Taking over our party

I wrote this back in March, but it's just as applicable today. Tomorrow is Democratic Party Meetup day.

----

Tomorrow is Democratic Party Meetup day, so make sure to attend your local event if possible. And let me suggest a topic, if I may:

How to take over the Democratic Party.

The more time I spend in DC, the more convinced (and annoyed) I am at the "establishment's" reluctance to offer greater transparancy and offer supporters a real role in building our party.

Not all DC Dems are implicated, and some are downright fervent about opening up the system Trippi-style. But ultimately, the establishment has been around too long to truly want any sort of change. So that's why we need to replace the establishment.

It'll take time, no doubt. Decades, perhaps. But it starts at the bottom. The Democratic Party is built layer upon layer. You have the national party, then the state party, then county parties. And taking over the county parties is the place to start.

What can you accomplish with a strong, motivated county party? You field candidates, act as sources for local media and help organize for elections. Then, you use that foundation to plot the overthrow of the state-level party. You do that by sending delegates to state conventions and taking control of the platform, taking state-level executive board positions, and grooming your slate of candidates for statewide runs (who then gets a say in who runs the state party apparatus). And so on.

I don't pretend to understand the machinations of the Democratic Party. It's almost as if the complexity is designed to keep out the riff raff -- i.e. people like me, who demand results instead of gladhanding and self-important titles. People who aren't satisfied with mediocrity.

So do it. Figure out how your local party runs. Find out how to elect yourselves to positions of authority. I've heard of people getting elected to county party positions with five measly votes. Change the local party culture. Learn how to win. And if your area is already Democratic, then learn how to win with better candidates and maintain your advantages while helping out Dems in less Democratic counties nearby.

Bitch about the party all you want. But, ultimately we all have the power to make a difference. To paraphrase the famous axium, think nationally, act locally.

•  Ward Committee

  I'm off to my ward committee meeting, to be officially voted in as a member.

  It's an interesting challenge to be the bridge between the net-connected but neighborhood-disconnected Meetup/Dean/Young Professional Democrats and the neighborhood-connected but net-clueless 60s Activist/Local Power Broker Democrats.

  by The Cunctator on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:22:51 PM PDT

•  It should be hard to take over a party

  Look at what happened to the "Reform" party.

  by Stirling Newberry on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:29:24 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    In other words, there has to be some inherent conservatism in any party if said party wishes to maintain any long-term identity.  The RP is a perfect example of a party which has no solid grounding in any political philosophy.

    If Dems with opinions similar to many on dKos wish to take control of the party, a great deal of the work has to start at the local level.  Look how many local and state officials somehom emerged over the 80s and 90s with little noise and, often, less competition.  dKos-style Dem's need to start pushing hard for the smaller positions.  From there, liberal Dems will have a great deal more leverage for retaking the party from the inside.

    by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:19:56 PM PDT

•  Taking over from the inside

  Our local group used to be Pitt for Dean, but we've changed our name; thirteen of us were delegates to the district convention; one is campaign director for the only Democrat running against Rep.Walter Jones, Jr.; we're deeply involved in the revitalization of the county party; we're committed progressive Democrats. How's that!

  by kateNC on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:29:40 PM PDT

  •  freakin' awesome

    that's what it is.

    by kos on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:36:46 PM PDT

  •  Anti-WJJr

    I'm with you in NC, Kate, in Carteret.  Rep. Jones is pathetic at voting in the interests of the people in our area.  I seriously doubt that he will lose this year, but hopefully Roger Eaton can give him a good race.  However, Eaton doesn't even have a useful website up yet, no bio, so the commitment looks half-hearted from this end.

    The county Dem party in my area is pretty disorganized, as well.  Can't seem to get much going this year.  If I didn't have full-time work and school, I'd be trying to get this county a lot more motivated.  Despite the almost even mix of Dems and Reps, our entire county board is Rep, as are many local positions.

    If you haven't heard it yet, check out the ad for Bill Cobey, one of the Rep candidates for NC Governor.  I've got a link to it on my blog.  Makes you believe its a joke....but its not!

    by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:30:48 PM PDT

•  Trippi Style???

  Why does Kos hate Dean?

  by talex on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:33:55 PM PDT

•  Locations suggest you ain't wrong

  Spurred on by Kos's call to get involved, I signed up just now at the meetup site.  And oooo, there are two separate ones set up for Portland, OR, where I live.

  And ugh.  They are both way the hell away from downtown and the close-in parts of Portland.  One is at like NE 76th and Glisan and the other is down on SW Capitol Highway (don't you care, non-Portlanders?).  And I don't have a car.

  Now, I can, and will, take a bus to get out to one of the meetings.  But I can't help but think that if there were more young, public-transit-using people involved, that maybe we'd have some of these a bit closer to the population center.  And it's not like they are at someone's home either, both are at coffeehouses.  We have ample coffeehouse space close-in, I say.

  Of course, I could be overly cynical about this.  Do any other Portlanders want to contradict me?

  by boy asunder on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:35:53 PM PDT

  •  Got to get in before they vote on locations

    It's important to get involved before they vote on locations, or yeah, you end up with places that aren't convenient for a lot of other people. I lived in Portland for a year, just off SW Capitol Highway, but I'll agree that it's pretty far out of the way for most. I bet all the younger activist types who live downtown are involved in other organizations and just bypassing the Dem meetups completely.

    A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

    by tmo on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:56:21 PM PDT

    •  Yep

      I'm realizing that now.  Maybe I can affect where the future locations are...

      by boy asunder on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:01:00 PM PDT

•  YES YES YES!!

  I could not agree more.  There was a good discussion (http://4democracy.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/18502/6944)
   last week following Colorado's State Convention where delegates at the state convention did just this - took back their party - by giving Mike Miles, whom the establishment would not even mention on their website just two weeks prior, the top line in the August Primary.  At the same convention, kucinich received 30% of the delegates and participants adopted a statewide platform resolution to institute a US Department of Peace.

  There is a lot of talk that the democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing activists to come in and marginalize the party from mainstream voters with "overly progressive" views.  We need to continue this discussion, but not with the tired old rhetoric that such activists are damaging the party.  SUch activists are part of the amazing spine transplant that has given the democratic party guys, not just take the party back, but to start leading America again.  We so desperately need this leadership right now...

  Democratic leadership has done nothing to convince me of their electability over the past several years since riding Clintons furtuitous connection with the largest economic boom of our time.  Fine, the ultimate leaders can continue to work to appeal to maintstream voters, but if they continue to marginalize their progressive quarter, they will continue to stand for nothing, and continue to get run over by a better organized republican party.

  So I agree, we unite.  And "uniting" includes paying attention to the hard working progressives who have something to say in this party.  We can't win, and won't win, without this voice being respected and engaged.

  by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:36:56 PM PDT

  •  I have examples, do you?

