Democrats. A True Story

Let me tell you a true story.

In 2003 my county formed a group of progressive Democrats. We didn't think the local Democratic party had its priorities straight nor did we like the inefficient way they organized and the way the money was spent. They were past their prime.

We took our energy and know-how to the meetings, were elected as delegates, organized precincts in 2004, and worked to get out the vote. The excitement was incredible.

Then we elected progressives as officers of the party. They are much like the people on the front page here, much like the diarists: intelligent, energetic, full of ideas. 2005 was our year.

Our officers made it clear that this was a new day. And it was.

By the end of 2005 all of the moderates and conservatives had dropped out along with most of the progressives who weren't pure enough, who had a different and more inclusive idea of what a Democrat was.

Now it is 2006 and there is little organizing going on, there is little money coming in, there is no energy or excitement.

In our primary this week, there were no Democrats standing outside the polling places, no Democrats working the phones. No Democrats.

But our local party is still "pure", much smaller, but "pure".

As I said, this is a true story.

I read Daily Kos two or three times a day. It's a great site. It's a great community. But it only supports a half dozen Democrats. All of the national Democrats are "spineless", "don't have an agenda", "just don't get it."

You've finally convinced me. There are no Democrats, except the chosen half dozen, who should be elected to office.

Yeah, the Republicans are ruining the country, our economy is going south, Iraq is a catastrophe. Health care. science, jobs and educational opportunities are disappearing. Global warming...good god!

I won't vote for a Republican. Only a handful of  Democrats are worthy of holding office. But we agree we must take back the House and Senate in five and half months.

With who, exactly?

My county Democratic Party writ large.

•  I'm no great political genius ...

  ... so I can't speak to the strategy of what you are diarying about.

  A couple of responses, though.  I can't really agree that DKos says only "a handful" of democrats are "worthy" of holding office.  I do think this site points out when Democrats do not act in the party's best interests or the country's best interests -- at least as far as vigorously opposing the Bush Administration and its Republican Congress.  I think this site holds out certain Democrats as examples of how the whole party should act.  And after reading Crashing the Gate, I think Kos and Armstrong have hit the nail on the head about the kind of "noise machine" the Democrats need to take back our government and win the majority.

  I do, however, sympathize with what you have gone through.  It's easy to become intolerant in any group, not just a political one.  I would be interested in your describing exactly how this happened with your group -- I think it's a worthwhile story to read and hope that you do not remain discouraged by what happened to you.  If you really believe in a Democratic candidate that Kos or anyone else is dismissive of, then I would urge you to fight for that person regardless of what anyone else says.  Who knows?  You may change some minds!

  Anyway, that's my blathering.  Thanks for the diary.

  by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:39:55 AM PDT

•  Unclear

  Its unclear to me what you want done differently.

  a) More progressive officials tomotivate your purer base.
  b) That the moderate and conserv dems hadn't dropped out?

  Party politics is coalition politics.  You need the numbers, votes, money, energy of a broad group of dems.  That means forging coalitions and compromises.  But being a progressive you wnat to do it from a position of strength.  Whats the point of a pure party that has no electoral strength?

  by el catalan on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:42:55 AM PDT

•  I know where you're coming from

  I've worked in a lot of progressive organizations.  Ideological purity tests get applied far more often than you'd want to think.  Hell, I have been purged from a progressive organization for lack of ideological purity, and then watched the organization flail for a couple of years as the purists found they didn't want to do the pragmatic management work that the purged group had been doing.

  It's a problem.  Fortunately, dKos is not the only place where progressives can gather and work.

  by kismet on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:44:49 AM PDT

  •  We purged

    Until few were left.

    MyDD had a diary up yesterday asking when we should stop criticizing Democrats. It's past time.

    We have to work to get the Republicans out of office. We can always go back to criticizing Democrats in January.

    by kateNC on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:50:48 AM PDT

    •  amen

      You must be in the triangle.

      by Vivian Pettyjohn on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:13:53 AM PDT

•  I'm sorry

  to hear about your experience, but I'm not sure what you want us to draw from it.  Although I look to the DKos community as a vital source for my perspective on politics, I'm well aware that it is just one perspective of the Democratic Party.  Within the Party, there are those who are to the left of my viewpoint and those to the right, but so long as they accept the Party's basic committment to the common good, I consider them all my colleagues.  Fortunately, for us Democrats in Gaston County, NC, that approach is working.

