Commenting on his exile from the Central Committee of the International Communist Party, Leon Trotsky described "inner party politics" this way: "the party organization substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organization, and, finally, a `dictator' substitutes himself for the central committee." I've remarked
elsewhere that the Republican Party has already reached this stage; the upcoming vote on the leadership of the DNC will give us an indication as to whether the same can be said for the Democrats.
The question is not just about winning or losing future elections, though that is, of course, very much at stake. The question is also about what it really means to call oneself a member of the Democratic Party.
Politics is a game among elites, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon, if ever. The "elite" in question varies by context. In countries ruled by corporate oligarchs, politicians are pawns of corporate power brokers, who are the real force behind every political maneuver. In the U.S., the model is a bit more complicated: Party politics has become such a specialized field of practice that politicians have their own peculiar set of professional interests, and act neither entirely as tools of corporations nor entirely as representatives of "the people." Politicians depend upon the democratic legitimacy that's derived from their posture as "representatives" of their constituents, but they tend to base most of their decisions upon an amalgam of their own personal professional interests and the collective interest of the party apparatus. Kerry backs Vilsack because it serves his presidential ambitions for 2008. Kerry also backs Vilsack because he believes that a center strategy is key to the future success of "the party," that is, of the maintenance of power by the politicians and the party officials. Left out of the equation are the interests of those the party elite purport to represent, which are taken to be identical with those of the apparatus - what's good for the party elite is what's good for the party members.
I've been particularly irritated lately by the argument that if we elect Howard Dean for Chairman of the DNC, "the party" will lose credibility. Let unsaid is what, exactly, is meant by "the party," and to whom we will lose this precious credibility. Is "the party" the millions of Americans who are registered Democratic? Well, then, let the party membership vote directly for the chief of the party apparatus. Why the middle man? And if we lose credibility, then it will only be from our opponents and a handful of independents and third party members. Oh well, the people have spoken.
Upon inspection, it becomes quite obvious who "the party" is: it's the party officials themselves, and in particular, the 440 members of the Democratic National Committee, and their concern is for losing credibility with the party members they pretend to represent. If the politicians and party officials seem "out of touch" with America and out of touch with their own party membership, then that's a significant cost to their political legitimacy. They have to maintain a credible pretense, and being bold risks exposing them for what so many of them are: hacks. To avoid that cost, the party establishment throws its support between Vilsack: safe, credible, vanilla. The maneuver is the same sleight of hand that these political professionals have raised into an art form: the art of protecting the party apparatus from the party members that it "represents."
Fuck them. If they were winning elections, then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on. But they're delivering absolutely nothing. Let the people speak, for once. Sign the petition:
http://www.drivingvotes.org/action/deanfordnc.php