I'm posting these diaries because I believe that the race for state Democratic Party chair in North Carolina has brought to the fore a number of issues that we're wrestling with at the national level, particularly in red states.
Please note that this is the last part of a four-part series. Please read part 1, part 2, and part 3 before reading this post. Thanks!
Opening up the Party
Turlington's caution over the question of who he will speak for--elected officials or the rank and file--begs the question of whether such policy disagreements might not make the party stronger. Because after all the work Meek and others have done to incorporate a new generation of activists, the party could lose them if it cannot prove its willingness to hear them out on issues of policy--most notably through the platform and resolutions process. But the prospect of the rank and file giving input on policy strikes some as absurd.
For example, The Political Junkies, a blog that focuses on North Carolina politics, savaged the idea: "A Party divorced from its public office holders? One can only imagine the reaction to Meek's statement by members of the Democratic Party State Senate Caucus and the Democratic Party State House Caucus, the two most potent organizations in the NCDP as proven by the last election."
Such an attitude papers over the party's greatest weakness: that it is now an electoral party--one geared almost exclusively toward winning elections--instead of an organization dedicated to promoting an agenda. This has gone hand in hand with the withering of the grass roots: as they have proved less and less useful, candidates have required more and more freedom to tailor policies to major donors instead of the Democratic base. It's hard to say which came first--grass roots atrophy or donor-centric policy--but now that the grass roots have shown new signs of life, both candidates hope to reach out to them. However, only Jerry Meek has a record of success with the most recent crop of activists. And only Jerry Meek has a plan to resolve the tension between what the base wants and what elected officials will commit to achieving.
Among Jerry Meek's position papers (yes, this campaign has generated position papers) is one on "Promoting a Policy Agenda." In it, he argues that keeping Democratic issues in the public mind will pay off in two ways: first, it will make it easier for the party to promote a Democratic agenda; and second, it will keep party activists engaged and interested in the political process. In particular, he says that the party needs to remain aware of the issues faced by local parties, and reform the platform process so that resolutions coming up from counties and congressional districts get the attention they deserve.
Although Meek doesn't say so, it would be foolish to think that opening up the process would lead to planks promoting politically dangerous policies. The party's elected officials have representation on the committee that drafts the state platform, and can head off problems by being active participants in the process. Judging by the disputes that arose over the 2004 state platform, the party badly needs a real dialogue over policy: it's hard not to read into Turlington's silence on this issue an unwillingness to allow the kind of give-and-take that could keep the new base involved.
Doomsday Scenarios
I want to close by refuting some of the arguments that Turlington's supporters (as distinct from Ed Turlington himself) have advanced in opposition to Meek's candidacy. Most of them envision some kind of catastrophe for the party. Most of them can be answered briefly.
Jerry Meek's opponents say the following:
- He will scare donors away from the party. This could happen, particularly if the party ends up taking unpopular ideological positions. But at some point Democratic elected officials--who solicit and distribute most of the money that goes to their own campaigns and the party's general campaign funds--will have to start taking seriously the concerns and desires of the activist base. To refuse to do so is to court disaster. As I mention above, Jerry Meek has promised to streamline the platform process so as to permit serious discussion of policy and good faith compromise. I have argued that these reforms will keep activists within the party (and could boost the amount the party raises from small donors), but they should also give candidates the room they need to raise funds successfully. The bottom line: if we can keep new activists involved, they're more likely to help Democrats win elections. And there's nothing that turns donors on like winning.
- Jerry Meek's candidacy is a Trojan horse for a progressive takeover. Some observers point menacingly--a la the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come--to the Georgia Democratic Party, where progressives succeeded in taking over and then appeared to scuttle the party's chances at victory. It's hard to see how that example applies. Meek's support crosses ideological lines. And it's an open question whether progressive ideologues caused the damage in Georgia, or whether the infighting--the kind that knocked off Cynthia McKinney--was more the fault of progressives or sour-grapes conservatives like Zell Miller. At any rate, Meek has proven that he's got the party's best interests at heart. He even provoked outrage among progressives by closing off debate on the state party platform last year when it looked like an amendment urging the legalization of industrial hemp would pass the state convention. He knew such a plank would spell disaster, and he used parliamentary procedure to scuttle it. So much for a Trojan horse.
- The state party needs a national face. The most prominent advocate of this point of view is Governor Easley himself, who recently told the Charlotte Observer that "he believes he and Turlington can help push their party toward more moderate national candidates." Later the article quotes Easley saying that Turlington "could start us moving in that direction: fielding candidates who can win a race in a lot of the red states."
Easley--and others like him--don't just hope to influence the national party. They also want to see the party (and national donors) give southern candidates more resources, especially money. But Turlington can make both things happen without being chair. Moreover, the national party now has a different face--Howard Dean. Jerry Meek has a lot in common with Dean: both are centrist, reformist Democrats who value party loyalty over ideology. Both of them want to make the party more responsive to the grass roots. And both have worked to forge winning coalitions of progressives, centrists, and party activists of all stripes. Turlington may have more national connections. But Jerry Meek is more likely to speak the language of the new Democratic Party.
I have made the point that by winning this election Jerry Meek will prove--for once and for all--that he is the best candidate. And I have tried to outline the lessons the party's institutions should learn from his strength in this election. Because Jerry Meek's backers--from across the state and across the ideological spectrum--support him not just because of his experience and his record of success. Their loyalty stems from the fact that Meek has outlined a process by which the party can reform itself, and then become an agent of reform in the state. Ultimately those of us supporting Jerry do so out of a concern for the party's future: we believe that Democrats will not win many more elections without promoting real reform.