    *There is a lot of talk that the democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing activists to come in and marginalize the party from mainstream voters with "overly progressive" views.  We need to continue this discussion, but not with the tired old rhetoric that such activists are damaging the party. *

    Such activists took over in Michigan and Ohio and it ended up killing the Ohio Democratic party and nearly doing the same to Michigan (fortunately Ed McNamara, and to a much lesser extent former AG Frank Kelley, to those activists out behind the barn and kicked them until they nominated the eminently electable moderate Jennifer Granholm over 1 sure loser "progressive" and 1 spent bullet).  Do you have any examples of these sort of progressive pro-activists who actually, you know, won elections?  The fact that it will be a miracle if Miles takes 40% seems to have escaped your notice as well.

    by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:26:37 PM PDT

    •  You missed my point

      I'm not talking about the elected officials.  As some previous comments point out, elected officials are representatives of their constituents, and need to put their own agendas aside to do so.  I AM talking about the power base, and the fact that the democractic leadership, like it or not, cannot win by turning their nose up to the left or pretending they do not exist - the same way the repugs have to begrudgingly pay attention to the religious right.  Otherwise, they don't get the votes, and they lose.  In colorado, the state democractic leadership selected Ken Salazar behind closed doors and really pissed a lot of people off.  This was bad politics, and is exactly the reason why they have trouble mobilizing the power they need to win.  I am so tired of all this complaining about the left by the left, when good leaders take responsibility for their position and lead.  That's what the republicans do, even thought they're saddled with the religious right, david duke, russ limbaugh, etc ,etc.  Democrats absolutely need to be leaders, and stop complaining about why they didn't win (or why they're not going to win).

      by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:36:29 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        That's what the republicans do, even thought they're saddled with the religious right, david duke, russ limbaugh, etc ,etc.

        And what the Republicans do is throw a few crumbs towards these constituents while basically running whoever they think will win (thus the official party apparatus backing Spectre over Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, Dick Posthumus over Joe Swartz in the 2002 Michigan Governors primary, and Arnold in the California recall).  The Democratic left won't accept this and seems to want it all (despite the fact that when they basically got that sans the end of the war on drugs, with McGovern in '72 and Mondale in '84, it led to 2 of the greatest landslide in history).

        by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:46:11 PM PDT

        •  I like your spirit!

          Really, I do...and may I refer you to this?
          http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/

          I would work with you in a second for the common goal of new and better leadersip in our country, and (so far) am going to do everything in my power to support whoever the democrats select.  Hope to see you in November!

          by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:52:15 PM PDT

        •  I like your spirit!

          Really, I do...and may I refer you to this?
          http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/

          I would work with you in a second for the common goal of new and better leadersip in our country, and (so far) am going to do everything in my power to support whoever the regular democrats of colorado select.  I guess I am saying that I am glad we actually have a chance to choose. Hope to see you in November!

          by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:53:58 PM PDT

    •  WI

      "Do you have any examples of these sort of progressive pro-activists who actually, you know, won elections?"

      Russ Feingold. Tammy Baldwin.

      by ben masel on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:38:24 PM PDT

    •  Yes.

      Do you have any examples of these sort of progressive pro-activists who actually, you know, won elections?

      The Oregon Bus Project.

      by Slade on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:53:11 PM PDT

    •  Michigan

      Blanchard was the empty casing but was Bonoir really a sure loser?  I wouldn't really call him a progressive; more a populist (that word again) with union support and a superb environmental record.  Reminded me more than a little of Dean.

      But Granholm had the money and the backing of the party machine, plus Emily's List and other national PAC support.  In the end it was a close race and she needed all of it.  But I'd argue that it was her political connections and her personal demeanor that won her the election, more than any major difference in policy between her and Bonoir.

      Now if you wanted to talk about Geoffrey Fieger back in 1996, your post would be right on the money.

      by loretta on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:20:57 PM PDT

      •  Michigan in 2002

        Blanchard was the empty casing

        Are you from Michigan?  Anyways, we agree on this even though I liked Blanchard the first time through (he did the best he could in a bad situation).  The problem was that his time really had passed.

        but was Bonoir really a sure loser?

        It was being refered to as a Howard Wolpe campaign.  Which to me always seems like the kiss of death given how forelorn the whole thing seemed (granted, that was in 1994, when everything seemed forelorn).

        I wouldn't really call him a progressive; more a populist (that word again) with union support and a superb environmental record.

        Sorry I'm in Southeastern Michigan.  This is about as close to progressive as we get in our elected officials (and if you can combine union support with good environmental record you really are something considering the power of the UAW).

        Now if you wanted to talk about Geoffrey Fieger back in 1996, your post would be right on the money.

        That was what I was talking about in regard to "nearly killing the Michigan Democratic party" as that was a disaster (better funded that the Howard Wolpe effort, but with a more offensive candidate).  If memory serves this was also when State Senator Jim Berryman made a brief attempt to run for Governor and just got squeezed out (and then proceeded to run for congress and lose to Nick Smith by about 10 points).  

        by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:27:54 PM PDT

        •  I'm a

          SE Michigan born factory brat now ensconced in the capitol city.  Thought Blanchard did a good job on his first go, though he was something of a party hack.  Bonoir had more flair than Wolpe, but Granholm blew him away.   Proves what you said above about how people vote for the personality more than the policy, plus she played her cards well with the SE Michigan political machine.  I'm glad she won.

          To call Fieger a progressive candidate, I think you have to prove he had wider support than himself and a small lunatic fringe.  Of course, back in '98, to be a progressive was to be on the lunatic fringe by definition.  Not so true anymore, which is why Kos's post has merit.  Whether the middle leans left or right seems to go in cycles, and right now it's teetering back toward the left.

          by loretta on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:59:11 PM PDT

    •  Examples

      ...interesting that you have the "all politics is local" signature with that message.

      I have examples.  Paul Wellstone was the radical out-of-touch professor who would take the DFL (MN's democratic property) to crushing defeat.  He was polling 20 points below incumbent Republican Boschwitz.  He defeated  the "electable" candidates in the primary, and went on to win a close one over incumbent Boschwitz.

      And while we are on examples, the takeover of Republicans in all 4 branches of government (governors is the 4th) has coincided with the democratic proclivity towards "electable" candidates.

      Its not the progressives that hurt, its the Democrats who put down the progressives that scare the center.
      

      by sny on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:24:00 PM PDT

      •  Nope.

        And while we are on examples, the takeover of Republicans in all 4 branches of government (governors is the 4th) has coincided with the democratic proclivity towards "electable" candidates.

        No it wasn't.  It was the retirement of the veteran Southern Democrats.  As they retired this region went to its natural proclivites and started electing Republicans.  If the Democrats had paid attention to the Moutain states and the SW they'd have had a chance but they didn't.  Plenty of people (including Kos) are making the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation means causation when you have to prove causation.

        I have examples.  Paul Wellstone was the radical out-of-touch professor who would take the DFL (MN's democratic property) to crushing defeat.  He was polling 20 points below incumbent Republican Boschwitz.  He defeated  the "electable" candidates in the primary, and went on to win a close one over incumbent Boschwitz.

        Actually this brings to mind something different then the sides that either of us are taking and relates to something the late Paul Simon once wrote: "People vote for conviction, not beliefs" (in Winners & Losers, one of the better books I've read about the 1988 Presidential primaries).  I'd put it a bit different and say that people vote for candidates over platform.  From Granholm to Wellstone.  From Barack Obama (or Russ Feingold) to Jim Matheson (or Kathleen Blanco or John Breaux if you prefer).  People are willing to vote for candidate who they believe in, even if they don't necessarily agree with them.  This is one reason why Howard Dean created the stir that he did among a large portion of people and why so many were apathetic in 2000 (and why so many here like McCain even though he is even further right than me).  If the Democratic party can find candidates who people can believe in and have enough funding to run competitive races then we can win.  

        by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:16:39 PM PDT

•  Until the Dems stop looking like Repub Lights

  Nader will always look like a wonderful alternative.

