"Pending Certification."
I didn't believe the story when I first encountered it this week. I'd heard murmuring about it that apparently traced back to FireDogLake, and that fact that I'd not heard about it elsewhere made me suspect that it was perhaps an exaggeration.
At the Executive Board meeting of the California Democratic Party ("CDP") in Anaheim over the last few days of July, the story went, all of the Party's Caucuses were recertified except for one: the Progressive Caucus.
"Yah, right!", I thought.
So I checked out the story -- and it's true. The Progressive Caucus, alone among California Democratic Party Caucuses, has for now not been re-certified. The charter of this major player in California Democratic Party politics is now listed as "pending certification."
[Here's an excerpt from the party's page that provides contact info for the party's caucuses. (Contact info has been blurred out to foil the casual and dim interloper who can't figure out how to click a link.)
"PENDING CERTIFICATION."
There is, as you may expect, a story here -- one that no side of the battle (except for one gadfly, so far) seems to be eager to tell. That may be politically wise; I choose in this instance to be wisely impolitic. So, as one of the almost 3000 members of the California Democratic Party's Central Committee, I am deciding on my own behalf to tell what I have learned about this story -- although, to be honest, I will pull some punches. (I hope for the party's reform, not for its destruction.)
I want to stress two things up front. First, I am not a member of the CDP's Progressive Caucus. Second, I have not sought anyone's permission or approval in deciding to public this diary. I do agree with the action that the Progressive Caucus took that led to its current "pending" status. I open this can of worms not for its sake, but because I too favor steps that I believe could lead to similar censorious steps towards people in the party like me if this goes publicly unchallenged.
If some within the Democratic Party want a fight with progressives, it won't be a quiet one.
Meta in the real world
One reason that I seem to have a higher tolerance for "meta" that many politically interested writers here is that, based on my experience in politics, I think that "meta" is much of what real party politics is about. What here would be derided as "meta" is much of what goes on in state and local parties. The important part of what we do -- aside, of course, from fundraising -- is much less discussing policies than apportioning power. That's just an unpleasant fact of political life.
The "pie fight" that I'll describe here -- over the CDP's Progressive Caucus expressing interest in a primary challenge to President Obama -- is one that would be right at home on the pages of Daily Kos. In fact, I've been involved in this particular flavor of pie fight before, off and on for almost two years -- for a long time as an opponent of the wacky idea and more recently as one who has reluctantly come to believe that it actually is necessary. My interest has been in trying to find the least destructive way to do it.
This is the story of what happened when, recently, the CDP's Progressive Caucus decided to consider -- merely consider -- the possibility of a primary challenge.
The story curiously untold
I sympathize with and respect the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus, but I am not a member; I find that I often agree with them at a global level but disagree about tactics and sometimes even strategies. But I know that they do good work and play an important role in conversations and fostering activism within the party (Based on what happened three weeks ago, though, I feel that I now have no choice but to join -- if they continue to exist.) Similarly, while I appreciate that people whose main blogging outlet is FireDogLake generally have their hearts (and often their butts) in the right place, I don't participate there either. Again, there feels a "party line" there that I can't agree to follow. I am, I suppose, not much one for "party lines."
One thing that I appreciate about today's CDP is that, especially under our heterodox Chair John Burton, there is usually not much of a hard-and-fast party line. ("Support Democrats"? Gladly! But let's talk about how.) What disturbed me about this story, though, is that it suggested that the CDP was suddenly imposing a strict party line. As a Democrat, I feel responsible for calling out my own party when it engages in repression of viewpoints. I've found that the story is more complicated than that, but still one that I find disturbing.
Here's how the story came out: a week ago, David Swanson posted this story on FireDogLake: CA Dem Party May Dump Its Progressive Caucus – Can You Guess Why?
On July 30th the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution proposing that a primary challenge be offered to Obama next year. The Progressive Caucus's certification expired at the same time, and while other caucuses were routinely recertified that day by the state party, the Progressive Caucus (I'm told by its chair, Karen Bernal) would not have been, had a vote been held. So the recertification was tabled, and the Progressive Caucus is in limbo. It no longer exists, but it may yet continue existing.
Swanson, who primarily seems to post on warisacrime.org, conducted a phone interview with Karen Bernal about history of the Progressive Caucus and about the resolution and the response to it. Here's the link to the audio. Occasional caustic comments on this topic have appeared in this blog, in Calitics, and probably in others in the weeks since the resolution appeared; I don't know if they are attributable to Swanson, whom I do not know, or to someone else. For what it's worth, I probably have greater disagreements with Swanson -- who in the interview seemed to try to egg Bernal on towards progressives leaving the Party -- than with many of those opposing this resolution. But when he's right, he's right.
The Casus Belli
Here's the resolution:
RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of a POSSIBLE 2012 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CHALLENGE
Passed July 30, 2011, Anaheim, CA
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama’s negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:
• His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
• His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
• His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
• His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
• His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
• His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
• His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
• The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
• His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
• His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
• His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
• His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current “Grand Bargain” represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama’s ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.
Consigned to Limbo
Here is my understanding of what happened next: the leader of another CDP Caucus (I won't identify which one) objected to the recertification of the Progressive Caucus due to its adopting the above resolution. The stated rationale was that this action represented a possible violation of the CDP Charter regarding endorsements.
