Through a fortuitous series of events I wound up at a big fundraiser for the DNC last night, a reception and dinner for Howard Dean that raised, I think, 300,000 dollars for the DNC and for MA for organizing and outreach. I had the privilige and the pleasure of having dinner with about 20 other people with Governor Dean afterwards and hearing him field questions from activists and donors about the DNC's ground game and strategy. I'm a Deaniac,in my quiet way, from way back. I was drawn back into politics by Dean's willingness to stand up and say what he thought when no other Democrat was willing. I was excited to finally meet the man in person, and have the opportunity to speak to him directly. But I was also aware that real live politicians are very different from what we think of them from a distance. I couldn't have been more wrong. Follow me to the flip.
Dean, and his brother, were two of the most direct, genuine, and totally normal people I've ever met. Dean has his sound bites, but he fielded questions directly without really resorting to them, and when he listened to you you felt he really took the time to stop and listen. Now that I've heard him speak informally I also see his style--direct, simple, forceful--at work in the handouts and mailings I get from the DNC. I would have thought them the product of clever marketing techniques (and they are) but now I see their folksy, direct qualities as a reflection of Dean's personal style.
It was a casual evening get to gether with a lot of very regular folks--here in MA even the big money donors don't wear makeup or stockings (certainly the men don't) and it was mostly very serious political people. At the dinner the Governor spoke briefly about the 50 state strategy and what they were doing. He took questions from all sides and they were pointed but very supportive. He really showed his familiarity with every race, the polling in every region, the issues from the top to the bottom of tickets (people were constantly coming up to him and telling him personal stories about friends running for very low level positions because of Dean's influence on them and his insistence on really grass roots level politicking.) How do I know? I'm a huge eavesdropper! The excitement was everywhere. Even my taxi driver (not to sound Friedmanesque) had a story about how much he loved Dean and when he heard that I was going to meet Dean (I always talk politics with taxi drivers) he began shouting "He's my boy! He's my boy!")
Things that he said that were important. He is very aware (and so was everyone else there, even quite elderly people) of the blogs, of dailykos (mentioned prominently by one of the donors), of the issues the bloggosphere thinks are important. Some of the things we talk about daily--framing, messaging, aggressive partisanship, were discussed in quite a bit of detail and Dean seemed very familiar with all the ins and outs. He argued that we could pick up the needed seats in the house, though he was sceptical about the Senate, but he stressed the need to keep our candidates on message. And he felt that was a difficult task, more difficult than it needed to be, because of the more or less free agent nature of the democratic party (my words, not his) and the inherent indpendence of the liberal mindset--that makes us "good at governing but not good at running elections" was his take on it. Keeping the candidates on message, 24 hours a day, until the election is important because (although he didn't use this phrase) it enables the public to grasp the brand/Democrat. It gives the public confidence that the democrats are a known quantity. He pointed out, in a wide ranging discussion,that this can be bad for individual politicians because its a risky proposition for them but that its good for the party ultimately because it helps the party define itself agressively. The analysis was strikingly good and he went back a bit historically to back it up.
He alluded delicately, and politely, to the DCCC/DSCC/DNC infighting but said that, in some ways, it had ended up being very good for the 50 state strategy because if there hadn't been so many complaints about it it wouldn't have been as well publicized as it had been and, since it resonates so strongly with the grassroots and the electorate, that publicity is important. Another example of "every knock's a boost." One of the Donors who had made many phone calls to help organize the events said she found that everyone she called to raise money knew about the 50 state strategy and was very enthusiastic.
And they are right to be. The 50 state strategy is a winner and Dean seems to really have his feet on the ground on this one. A more practical, direct, hard headed realist of a political thinker I have yet to meet. He is really intending to build the party from the ground up--not from the top down. The 50 state strategy is bringing people back into the party and it is doing so in a way that is eventually going to force change at the top--force change in new and unexpected ways. Dean's focus on even the smallest races (even the smallest local races are going to have access to the big data base they are creating) and his focus on getting people to run for small offices and knock on doors is the exact opposite of the Green party's hit and run every four year strategy that Nader used. Dean was very explicit about using the public sphere, the daily interactions we have with others, and local positions from library trustee to dog catcher as a way of kind of creating solidarity, testifying or, as he put it "de-fanging" the public image of Democrats. To Dean, every person who has a good interaction, a working interaction, a good conversation with an independent or republican voter is a potential conversion engine. But this grassroots focus is ultimately going to produce a more engaged, vibrant and uncontrollable democratic majority--one that will be able to demand more of their washington reps. If you look on every person in the electorate not as a passive-every-four-year-voter but as a potential outreach, activist, or even elected official you are really proposing to shift the balance between washington and the rest of the country. The more individuals have a stake in identifying with the Democrats nationally the more individuals have a stake in critically evaluating and affecting the Democrats as a party. He did not say this, I hasten to add, but it seems to me to be implicit in the 50 state strategy as its being implemented. It if works, its going to have a long term effect on the party by making it truly responsive--it won't have any choice.
I don't want to give too many more details but I do want to say this. My take home message from this experience was--it does matter to call your reps and it does matter to call the money men and the strategists and the public faces of the party and make your feelings known. They are listening, even if fearfully. I've decided that every plea for money from any democratic candidate will get a "yes, when you get on message, start working effectively with the DNC, and fight fight fight I'll send that check..." and I'm going to call the offices of anyone I get a plea for money from (rather than just tearing it up) and tell them the same thing in person. And I've decided to finally get my act together and get a democracy bond with the DNC. Dean's strategy is that good, and its worth supporting. In fact, I think its the only game in town.
aimai