  If the DEMS were really serious about being a second party, they would stop trying to get Ralph not to run and actually start running a productive campaign. Can someone say "ADDRESS SOME ISSUES????? Environment, hello!  Hunger in American, anyone DEMS out there actually listening?

  If the DEMS were really serious about being a second party, they would include the disenfranchised by having events that don't cost $200 + a pop. Average Americans should get a chance to meet and greet the Democratic Nominees for President, Sentate, House, etc.

  by jillian on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:37:51 PM PDT

  •  Isn't this...

    kind of what Kos was getting at, suggesting that progressives and young folks take over the party?

    And watch out that you don't run out of question marks there.

    by boy asunder on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:41:47 PM PDT

    •  Not necessarily

      Average voting folks are not necessarily 1) progressive....nor 2) young folks.

      I am talking about addressing the classwarfare that the DEMS have set about in their own party.

      We have to start actually listening to average folks...and not just in election years. We have to start including people who make minimum wage in this scenario. Actually TALK to them. Actually INVITE them to speak at functions. Actually GIVE them the opportunity to meet the political "stars".

      Oh, and you think I might have a few more question marks up my sleeve....?????????????????

      by jillian on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

      •  I stand humbled

        before your seemingly infinite stockpile of question marks. =)

        by boy asunder on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:59:58 PM PDT

        •  Don't get me started....

          on exclamation marks!!!!!!!

          ;-)~

          (and if questioned about the use of ......, I humbly state that I am a fan of Herb Caen)

          by jillian on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:02:06 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        to Kos and all of you for this...its right on what we need.  

        A nub of an idea resides, in my opinion, with working to build our communities.  After years of bologna budgets, I think we should start to think about reinvesting in schools, transportation, our social services and safety nets and public spaces again - of building our public riches and integrating this with personal security to weave a fabric of great strength made of public and individual strengths.  The whole dialogue in recent years has just been about accumulating personal wealth and power... our individuality has gone rampant at the expense of our obligations to one another....ENOUGH.  We gotta shift this and rebuild what matters if we are to survive and thrive as a country and to safeguard our citizens and a rich, diverse but strong society...

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:59:02 PM PDT

•  Dallas County Meetups

  I've been attending Meetups here in Dallas County (that would be Texas) for about the last year. They've varied wildly from completely disorganized to highly organized, and have attracted both oldtimers and newbies, candidates and the party regulars. I myself have used them to recruit precinct chairs and volunteers, and I have to say that the folks we're getting have been great. Certainly, they've made me more optimistic about where we're going in this county.

  Unfortunately, I'm going to miss this month's because the local Party scheduled a conflicting event for contributors, and I offered to help before I realized the conflict

  Our Executive Director resigned effective last Friday, and the new one came on board today, and this would have been a great way to introduce him around, but I'm sure he's going to be stuck glad-handing the money people, as will I.

  by precinct1233 on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:43:28 PM PDT

  •  It would be alot easier

    to take over from the bottom if we had a leader at the top promoting two simple ideas:

    The government belongs to us-- our privilege and our responsibility; and

    Government is not the enemy, and can be a force for good.

         (I don't need to remind anybody that this is what Dean is trying to do, do I?)
    

    by For Dean in Dixie on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:52:44 PM PDT

    •  Government

      The thought that government is not the enemy will have to be undone over years. It seems to me that this thought process is so ingrained that it will have to be gradually changed.

      by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

      •  Taxes

        Likewise, one has to fight the notion that taxes are inherently bad. They're not. Unreasonable taxes are bad. How, exactly, reasonable's defined should be a matter of debate, but it at least puts people on the road to a sane method of government financing. Instead of the current "taxes BAD! Bush SMASH!"/"Taxes good! Get 'em as high as we can!" divide, that is.

        by RHunter on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:24:55 PM PDT

•  Suppose you ran for office.

  Start at the county level, running for Treasurer.  How much would you have to moderate your rhetoric or compromise your principles?

  So you get elected, and then run for County Executive.

  So now you've been noticed as a real innovater.  You run for state Senate.  At that point how much have you had to adjust your rhetoric and principles to electoral and fund-raising realities?

  I don't know when you get to run for higher offices.  Whatever.  My point is that once you start seeking power, getting elected or reelected, or getting more power to do the things you believe in, has to become a bigger and bigger influence on you, perhaps an even bigger influence than the principles you believed in, in the first place.

  Very cynical, I know.  But when you want people to vote for you, you become a slave to popular opinion.  And when you want a political party to support you, you become its slave.

  by Gary Sugar on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:50:26 PM PDT

  •  Except

    Would you call the republicans in office, including the president, moderate or radical?  They have a lot of power in our country precisely because democrats have lacked the leadership qualities to stand up for things in a forceful and powerful way at critical junctures.  Radical conservative forces have turned our country into one of the most dangerous regimes in the world, and they have done it by understanding and using power.

    by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:56:58 PM PDT

  •  Servant of the People

    That's why the call it public service. You don't necessarally represent your own opinions, but those of your constituants. Granted, you are there to represent their best interests, and there will be times that knowledge of an issue will give you better insight ( I would imagine ) than that of the general public, and you will need to go in a different direction, but you will still need to explain and justify your actions if you want to get reelected.

    --
    forgive the spelling errors if any, I'm rushing through these comments.

    by niku on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:59:59 PM PDT

  •  It is these steps

    So you get elected, and then run for County Executive.

    So now you've been noticed as a real innovater.  You run for state Senate.  At that point how much have you had to adjust your rhetoric and principles to electoral and fund-raising realities?

    Its the County treasurer to Executive and Executive to State Senator that people tend to trip up on (and, of course, some counties don't have full executives :) ).  Several people are willing to support a candidate for Treasuer (where political views aren't as well publicized) than for Executive (in which they are).  From Executive to State Senator this can be similar.
    

    by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:30:54 PM PDT

  •  It is these steps

    So you get elected, and then run for County Executive.

    So now you've been noticed as a real innovater.  You run for state Senate.  At that point how much have you had to adjust your rhetoric and principles to electoral and fund-raising realities?

    Its the County treasurer to Executive and Executive to State Senator that people tend to trip up on (and, of course, some counties don't have full executives :) ).  Several people are willing to support a candidate for Treasuer (where political views aren't as well publicized) than for Executive (in which they are).  From Executive to State Senator this can be similar.
    

    by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:31:33 PM PDT

  •  Which is as it should be

    None of us has a monopoly on the truth.  Some of us are more clearsighted than others, but we live in a world where we have to take account of other people's not-so-clearsightedness.  Successful politicians pay attention to the latter and do what they can to advance the former.  The best recent practitioner of this extremely difficult art was Bill Clinton.  The master was FDR.  The left are not and never will be a majority in this country.  What we can do is keep the heat on, keep the light shining on glaring inequities,and force people with elected authority to confront them.  Nothing is easy in this business and nothing is costless.  One of the reasons we are in the mess that we are now in is that people like us (I speak for myself) sat out the '70s and the '80s because we thought the system was more or less on auto-pilot.  Big mistake, as we now know.  If you care, you have to work and take the hits.

    by Knut Wicksell on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:36:06 PM PDT

•  Meetups and productivity

  I've been going to democrat meetups since early in the primaries this year, and while I've found them both interesting and theraputic (gripe sessions), I haven't found them to be too productive. One thing I've done is setup a local democratic mailinglist for the Santa Monica, CA area, which has been somewhat useful, but one thing I've noticed is there hasn't been any actions on the agenda. Arrange to setup a canvasing day, or setup a voter registration even for demographic X would be useful. Several other people I've met there and I have tried to do things like this, but most of the meetup is wasted trying to decide what event to do, and usually nothing ends up getting done.

