One of the things one sees a consistent debate about is the DNC. I really don't understand why, but there is a debate about it.
I've always thought of the DNC as basically a kind of fairly useless committee of unknown party apparatchiks who get together every 4 years to put on a national convention. All the important stuff of politics, winning elections, deciding policy, enacting laws, governing... my idea was that these things were generally done by candidates, elected officials and the voters who put them there. Local and state parties are where ballot access and candidate choices were made. Of course, in modern times the DNC has also served as a sort of 'campaign in waiting' for a presidential nominee and as a PR shop for an incumbent President. (President Clinton and Ron Brown revived the almost dead DNC, building it into a strong fundraising and PR outfit for his administration. President Obama barely used it at all and basically ignored the DNC his entire run in federal office. He preferred his own organization.)
David Jarman wrote the definitive piece on the role of party committees. His read is the most accurate I've seen.
Other Democrats and quite a few Progressives, however, seem to think the DNC should be far, far more powerful than it actually is. Also that it should be far more involved in political life beyond putting on a convention every four years and otherwise sitting moribund. They would have the DNC:
- Choose candidates for public office.
- Organize campaigns for public office.
- Provide the financial and human resources for campaigns for public office.
- Create and execute political strategies, media messaging, and overall direction.
- Enforce adherence to a national progressive policy agenda.
- Organize and rewrite state primary election laws.
- Choose leadership positions among elected officials.
- My god, this is ridiculous!
There are folks who beleive the DNC does all this now, even though they don't. Never have. Even more beleive that they should. That the DNC should be a sort of old soviet style politburo, managing thousands upon thousands of races in all 50 states from county sheriff in Wyoming all the way up to President. All from a comfy Washington, DC headquarters. Where a select team of data nerds and their progressive ideology overseers will tell you exactly what kind of Congressman you need, Omaha. You too Oklahoma City. And also you Orlando. Becuase 50 state something or other.
I take the opposing view. I think the DNC should do less. They should do basically nothing. Let the winning candidate of the presidential primary pay for and stage his or her own convention, have it last three hours in prime time on Sunday and that's it. Dispense with all the silly votes and committees and gavels and convention crap. Reduce the number of people on the committee from more than 400 to like... 5. Fire pretty much all the staff. What they could do is put out an annual phonebook. In that phonebook would be names of donors that state parties can call and ask for large donations. Annually they could put on a gala for those who made it into the phonebook. Other than that, they should leave things to state parties and mainly, to the candidates.
So, Tom Perez, I'm at least one guy out here who thinks you should be doing a lot less. Or, more in fact. In your home state of Maryland instead of in Washington.