  by blueinnc on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:50:18 AM PDT

•  It doesn't have to be that way

  Here in my state we did pretty much the same thing in the spring of 2004 after the awful primary season.  The progressives got together and formed a club, but we went to the state party and asked to be a recognized club.  They weren't enthusiastic but they took us in.  In the two years since then we have endorsed and worked for local candidates who have won.  We are currently fielding or supporting twelve candidates to offices from School Board to State Treasurer.  And, we've learned so very, very much from the party regulars who now think we're okay.  We're the ones who turned out last weekend for the Neighbor-to-Neighbor canvass.  Whenever we need volunteers it's our group that shows up.  Did we lose some of our "purity" along the way? Sure.  But we're still in a position to keep pulling left against the Republican pull to the right.  Are there DINO's in office in our state?  You bet!  Will we be primaring them anytime soon.  Doubtful.  Do we get beaten up by the purists for that?  Absolutely.  It's taken three decades for the Democratic party to fall into disrepair and it's going to take more than two years to fix it.  The people who show up and do the work are the ones who will have a say in what our future will be.  Pontificators are not welcome.  Workers will be given a voice.

  by DemOrDie on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:50:33 AM PDT

  •  That's how I thought it would work here.

    But not everyone had the same idea. Tolerance went out the window.

    I went to every single festival, and believe me we have a lot, and registered voters,  passed out literature.

    When November came we made sandwiches for the Get out the Vote people. We stood at the precincts. It was great.

    But that was 2004.

    by kateNC on Fri May 05, 2006 at 07:56:48 AM PDT

    •  Cautionary Tale

      We had a similar narrative here in my county, up to a point... so I was following along with you nodding my head until I started shaking it.

      Newly energized grassroots in '03. Check.
      Getting delegates elected. Check.
      Getting seats on our central committees. Check.
      Purging the ideologically impure? Nah...  it's a real tactical mistake.

      We need all the volunteers we can get. And we certainly have cliques that have no love for each other. And that's always gone on.  In fact, my local central committee is notorious for its infighting. So a lot of the progressive grassroots activity happens outside our DCC in DFA and PDA groups outside of the local party apparatus... and as delegates within the state party.  

      We're increasingly having more influence within the local party, but not to the extent of being able to... or inclined to wage jihad. Purges fail on so many levels.

      One thing we did was focus on forming a progressive caucus in the state party... which is something that had been attempted in the past... but our new numbers and enthusiasm made it possible.  So rather than trying or succeeding to oust allies who were ideologically impure, we just created a bloc on a statewide level that we could leverage our clout in organizational capability and in platform formation.

      We're also working to support congressional candidates within "red" areas of California. And these are folks who may not be nearly as progressive as those who can get elected in my "blue" area. So we're working to bring people in... not kick them out.

      I regard political goals as something achieved through a process of successive approximations and by building coalitions and consensus over time... and getting stronger and more comprehensive policies over time. Call me an incrementalist.

      So I don't necessarily think your blanket indictment of the Kossacks is warranted. Some of us are pursuing a progressive agenda using different tactics.

      I know that there's no-one who shares all my views. If I were to exclude from my political circles those who disagreed with me, I'd be alone. And ineffectual. And that's true of us all.

      The message I get from Markos is that we have to support each other as Democrats. There are some exceptions, like Lieberman, because he's destroying the credibility of the party through his direct attacks on the party, its leaders, and several of its major constituencies... but not because of a moderate or even conservative ideology.  Murtha demonstrated the power of having a diverse party: when Dennis Kucinich attacks the war, nobody pays much attention. When Rep. Murtha does, it packs clout.

      We need each other.

      by Malacandra on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

•  Yikes

  I am sure your situation isn't unique and it is probably common in a party that is diverse in its goals and values.  I don't see the analogy to dKos though.

  I don't think anyone intends the candidate list to say "these are the only candidates that are worth supporting."  I think most people on this site would vote for just about any Democrat, and even a significant number (tho perhaps not a majority) would hold their nose and vote for Lieberman if he won the primary.  (No Lieberman flame wars here please.)

  If I may make a gratuitous baseball analogy, if you are a fan you support your team.  You have a few favorite players.  There are a few you think are dragging the team down.  But even the crappy guys, you are still rooting for them to get a hit.