  If anyone has any advice on how to make these more productive, please feel free to let me know. Also, if anyone would like to setup a similar list for their area, I'd be more than happy to point them in the right direction.

  P.S.

  Forgive the spelling errors if any, I'm speeding through this as I've got other stuff to do and probably shouldn't be spending my time reading kos @ work. :)

  by niku on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:55:57 PM PDT

  •  as some one

    who adminstered Meetups for an organization the key to having a successful sessions are leaders of the group that are communicating directly with the organzation hosting the Meetup.  in talking to the Dean guys they actually got the email names of people that were willing to take an active leadership role and physically mailed them packets.

    Meetup is not designed to facilitate really active meetings.  it was intended to be a way for clubs to get together and talk with populations that would not normally be meeting physically.  Meetup is a corporate structure, they own your lists and it is very difficult to direct people to a detail agenda with downloadable materials.

    by juls on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:36:49 PM PDT

    •  Mailing list is independant

      I'm a Unix administrator & software developer, so when no host showed up at the first meetup I took email addresses and setup a private mailing list. Currently we have about 40 people on the list after about three meetups. While most people add their email addresses @ meetups, it's open to anyone who would be interested in the santa monica/L.A. area.

      It's been fairly useful. It allowed us to organise the moveon.org phone banking thing very easily, as all it took was one email and then 40 people knew about it. In the same respect, we had a houseparty/fundraiser for kerry which got a lot of people from the list.

      I'm sure that when local campaigns and the barbara boxter race comes up, it should become more useful over time.

      by niku on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:47:05 PM PDT

  •  Problem with Dem Party Meetups

    The Dem Party Meetup gets moved around the calendar just about every month.  It makes it almost impossible for a seriqus group of local activists who want to build and maintain a working Meetup if we don't know from one month to the next when the Meetup will be.  Just as a small example of the difficulty, we should be able to announce at the end of one Meetup the date of the next one, the Dem Party Meetup coordination makes that impossible.

    This has led to the discontinuation of our local effort to build the Dem Meetup in our area.  It now looks more reasonable (since those that were doing this work came out of the Dean campaign anyway) to roll our effort back into the DFA Meetup, which at least has the virtue of having a predictable schedule.

    by Dancing Larry on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:17:26 PM PDT

•  Dreadfully little time for sloth OR idleness...

  Dreadfully little time for sloth OR idleness...

  Truth is, one needn't even lift a finger.
  A clear vision, widely maintained, has a way of acting upon the universe in such a manner as to change it such that the vision, if held, becomes manifest.

  We need a clear vision. And we need to hold it in our superior minds.

  The rest will work itself out. Godspeed!

  -Anonymoses

  by anonyMoses on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:07:04 PM PDT

  •  Respectfully Disagree

    I think that most Democrats, if not the Democratic Party, do have clear and compelling visions.  Reducing the ever-accelerating gap between rich and poor, ending discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or sexuality, preserving our environment, protecting workers against the powers of large corporations...I could (but won't) go on and on.

    But we also need to work out the details of those goals and devise workable schemes for implementing them, and for achieving the power to implement them.

    by Gargoyle on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:12:55 PM PDT

•  Going GREEN

  Helping to build the Democratic Party isn't exactly what I had on my mind this morning

  I do not mean this as disrespect, but to improve kos and other such boards in the future. The moderators here do not have the intellectual chops to do high strategy for the Democratic Party or for us.  I've done this kind of work most of my life and I don't see the ability.  I've also assessed ability and what I see are people in the IQ neighborhood of 115-125, right about where George is, nothing to write home about.  However it has been my observation that it is these "slightly bright" individuals who think they know a good deaL MORE THAN THEY DO.  The moderators do an adequate and sometimes better job of surfacing interesting writings from other places.  Most of the time the side margin diaries do a better job, and very often the diaries less attended to are the more acute.  It seems to me the moderators this past weekend were well out of bounds in attempting to stifle free and open speech, and they owe the community an apology.

  Certainly my experience on this board this past weekend has been one of the most radicalizing events I can recall, mostly in light of being hushed up by the intellectual giants who act as page 1 editors hereabouts.  I am concluding that my gay brothers and I have wasted the last 40 years working for Democrats, contributing our unique creative energy, our time, our shoeleather and our wealth.....I can't help thinking that we'd all have been better off leaving and joiniung the Greens a long time ago and building that organisation....I certainly would have done so before this had I expected this kind of reception in 2004.

  I have had these thoughts before particularly with respect to the traitor Diane Feinstein and more recently with so many democrats, silent about gay marriage and with Barbara Boxer who recently described current marital arrangements in this state as "fair." Silence wasn't enough.  She just had to go that rage inducing extra mile.
  She doesn't need my vote and she won't get it.  I know the implications.  I am an old fart and I've lived with worse.  

  Just a cautionary note. Many in the inner circle in Sacramento regard Gavin Newsom's gay marriage stunt as exactly that...an attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the Democratic Party to the Greens in SF, and from what I hear it has had some effect, but is probably temporary.

  When I was coming up politically, I learned that solidarity was a good thing and that it was a two way street.  But except in the most local of elections that is not what we have witnessed.   We have instead seen one betrayal after another...the Reagan DEmocrats in the blue collar lines, the unions (who do they think their members are?), the blacks (who do they think was doing the protest marching in the south?)...it's just amazing.  And now this weekend with kos, and digby etc.

  No, I won't be going out to some meetup to strengthen the Democraqtic Party.  I'll be reassessing my role in it.  Maybe it's better to lose with the Greens than to win with the Democrats and have nothing to show for it.

  by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:11:52 PM PDT

  •  Just a note..

    The attacks you receive from this line of thought (except for the remark about IQ, which I thought was a bit arrogant), represent exactly what is wrong with the democratic party.... a sense of entitlement to votes from the left, a knee-jerk reaction to attack within rather than the real trouble-makers on the other side of the aisle, and, most of all, fear.  This is exactly why the demacrats lose

    by 4democracy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

    •  An Overly Kind Assessment

      IQ comment "a bit arrogant"?  feh!  Pomp & Arrogance in Spades!  (Or did you miss the "intellectual giants" barb?)  

      As for NCJ's belief that the mods "... don't have the chops ...":  Well, damned fine, then, that NCJ decided to grace us with his deeply insightful presence.  

      Meanwhile, 4D, you speak of "knee-jerk attack".  Frankly, what I see is NCJ's attack.  The word you should have found is "defense".  

      Why Democrats have been losing is the result of a myriad of reasons, but one of the greatest is that which Howard Dean awoke in many of us, and that Kos addressed in this topic:  the need to take back the party.  This isn't a question of Progressive v. Moderate so much as it's a question of politically featherbedded insiders who have coopted what should be the party's main goal - getting its candidates elected.  The Democrats have not had full control on the national agenda since 1994, and there's only an outside chance that they will be able to recover it in this election.  (Belmont stakes)  To recover completely will require many elements, but one of the surest is to take control of our party.

