting with compromise. We often have to distinguish our focus on middle-class issues between a middle-ground approach. We're not about middle-ground, we're about making progressive solutions resonate TO the middle.

To stereotype a bit, progressives are generally comfortable with the idea that they very wealthy are going to do okay on their own. But do you ever get caught in policy battles between focusing on the middle class and those who are struggling a bit more? In other words, is there daylight between your approach and one that's focused on systemic poverty, for example?

Yes. In the beginning, we were really viewed with suspicion by the traditional progressive community. Why are we focused on the middle class instead of the poor? I even had a foundation executive say to me that Dr. King would roll over in his grave if he knew an organization named with his words was focused on the middle class.

Those people were and are wrong. The middle class lens is just that -- a lens. First of all, most people in this country identify as middle class. So we are speaking to them in the terms with which they identify. Second, the way to measure the strength of the economy, and a democracy, is by the health of its middle class. On that I have absolutely no doubt. Our viewpoint was -- hey, if the middle class is struggling, and if people can't work their way into it, then we've got a problem on our hands. Social and economic policy is failing.

So somebody like, say, John Edwards (and this is just an example), with his focus on the roots of poverty, might be using a different lens, but share some of the same conclusions and policy goals in the end?

Precisely. And, in fact, most of the bills that we cover in our middle class scorecards are NOT just about people who earn a middle income, they are about the vast majority of America who don't have the privilege of being super wealthy.

What's the day of the Executive Director of the Drum Major Institute like?

Each day is definitely different. For example, I began my day interviewing potential DMI Scholars - that's our new program to get progressive college students interested in public policy careers. I edited an op-ed written by a fellow on criminal justice issues. I ran out to hear the State of the City address by the Speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn (and felt gratified by her discussion of NYC's squeezed middle class!). I had a lunch with some folks who support progressive causes, headed back to do some more interviews, worked a bit on our upcoming conference, and now I'm talking to you!

But it depends. We are working on several research projects which I am actively involved with, I do my own writing, I meet with staff, I attempt to respond to email, I raise money, I handle our budget and finances, etc.

On money, any way for small donors to contribute to DMI?

Of course, through our web site! Every donation counts. Part of what makes us unique as well is that, as a think tank, we are primarily funded by individuals. This contributes to our flexibility (per our discussion above). While we are actively seeking our foundation support, we definitely appreciate having the base of people who believe in us. Instead of being locked in to multi year programming, etc., we are able to shift gears and respond to what is happening, or direct what is going to happen.

Your progressive roots go way back. I mean, you were a member of the New York City Board of Education when you were, what, in high school, right?

I was the student member. When I was in public high school in Brooklyn, the Board of Education decided to create a student position -- non-voting. That first year I served as the alternate, and my senior year I served as the member. I had been involved in student government already, and I really couldn't wait to represent my peers in this way.

That experience shaped my whole view about public policy -- the importance of being around the table and engaging the communities impacted by policy in the discussion about it.

If you're interested in keeping up with DMI's work, sign up for emails at www.drummajorinstitute.org. DMI's reports -- on immigration, the middle-class squeeze, Congress, education, and New York's middle class -- are all available online.

[Jump to comments from this interview's original posting on MyDD.]