  The candidates that tend to generate excitement around here are not necessarily pure progressives.  Paul Hackett is somewhat of a social conservative and a gun lover.  Schweitzer in Montana is another example.  What is common is usually that these people are not afraid to challenge Republicans in "red" districts.  They are not afraid to criticize the president.  They may wish for bipartisanship, but they know it doesn't exist right now and act accordingly. And they reach out to the blogosphere and progressive radio.  Reading the comments around here, people are furious at the Sierra Club (and who was it, Planned Parenthood?) for endorsing Lincoln Chaffee simply because his democratic opponent didn't have the right issue politics.  That's blind ideological purity, and it doesn't play well around here.

  As far as I can tell, Markos highlights some of his favorites and casts aspersions on those who tend to attack fellow Democrats.  But the supported candidates list doesn't mean that no others are worthy of support.  It's just that given a national megaphone, you cannot dilute your message by talking about hundreds of candidates.  There are plenty of other local and national organizations that are supporting the others.

  Not to say that ideological purity tests aren't a problem for Democrats, or that they don't exist here.  But I don't think they're a PROBLEM here.

  by just a dad on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:02:33 AM PDT

•  Boy does *this* sound familiar!

  > all of the moderates and conservatives had
  > dropped out along with most of the progressives
  > who weren't pure enough, who had a different
  > and more inclusive idea of what a Democrat was.

  I spent twelve years as a member of a democratic socialist organization that preached, and mostly practiced, a "big tent" philosophy that allowed for free and open debate, transparent elections, and tolerance for multiple points of view.

  But a handful that joined our local group still clung on to the outdated notion of "ideological purity". They were usually the least intelligent had the loudest voices. They bullied and badgered and made life horribly uncomfortable for the rest of us.

  And they won. But now that they don't have moderates to yell at, they've turned on each other. Apparently they've got a lot of time on their hands.

  "Ideological Purity" doesn't work, never has, it's a fast track to ideological extinction. Having multiple points of view representing multiple constituencies allows for flexible thinking and more effective strategies.

  Don't give up. Learn from your mistakes, and the mistakes of others, and keep trying!

  by marcello09 on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:03:56 AM PDT

  •  In Other Words, There's Such a Thing as Talent

    for politics.

    There are figures who can prevent idiots and goons from sucking up the oxygen in a gathering or organization and still allow the organization to function democratically.

    A great many of us are not blessed with those talents, no matter how great our ideas and energy may be.

    It's a mitigating leadership factor in democracy that we shouldn't neglect.

    by Gooserock on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:40:56 AM PDT

    •  I love this comment!

      You are so right.

      One mistake I made was feeling that the party was in good hands and going on about my business. Also, I got  tired of being called a traitor, that was the worst, because I want to bring groups together. I'm not good at it, don't have the talent, but that's my instinct.

      by kateNC on Fri May 05, 2006 at 09:01:21 AM PDT

•  Kate, I For One Never Would Have Counseled That

  I write two kinds of diaries...
  Progressive diaries and coalition politics (Democratic Party) diaries.

  These are distinct groups with a distinct set of goals. Your horror story is exactly the danger that the party faces and exactly the thing that the reviled party establishment is so derisive of us for.

  The progressive mission is to change minds, not send them packing.

  The Democratic mission is to win elections with candidates who are good and capable, incorruptible people.

  ...But you know all that. At this point probably better than I do.

  Your mission right now is to recharge, and get about the humble, even humiliating work of bringing all of those eschewed people back in.

  by NewDirection on Fri May 05, 2006 at 08:12:44 AM PDT

•  One of the things I like about . . .

  Progressive Democrats of America is that it creates a space for progressives inside and outside the Democratic Party to work on their own strategies, tactics and goals while also providing a way to network with, influence and support the mainstream party. In other words, it's a vehicle for straddling/shifting between both worlds.

  by ponderer on Fri May 05, 2006 at 09:19:18 AM PDT

•  This is why we need sustainable organizations

  This is not a progressive problem, this is an organizational power problem.

  Just as we have an electoral process that encourages selling legislation for campaign contributions we have organizations that easily allow power to be concentrated in the hands of a few and throw up barriers to increased pariticipation and concensus building.

  It sounds to me like you had a previous county party that was just as closed as the progressive one that replaced it.

  This happens in everything from garden clubs to political groups.

  What types of organizational structures prevent this from happening?  And why don't we adopt them for our party?

  by Thom K in CA on Fri May 05, 2006 at 09:53:48 AM PDT