      Mostly, though, I just find myself awestruck by the beneficence of NorCalJim, who has chosen to gift us all with a nugget from his superior intellect in a thread about BUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  Just special ...

      by wystler on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

  •  <B> now back on the track ... </B>

    Jim doesn't want to take over the party, and I'm ok with that.  But to get back on the track here, I think the party can be won back and I think that it is not just the young or the net-aware who are going to do it.  There are a lot of people who are working to promote democrats in house and senate elections and that effort is what we need to be part of.  I see in the "daily kos" the kind of intellectual resource that gets me a broader picture of what's happening, and when I go to the fundraisers here in NYC (just back from one for Obama), I make sure the candidate knows that I follow his campaign here.  There is a way to link cyber space and street leather.  I think Dean was going in the right direction and we worked for him and raised money for him, but he seems somehow "off on a tangent" now.  My sense is that another answer will be shaped here.
    

    by bob in ny on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:28:56 PM PDT

    •  party can be won back

      Thank you and good luck.  We have been trying to do that for 30 or 40 years.  All they've done is suck us dry and in the end spit us out.  Hope you have bneetter luck than we've had.  

      But based on last weekend, what do we need another "new" Democratic party...it seems to me to be just as closed as the DLC and the Republicans.  And here, just as   and authoritarian.

      by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:33:25 PM PDT

  •  Uh-huh

    I've done this kind of work most of my life and I don't see the ability.

    Oh, so you'd be one of those people who's been losing elections to the Republicans for the last thirty years?

    I've also assessed ability and what I see are people in the IQ neighborhood of 115-125, right about where George is, nothing to write home about.

    Of course, if you had any clue at all in that empty head of yours, you'd know that IQ has next to nothing to do with intelligence or ability. Especially not in a highly subjective and emotionally charged field such as politics. George could have an IQ of 750 and that wouldn't make him a good politician, a good leader, or a good man.

    by RHunter on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:36:57 PM PDT

    •  Odd note on IQ

      from what I recall Madonna has a higher IQ than J.D. Salinger.  And yet I'd still rather read Catcher in the Rye than listen to one of Madonna's CDs (granted, I'd rather read than listen to most CDs, minus my Jazz collection of course).

      by Mister Gloom on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:48:55 PM PDT

      •  same here re Sal & Mad.

        Of course they are doing different things.  I'm just saying that it is often the slightly above average who focus on the 'above average' rather than the "slightly" and tend to ignore their own limitations.....in this case by deciding that the rest of us ought to shut up.

        by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:07:18 PM PDT

    •  Gosh

      Don't take it personally...unless you are one of the slightly above average tyrants.

      by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:03:10 PM PDT

  •  I've now read this three times

    over the space of three hours. I'm astounded at your arrogance and self-belief. Your arrogation of knowledge to yourself seems based on a small sample from a limited area and demographic. Gee, what's like to be an Uber-mench? And modest too. Hubris on the hoof.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:03:48 PM PDT

    •  Yep, you're right.

      Being told to shut up definitely gets my juicies flowing.

      by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:39:49 PM PDT

  •  Has it ever occurred to you that

    "slightly above average" IQ's may actually be more valuable for party building than supposed policy geniuses, since they are more likely to bring other useful attributes to the political table?  While I certainly value exceptional intelligence (and just for the record, my own IQ is somewhat above the range you've diagnosed for this community), the fact is that high intelligence is only slightly more meritous than high income, and is probably of no more use than wealth in governing a nation of 290 million people, most of whom presumably are in the 95-110 range.  A high IQ might make a great policy wonk-- one of the smartest people I know (albeit one with social skills that could insult a turnip) is quite adept at analyzing policy, but he cannot sell it, implement it, or make it functional, because he has no sense of the needs of the end user, i.e., a normal citizen.

    I don't have any more use for authoritarian progressives than for authoritarian conservatives, to be honest... both see the citizenry as a bunch of louts to be governed with a heavy hand, and both see their pet causes as more worthy objectives than the preservation of our principles.

    by latts on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 08:10:08 AM PDT

    •  Not really arguing those issues.

      I am arguing that the Page 1 editors went well beyond their basic limits in attempting to stifle reaction to RR.  The idea that this group, however talented and dedicated in other ways, can make that political strategy strikes me as just as arrogant and loopy as I have been accused of being.  And it was extraordinarily insulting to those who suffered and continue to suffer from his policies.  And to encourage the same people to engaeg in party building after such an incident really seems batty.

      It is fascinating that everyone has fastened on the snarky IQ comment rather than the substance>
      I wish they had commented on the substance...forget the Dems, focus on the Greens, and you can't stifle free speech successfully.

      by NorCalJim on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 11:20:02 AM PDT

      •  It's pointless for many of us

        to focus on the Greens because we can barely even keep the Democrats afloat-- at least in your neck of the woods the rednecks are balanced somewhat by an equally dogmatic liberal opposition, while in much of the rest of the country the best we can muster are clusters of mildly agitated suburbanites.

        Your post might have gone over better had you focused on what does actually seem to be a bit of a problem in policy matters-- the immutable complacency of those with both moderately high intelligence and moderately high wealth.  It's basically the "Heathers" or SCLM syndrome that makes reasonably clever people too compromised financially to be intellectually honest, and is compounded by the fact that they, like so many Americans, want to think of themselves as more realistic and in touch than they actually are.

        However, having said that, I still take issue with the IQ statements; at best that's no way to win support for your party, and the derision you aimed at posters here certainly supports my argument in the previous post.
        

        by latts on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

        •  Hmmm

          Comments clearly weren't aimed at regular posters///that's a false accusation.  THings are what htey are...don't kill the messenger.  It is also athr group norm here to argue policy here in terms of intelligence....Happens all the time to GWB , Reagan, Senators, Congressmen.  So it's fair play here.  How many of the people above decrying my use of it to criticise a 'dumb move' haev ever criticised its use aginst Republicans?  It's trying to have it both ways.

          by NorCalJim on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 12:27:45 PM PDT

          •  I haven't been around here that long, but

            my impression was that most of the moderators were posters & diarists initially.

            You said:

            "The moderators here do not have the intellectual chops to do high strategy for the Democratic Party or for us.  I've done this kind of work most of my life and I don't see the ability.  I've also assessed ability and what I see are people in the IQ neighborhood of 115-125, right about where George is, nothing to write home about.  However it has been my observation that it is these "slightly bright" individuals who think they know a good deaL MORE THAN THEY DO.  The moderators do an adequate and sometimes better job of surfacing interesting writings from other places."

            This is a political blog, not a mainstream or even a fringe newspaper, and it is overtly & unabashedly partisan (hint: the party in question is not the Greens)... the objective of such venues, as I understand it, is to analyze political news and events within the ideological framework to which the host(s) subscribe, thereby strengthening the focus & power of the viewpoints discussed.  I have to say that your deigning to give a slightly higher rating to diarists also emphasizes the fact that other viewpoints are generally welcome here-- ever try to dissent on a right-wing blog?  For that matter, do you want to check out how many influential bloggers don't accept comments, much less full diaries?-- insofar as they add to the discussion, even though the points cited might well be outside the norm for the community & therefore discussed in that context.

