Weakening the Gates: Adding a Plank to CO Dem Platform
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:18 PM PDT
I have recently been selected to be a delegate to my county's 2008 Convention, where a proposed Democratic platform for my county will be edited and approved. This responsibility to help draft my county's platform pushed me to think about platforms, and what can be accomplished with them.
There is something that the Democratic Party could put on a platform and implement without the need for Republican obstruction: a statement of party governance. While many at Daily Kos are not particularly enamored with corporations, they have surprising (small d) democratic features that can be borrowed to improve the likelihood that external stakeholders (like that guy on a horse down there) can influence or overthrow those in control of the organization. And this is a very good thing.
And that means us. Gate crashers. Rabble rousers. Netroots. Kossacks.
Charge with me after the fold for more details.
Meteor Blades' recent diary about the Democratic Party Platform inspired the thought that a platform could be adapted to weaken the establishment gates of the Democratic party to insurgents like the netroots or grassroots activists. Typical party platforms, such as the 2004 Democratic Party Platform, are much more concerned with detailing Democratic values related to external situations than to self-governance. For instance, they talk about the economy and jobs, Iraq, Homeland Security, and many other things.
These are all important issues, and need to be in the platform. However, these documents are more of a statement of values than a roadmap for legistlation, as Democrats do not have not had sufficient control to implement many, if any, of these policies.
Shareholder-friendly corporations institute policies that allow for the corporation to be taken over. In this context, a takeover typically occurs because the management of the organization isn't performing up to par. External stakeholders can "crash the gates" of the organization and throw out the management to unlock more value for shareholders.
Because of the current de facto policy of support for incumbents, the Democratic Party has in essence installed a poison pill companies use to prevent activist party members from gaining control of their organization. In effect, this insulates the organization from external influence and change.
We have seen this in the arrogance of top-down candidate selection in the IL-06 race. In that particular instance, Duckworth (the DCCC favored candidate) was pitted against Cegelis (the more local/grassroots candidate). We also have seen it in D*CC support for incumbents vulnerable to a primary challenger.
We in the netroots have a multitude of different ideas about where the Democratic Party needs to go - but are typically unified in support for strong differentiation and pride in our Democratic brand. We have a responsibility to challenge those Democrats who aren't doing enough to be proud of their brand, support their majority, or oppose Republican policies. The most meaningful challenge is a primary. As has been written before, the Democratic Party needs to have incumbents vulnerable to primary challenges in order to be responsive on issues important to the Democratic rank and file. (Donna Edwards, anyone?)
It seems to me that we should attempt to ensure that the Democratic Party institutionalizes the idea that the D*CC and their affiliates support candidates in general elections, but stays the hell out of primary fights. These fights provide effective feedback as well as forcing them to spend money and time defending their views - which will then be well-aired and subject to Democratic voter approval.
I am proposing here that we go beyond merely stating this fact, and instituting this policy into the party platform. If we can manage to do this, then we will have weakened the gates sufficiently to make primary challenges a much more effective tool to keep the party better aligned to rank-and-file issues.
It is possible that adopting this into the platform will have no effect, whatsoever, as well. We have all sorts of things in our platforms that are never acted upon. However, maybe this would help or be worth discussing or considering.
If you have heard of other efforts to weaken party support for incumbents against primaries by rabblerousers like us, please let me know if the comments
Permalink | 2 comments