One source of mine for this diary wanted to stress that this smackdown of the Progressive Caucus was not directed by the CDP Executive Board as a whole. I readily acknowledge that. In this sort of pie fight, often the first reaction and responsibility of those in charge is to make sure that no permanent damage is done. Party leaders apparently saw a realistic possibility that, with tempers flaring, the Progressive Caucus might lose its recertification vote at the E-Board. They negotiated directly with Bernal and with the leader of the opposing caucus and arrived at a mutually acceptable solution. They made peace by tabling the vote -- allowing, in Bernal's own words, to "let cooler heads prevail." Hence, certification of the Caucus is "pending."
I wasn't there -- while I had planned to attend the E-Board meeting as a spectator, it occurred during the weekend of the sell-out over the debt ceiling and I was afraid that if I went I would start screaming at anyone who tut-tutted me in trying to justify the deal -- but I can readily believe that the party leaders acted responsibly. They did what they were supposed to do; they lowered the temperature. And yet, I find the "deal" odious, insulting, and completely unsatisfying. Here's why:
Did the Progressive Caucus violate the CDP charter?
Was there any merit to the argument that the Progressive Caucus's actions were improper? Here is the relevant portion of the California Democratic Party Charter:
ARTICLE VIII: ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN OFFICE, AND ENDORSEMENT AND OPPOSITION TO STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS, INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
Section 1. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
a. The State Central Committee of the California Democratic Party, Democratic County Central Committees, and all official units of the California Democratic Party shall not endorse any candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention and shall not endorse candidates for President of the United States until the Democratic National Convention has been held.
b. Individual members of the organizational units identified in subsection (a) of this section are in no way precluded from endorsing delegates to the Democratic National Convention nor a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The Party office of members making such an endorsement may be indicated in that endorsement for identification purposes only
My conclusion is that refusing to renew the charter of the Progressive Caucus due to its support for the possibility of primarying President Obama, without even endorsing a particular opponent, is completely inappropriate. That's the nice term for it. A less-nice term is "political thuggery."
The Chilling Effect
Whether I (or you) agree that Obama should be primaried or not, using this subterfuge to render supporting even the possibility of such a primary impossible is political thuggery. It's "get on board or get out." It is an attempt to substitute force over reason. Dissent over who should receive the party's nomination -- even a sitting President -- must not be silenced.
It should not even be necessary to say this to a Democratic audience. Yet it too often is.
While I think that the CDP's institutional leadership may have acted in an exemplary fashion by "allowing the furor to die down," that does not exonerate the party. Such intervention should not have been necessary. Such intervention would not have been necessary if there has not been a realistic process that recertification of the Progressive Caucus might fail -- and that is the issue at hand.
The CDP's E-Board membership should have been mature enough in its judgment to ensure that there would be no crisis. For there to have been any doubt at all about recertification of the Prog Caucus, no matter how pissed off anyone was at them about this resolution, is inexcusable. The members of the E-Board should have told the those objecting to recertification in no uncertain terms that the motion, while "in order," was unacceptable. There should have been no need for the E-Board, led by the good peacemakers of the CDP, to give even an inch to those who would silence dissent over the choice of who should be the Party's nominee.
This isn't about recertification, it's about respect.
You say you want no revolution? Well, you know ...
Does a group like the CDP's Progressive Caucus have a right to pass this resolution while remaining "good Democrats"? Can a Democratic organization, before a single ballot has been cast, oppose renomination of the party's incumbent President -- let alone merely announce that it would explore the possibility?
Of course it can! That's what a "nomination process" is about. Try to fix the result of the nomination process and you toss democracy out of the window.
This stronghand maneuver has had exactly the wrong effect on me -- and, I hope, on the readers of this diary. If my Party tries to repress legitimate dissent, it becomes my obligation to dissent.
I've posted a diary previously about how I thought that President Obama could be primaried without damaging him or the party in 2012. The response was lukewarm -- a mixture of very warm, tepid, and very cold. I've been deciding about whether or not going ahead with it was a waste of time and effort.
Little did I know when I wrote that diary that, by refusing to recertify the Progressive Caucus to "send a message" to anyone with the temerity to challenge President Obama, the California Democratic Party had, without my knowledge, already forced my hand.
This attempt to quash dissent will backfire. You don't want dissent? Then you shall have it.
This is no longer a matter of theory. I now favor a progressive primary to President Obama -- along lines that I believe will hurt the party much less than using power to squelch dissent within the Party.
Party leaders, up to and including the President and his advisors, seem to believe that we can making the smoldering dissatisfaction with the Party's action go away by disconnecting the smoke alarm. This notion is absurd. We progressive within the party will reflect the dissatisfaction that we see around us, among voters and potential voters who would never dream of walking into a Democratic convention, who are not vulnerable to insider power plays.
We see the anger smoldering and we will ring the alarm for 2012. We will let voters who are disappointed and angry towards this Administration know that they still do have people reflecting their views within the Democratic Party. They do have a place as Democratic voters. They can support Democrats with dignity -- no matter who tries to tear it from us.
We will show party Democrats and those outside the party alike that those of us with such dissenting views will demand and retain the respect of the party and will demand and achieve a fair share of the decision-making power.
We will achieve this by demanding it, loudly, and not lying low when those who smell no smoke outside our party's windows try to smack us down. We too are the party; we have our skin in the game.
5:41 PM PT: I do appreciate being on the Rec List with this, but anyone who is not recommending the Libya diaries on this amazing day needs to recalibrate their priorities. I'm going off to do so now.