            So, I'm not so much killing the messenger as I am pointing out that you have insulted the relative intelligence of those who are members of the community in high standing, and also insulted many community members by extension, and that you are winning no [desperately needed] converts for your own political philosophy.  You and your fellow geniuses can sit in the corner and write brilliant, world-saving policy all day long, but you're never going to find anyone to make it happen using those tactics.  And please keep in mind that I'm more of an elitist than a populist myself, so if you offended me you've gone a pretty long way.

            There's undoubtedly a wide range of posters here in terms of intellectual ability-- you might want to consider that most of the assessments you cited may not be based on pure theoretical intelligence so much as a) an obvious and deep lack of understanding of the principles on which the country was founded (esp. as it applies to Republicans), or b) a lack of political honesty and/or pragmatism (frequently, though not exclusively, applied to Nader supporters.  Since as both approaches often lead to bad policy or political failure, I'd say that "dumb" is the kindest way to describe them.

            by latts on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 01:33:01 PM PDT

            •  actually

              I'm a DEmocrat. but a very frustrated one.
              I wasn't advertizing for anything.Although there are indeed a fair number of Greens here and moderate Republicans as well.  I hope Kerry is elected and I expect he will be by 5%+, maybe 10%.  But I expect him to pull a full CLinton, run right down the center of the road.  I don't expect any progressive movement from him at all.

              My question, to myself really, is whether for long term goals it would have been better, and might yet be better yet, to work with the alternate  party, as a member, supporting them on local elections until there is enough critical mass blah blah you know the rest.

              I don't know where this hushup stuff came from...I still think it was bizarre in any kind of a left org. and wrong.  And when anyone is that grandiose to me, i consider it an invitation to provide a mirror and shine it right back at them.  
              The right needs to know what we think of them and will hopefully discharge their own obligations with a view to their own lagacies.  The side diarists ARE good, an the pg 1 editors use them a lot.  So what?  Do you think the pg 1 editors are good strategists and that they made a good policy in trying to shoosh people.  At this juncture I don't even think they believe it was a good idea.

              The issue is Reagan and Reaganism and whether the Dem party can ever function effectively as a progressive counter weight
              public campaign financing
              national health care
              equal treatment for gays
              global warming
              living wage
              tax reform
              etc etc etc
              In the old days it had an agenda which was progressive and it knew how to sell it.  These days it seems more embarrased by than embracing of progress.  It seems to have no soul.  Oh, I'm sorry, I should hush up.  Someone might hear.

              by NorCalJim on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 04:30:07 PM PDT

•  To listen to you people

  you would think it had been 50 years since we had the last Democratic President.  HELLO - we had eight years of Clinton who is one of the most beloved presidents, and Gore WON the 2000 election and we all know it.

  I dislike it a great deal when Kos posts this kind of whiny rant.  I always suspect that he's really talking about himself and his own ambitions.  If you want to be a big part of the Party, go work for it and pay your dues like everyone else.

  by chamilto on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:28:28 PM PDT

  •  White House...

    ... Doesn't matter if the Republicans have a sizable majority in the Senate, Congress, the Supreme Court, and state governments.

    And Clinton was just two policies (taxation and balanced budgets) away from being a Republican, so that's nothing to boast about. He's responsible for the DMCA, among other such atrocities.

    by RHunter on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:40:00 PM PDT

    •  So now Clinton's an enemy too?

      sigh  Let's just break out the hatchets and start dismembering Kerry now.  We always eat our own.  Why wait?

      by chamilto on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:51:07 PM PDT

      •  ourown?

        If one truly harbors humanitarian values, Clinton and Kerry are not "our own" and who would want to eat them as they would be probably be very tough?

        by Fabienne on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:09:34 PM PDT

•  kos's platform

  seeing as how kos is telling us to enforce a platform for the Democratic party, maybe we should all come up with a unified platform to enforce. Kos should put together a mission statement, or a kos platform. What would it look like?

  by freejared on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:28:53 PM PDT

•  You are dead-on correct

  While the dems were busy being "national" in the 70s and 80s, relying on their greater party numbers, conservatives were building a powerful party from school board elections on up.  The most important level in the democratic party is the local level.  This is the level where we fight for election access, school boards, and county commissioners.  If we are strong at the local level, then we can be strong at the state level.  And if we are strong at the state level, then we send dems to DC and send democratic electoral candidates in favor of the democratic party. It seems to me that the democrats have become too national in scope, and not grass roots enough.  

  by zmuse on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:30:23 PM PDT

•  Kos, can you elaborate?

  I don't really understand from your post to what end you want to take over the party.

  Who is it that should take over the party and what is it that this takeover should accomplish?

  Is the goal to move it more to the left?  Is it just to decentralize the power, and, if so, what does that accomplish?  Is it about policy or process?

  If I'd been on Kos from the beginning, maybe I'd undertand better, but I hope Kos will explain this further for me.

  My own take is that I would like to see the party enforce the same kind of message and vote discipline that the Republicans demand.  My opinion is that the Democratic Party was weakened considerably by defections from centrists in 1993/1994 on the health care bill.  If they had hung tight and turned Republican opposition into partisan sniping we'd have a better health care system and would not likely have had the Republican landslide in 1994.  The sniping between the left and the DLC today continues to weaken us and both sides should cut it out and focus on beating Republicans.  

  While I want the party to be more of an opposition party and more progressive, I also want to win races, which is why I support people like Stephanie Herseth in SD and Ken Salazar over Miles in CO.  

  It's also why I've been a big proponent of Jeff Smith in MO-3, a MO Democrat in a Democratic primary.  If we want the Democrats to be a stronger opposition, a good start would be to make sure that Democrats in safe districts are the kind of Democrats willing to challenge Republicans.

  by dcg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:59:42 PM PDT

  •  I don't claim to speak for kos

    but this is how I see it. Kerry should be our candidate. Instead of feeling like we are part of a team, there are daily posts trying to figure out why he is quiet on issues, why is he waiting to speak ... is he playing a talented game/or just being meek ... but nothing to indicate that the politically-minded liberal set here is involved whatsover in what he is doing. If the folks here don't know, then the average American sure as hell doesn't know. And if the folks here don't know, he is loosing a very large talent base.

    Dean followers at least felt involved. Yes it may seem silly to those adults among us, those who are only concerned about winning elections, but feeling like you are part of a movement is important. The GOP has 30,000,000 ditto-heads that will follow what Rush/Falwell tell them without uttering a single question. Thankfully, we democrats 'eat our young'. I don't want to give money blindly to someone that will make a decision after deep consultations with 'advisors'. I want to support someone that is already listening to me. Someone that already has a mechanism in place to hear everyone's voice. Not a Republican-lite system where how much money you have influences what your importance is. I realize that is odd for a democracy, but I can dream.

    by mickT on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 08:06:45 PM PDT

    •  Actually.

      It's not that odd for a Democracy.  Candidates do have mechanisms in place for listening to us -- it's called polling, and most of us here decry it's use.  

      That said, I think maybe I understand -- you want the party to take a more populist direction?  I can dig that, but it'll take maintaining record campaign contributions for years and years so that we can achieve a strong enough financial position so that we don't need any of those corporate donations.  

      However, I think there is a little bit of a disconnect between your reasoning and your direction (assuming I have it right).  Basically, I don't think that the reason Kerry doesn't "listen" to you is because he takes money from corporate interests, I think it's because he's trying to cobble together a winning coalition using his best judgement to do it.
      

      by dcg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:06:27 PM PDT

    •  money and influence

      What is truly off for a "democracy" is that "how much money you have influences what your importance is."  I think this more adequately defines capitalism than democracy.

      by Fabienne on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:13:42 PM PDT

•  Turn the party

  over to the left leaners and we will win or lose with a smile on our faces.
  PEACE!
  ABB&B!!!

  by PC on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:34:10 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    swinging to the right has worked SO well ...

    now where did we misplace that legislative branch?

    by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:20:48 PM PDT

•  I did my part, such as it is...

  I ran in and won an election for precinct executive - the guy I beat had been precinct executive for 20+ years.

  I didn't intend to run against someone - I almost pulled out of the race before it even started - but when the state senator said "I know you - I've never met him" and he'd been a precinct exec for that long, that told me we need some new blood.

  Our county co-chairs, a lawyer and a state senator, then asked me to serve on the Executive Committee. What happens next, I don't know, but it's an honor to help guide this party locally.

  I think we're finally starting to grow some courage here, though we're still a good bit away from Hamilton County being a solid Dem place. However, it WILL happen. I'll do my part.

  WF
  

  by Wes F on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:42:18 PM PDT

  •  Cinti?

    Hamilton County, as in Cincinnati, yes?  If that's the case, I both salute and envy you.  Hamilton County politics were not kind to me when I lived there from 1999-2001.  I hope things are going well for you there.

    by Kaj on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:07:38 PM PDT

    •  Indeed, as in Cincinnati.

      I've been here since 1994, and lived in Mt. Auburn, Clifton Heights, Delhi, Silverton, and now Clifton.

      What's your story?

      WF

      by Wes F on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

      •  not much of a story, really...

        I lived in Cheviot, North College Hill and in this weird no-man's land just outside of Northside.  I worked for a Butler County homebuilder with hands in plenty of Republican pockets, and it spurred me to try and help out with the Gore effort.  I didn't get very far.

        That, and the fact that I had to regularly assist my boss in planning "functions" for all the Indian Hill hypocrite elitists... blargh.

        I do miss Cincinnati, though.  Say hello to the Graeter's on Ludlow for me.  Mmmm, and Habanero. :)
        

        by Kaj on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 08:52:56 PM PDT

        •  Mmm, Graeter's...

          Also, was just at Habañero on Friday night!

          So you're in Indy now - I grew up near Bedford.

          WF

          by Wes F on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:10:07 PM PDT

•  I was elected to the state committee

  Last month at the State convention, I was elected to the Democratic State Committee.  How many votes did I need?  Just one.  There were three spots on the committee for men from my county, and there were three who were on the ballot.  And what did I have to do to get on the ballot?  I had to get 10 signatures of state convention delegates from my county.  That was it.  Also, our county committee is open to anyone who wants to be on it.

  by davidinmaine on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:47:54 PM PDT

  •  Good News/Bad News

    Classic case:  

    Good on you for stepping up.  We need folks who will commit to this if the Democrats are going to take back what should be rightfully theirs.

    Sad, though, that more folks don't believe it's important enough ... ten sigs can't be hard ... looks like you've got big work trying to attract more talent ...

    by wystler on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 10:45:13 AM PDT

•  Make my day

  Tell me he's still dead.

  by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 05:53:06 PM PDT

  •  well

    corporally -- but he'll still be haunting us for the rest of the political season ... if not the rest of our lives.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:19:31 PM PDT

•  there is no national Democratic party

  except in opposition to the Republicans.  Let's be honest.  We do not have unanimity or even majority agreement on many issues.  We have some dems who are budget hawks  -- eg, Fritz Hollings.   We have others who have served in leadeship who were pro-life, eg: David Bonior.  We have some who are very pro-military :  eg, John Murtha.   We have some who are very pro-business, eg:  John Dingell.

  All national parties are somewhat of coalitions.   It is one reason we have in general maintained a polity of a two-party system throughout most of  our history.  Parties that become too insistent on ideological purity tend to fragment and lose power.  

  When I am asked if I am a Democrat, officially I answer that I am not, since living as I do in Virginia we do not have party registration, and since I have within the past two elections voted for one Republican over a democrat (an incumbent for school board whom I knew and respected).   And I am old enough (58 two weeks ago) to remember when many important Democrats in the Congress were racist, anti-labor, and with no tolerance for those who opposed the Vietnam war.   Do names like Richard Russell, John Stennis, James Eeastland, Jduge Howard Smith, and the like ring any bells?  

  At the same time, I also acknowledge that far too much of our politics has been oriented towards dissuading people from voting for the other guy rather than persuading people to vote for our guy.   Thus we have seen a continuing decrease in voter participation.  And it is not that young people (or older people) don't care about issues, but that they do not see that their votes make any difference in  policy.  

  Unless and until we have leaders who will appeal to our better angels rather than invoke our fears, I do not see this dynamic changing.   My interest in and support of Dean came not from the anger, which was there and certainly valid, but from the hope, that if we got involved we could  change the direction of this nation.

  I see many Democrats who have borrowed some opf the rhetoric, but really do not grasp why Dean resounded so deeply with so many of us.  I see a party at the national level that wants our money, our support, and our votes, but not our ideas.  I see campaigns again being oreinted towards a top-down, consultant driven structure.  This may win some elections, but does not change the electoral and political dynamics the way a Dean nomination might have done.  

  We now have largely a conventional election process.  Even on dailykos, much of our dialog is about the conventional aspects  - tactical advantages in certain races, how will the military vote break, how can we phrase an issue to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate, and what do the latest polling neumbers imply.  But in none of this is there a call to service.
  Remember why Kennedy seemed so inspiring  -  at least on the service he called, in his inaugural, for something different, something beyond the conventional way.  He made call, that the torch had been passed to a new generation.  Think about it -- he was succeeding the then oldest president as the second youngest (and youngest elected) president.  In his person he represented what the speech invited -- a challenge to involvement.  Where is that in our politics?

  I have at various times in my life had opportunities for significant involvement in Democratic politics.  I have chosen instead to be involved in specific campaigns, for people for whom I was willing to make a certain sacrifice of my own ideas because I believed on the whole they offered something very worthwhile, and I wanted them to have the best opportunity to present their perspective to as broad a spectrum of the people as possible.  I have never completely agreed with any of them, but that didn't matter -- it was a choice that the candidate represented ON THE WHOLE something I could support, with the hope that my commitment on behalf of that candidate might give me some ability to influence policy on one or two issues that truly mattered to me.

  I think that paradigm of politics on which we have operated for the past several decades is obsolete.  I do not disagree that we can change the nature of our politics by taking over the mechanisms of the party by starting at the lowest level.   I concede that such is possible.  But then I must ask, to what end?  What is our purpose in so doing?  What do we seek to gain?

  I come reluctantly to the conclusion that even though the Democrats might win a major electoral victory at the national level, the kind of change this country needs might well not be the result.  I see no great vision in John Kerry, nor do I see it in most of the people running for House and Senate seats.  Even people I respect trim their sails in order to minimize the possible loss of votgers who might disagree on a position.  And yet  -  many voters have shown a willingness to support a person with whom they disagree on some important issues precisely because that person SEEMS to stand FOR something.   That was, in fact, part of Reagn's broad appeal.  

  I will not go to Demnocratic party meetups.  I will vote tomorrow in the Congressional primary for Jim Moran, even with all of his faults, because he is passionate, because he is willing to take risks, and because he served on the whole positively for the benefit of this District for 7 terms.  And when school is over I will spend part of my summer volunteering for a good a decent man in another district, Al Weed, running in the 5th CD of Virginia.  But oh how I long for a party that actually stood FOR something, that was not so afarid of alienating voters that it could speak forthrightly about how we are destroying this country.   I was not always an admirier of Hubert Humphrey, but he was right when he said that the measure of a society is how it treats those in the dawn of life, the very young, those in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those in the shadow of life, the poor, the homeless and the mentally ill.  There was a period of time when there was a clear recognition that if anyone was left behind, somehow we were all diminished   -- a la John  Donne's "No man is an island..."   Our politics must be about something more than just merely beating the other guys, or it become empty form without substance.  

  And now if you will forgive me, I will return to my real service, and get back to correcting the final essay exams of my 9th grade government students.  Maybe in my service as a teacher I can do far more good than I ever could in my forays into politics.

  by teacherken on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:03:17 PM PDT

  •  YES

    Exactly!

    by Frijol on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:25:23 PM PDT

  •  You have stated

    what I would have liked to have stated to a tee.

    by nolalily on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 08:16:41 PM PDT

  •  I was with you...

    I too will be voting for Moran tomorrow, and I tend to agree with most of what you say.  The problem that I see is that most politicians simply don't have any strong vision - they have to try and fake it as best they can.  That's what all of those high-priced consultants are paid for, I guess.

    You say that people voted for Reagan because he stood for something - the same could be also said for Wellstone - he had vision and he had passion.  He as well could get people to vote for him who may have disagreed with some or even many of his positions, but at their core they were moved somehow by his vision and passion.

    There are damned few politicians in the world who have vision and passion however.  I would imagine that most people who have the vision don't have the patience for it - our system of government is notoriously slow at adopting change, and I would expect that many would become quite disillusioned.  A further requirement for success is an individual who has such a positive view on life that they don't get ground down by the day-to-day.

    When you bring up Humphrey however the alarm bells go off however - in the household where I grew up he was far from a hero - he was just another "machine" politician in the same negative sense as all of the others, and you need to keep in mind that he was strongly pro-war (both Korea and Vietnam in this case).

    In our case it was quite personal - my dad had run for Congress on an anti-war plank - I don't recall what Humphrey's was doing at that time - probably Mayor of Minneapolis (I was just a small kid at the time).  The problem that came up was that Humphrey had his own candidate that he wanted to endorse - Humphrey pulled a Rove and made a statement which inferred that my dad was a communist or had communistic sympathies.  Back in those days that was still a serious charge, an let's just say that it was not appreciated.  My dad never did make it to Congress...

    by ericy on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 08:40:56 PM PDT

    •  I do not accept Humprhey uncritically

      but I have always found the statemnet that I paraphrase particuarly apt.

      I remember that when Johnson was preparin g to put Humprhey on the ticket in 1964 part of the prcie was to get old Hubert to get the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to accept a compromise so that Johnson could try to avoid a walkout by either them or the traditional racist Democrtic party -- LBJ was already anticipating the idea of a outhern Strategy.  Humprhey delegatged the task to Joe Rauh and Fritz Mondale.  The point was that Humprhey had creds on civil rights because of the 1948 speech, johnson wanted to use that and HHH was willing to trade his creds for the position on the ticket [and almost certain election].

      That said, it is worth noting that when Humphrey died the Congress and nation thoguht enough of him that he lay in state in the Rotunda.

      by teacherken on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 02:49:50 AM PDT

    •  Humphrey

      Have you read Hunter S Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail?"  It gave me the best insight into why so many on the Left despised Humphrey in 1968.

      by Pesto on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 08:01:35 AM PDT

      •  Actually I haven't...

        Too many books, so little time.  I guess I never considered his book because I never regarded him as a 'serious' author (thank Doonsbury for that).  Perhaps I should reconsider - I may have some time for reading next year after things settle down.

        My dad was a delegate to the convention in Chicago in 1968.  God what a zoo.  Plenty of lessons about what not to do...
        

        by ericy on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 06:51:27 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    Politics focused on winning or losing rather than on a principled vision for the future of the country is just paranoia and will only generate nightmares rather than a better future.

    by Fabienne on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:21:32 PM PDT

    •  Politics not focussed on winning

      will lead to losing, which will lead to a state as bleak as your worst paranoid nightmares could generate.

      Stop acting like these things are 100% either/or for a minute. Do you really believe that Kerry has no vision? Have you looked at his record? I'm not incredibly fond of the guy, but his priorities are all out there for you to look at.

      Don't confuse governing with campaigning, either. To see how Kerry is likely to govern on issues like the environment, look at how he has governed as a Senator. Campaigning is getting enough people to vote for you. Governing is doing what you believe is best for the most citizens.

      by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 06:34:32 AM PDT

      •  Kerry's votes

        I don't much like many of his votes in Congress, most especially the anti-labor votes, the vote for the Patriot Act, the vote for the "No Child Left Behind" act and the vote for the war resolution.  Yeah, I know he's better than Bush, but wow, who isn't?  Even Daddy Bush is better than Junior Bush.  But maybe it all really boils down to this:  I believe the idea of a pre-emptive strike is such an ethical downturn for this country that I find it impossible to draw the line on my ballot for anyone who does not reject this idea.  

        by Fabienne on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 09:40:23 AM PDT

•  This happened once

  50 years ago or so the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and fundamentalist Christianity.  Republicans were more libertarian.  Eventually this flip-flopped somehow, and it looks like the Democrats are becoming closer to a libertarian-type outfit, moreso than the Republicans ever were.  Of course, the problem is that there are radical leftists who will be partyless after that.  I see the Democrats as becoming a more centrist platform and abandoning a lot of the fringe elements for a more common sense platform.

  The Republicans have become the radical party of the right, the Democrats will fill the centrist roll, and then the radical left will fend for itself.  I think it's a step in the right direction since it will shift the political balance back towards the center and away from radicalism.

  by theboz on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:26:55 PM PDT

  •  There's a name for the spectrum you describe

    Canada.

    by Dancing Larry on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:46:56 PM PDT

    •  HA!

      Good point.  Nobody hates the Canadians, so it wouldn't be a bad political system for the U.S. to adopt.

      by theboz on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 08:02:50 PM PDT

•  50 years ago

  Harry Truman had integrated the Armed Forces and put a civil rights plank in the Democratic Party platform. It stayed there, even when the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention. The Democratic party was the party of labor and the new deal, small business, farmers and the savings and loan. The Republican Party was the party of banking and big business. Its major thrust was balanced budgets and lower taxes. There was a general agreement on regulation of markets, unempløyment insurance, progressive taxation, social security, and containment of the Soviet Union. The big change came with the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1968 when the rich crazies on the far right wing established the vast network of conservative think tanks that, today, dominates our discourse.

  by johnmorris on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 07:42:28 PM PDT

  •  you were rolling

    but goldwater was 64

    in 68, the gop nom was RMNixon

    by wystler on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 10:53:40 AM PDT

    •  oops

      You're right, 64. Still, my basic point was, that the Democratic party ha