I’ve already offered a 50,000 view of the road to here for some of the angry left — the road some of us who were progressives in 2003 took as we sought to wrest the country away from conservatives. And I’ve shared my personal journey up to the 2004 presidential election.
The next leg of the journey was harder and the challenges steeper.
In late November 2004 after the election, while many of us were still shell-shocked by the outcome of the election, former candidate Howard Dean traveled the country to talk with supporters to figure out what to do next. I explained already the decision-making process, but one of the most important points which came out of his sessions was the call to become more active in the Democratic Party and to leave no seat uncontested.
Most of us new activists had discovered the hard way during the campaign that the Democratic Party was facade-like; it was not democratic (little d) and it was hardly a party. If we were going to generate the kind of critical mass in numbers we needed to reach our goals — like ending the war in Iraq and getting a national health care program — we were going to have to go inside what was left of the beast and take it back. Dean was certain that if we could articulate clearly our populist progressive agenda that we could win voters, but we had to have the organization from which to do it.
In a matter of days after Dean spoke with activists in my state I went to my first local party meeting. I’d received a little coaching from a high school friend’s dad who’d been involved in the party; he’d explained how their monthly meetings typically ran and what to expect so I’d be more comfortable.
The meeting started at 7:00 p.m.; they said the Pledge of Allegiance, went through what looked like a time-worn agenda of going through acceptance of minutes from the last meeting, treasurer’s report, new mail, old business…by this time it was 7:20 p.m. and some of the folks were already beginning to look at their watches. The chair held his gavel aloft and asked for any new business before he gaveled the meeting adjourned.
That was it? That’s all they were going to do after getting their asses kicked a mere month ago? I thought I’d faint.
My friend’s dad was there and looked at me encouragingly. I raised my hand. The chair started and stared as if to say, Who the hell are you? And I introduced myself, said it was my first party meeting, and I had two questions to ask. Where was the party’s website, and what were their goals and objectives for the coming year?
You could have heard a pin drop.
Two other folks across the room raised their hands and said it was their first meeting as well, and they had come wanting to know the same thing.
There was a bit of a rush after that, an explanation that they had no website, questions as to whether I knew anything about creating one and would I discuss it next month, did I want to become a member, could we table the question about goals, gaveling out the meeting.
A more senior member of the party offered to pay for three memberships to get us started; we three newbies managed to get connected with each other. Inside the next three months we were plunged into communications and memberships committees and started on projects which made sense to us as persons with corporate and academic experience. Like updating membership databases, and creating a website with information about the local party — really elemental stuff.
And at first it seemed easy. It was almost too easy. The first twelve weeks went by and we thought things were going smoothly.
But then we ran into pushback after pushback on what should have been some of the easiest things, including goals and finance. By the end of summer it was clear there were factions within the local party who were pissed off at us for rocking the boat, other factions which did little or nothing and didn’t want to, and yet other factions who wanted to do something constructive but were clearly disenfranchised and disempowered.
In short, it was a dysfunctional mess. We just didn’t get a bead on how dysfunctional for several months while they waited to see how serious we were.
We learned as we compared notes about the problems we were running into that the party chair had actually kicked volunteers out of the office during the final stretch of the presidential election season for using the phone excessively. The volunteers had been phone banking, for crying out loud; of course they’d be using the damned phones. They ended up at a different site set up across town by another group because they couldn’t work at the Dem Party office. The problems were clearly systemic from top to bottom of the local organization, and toxic to candidates.
It became clear that we were going to have to find a different way to operate so that we didn’t run into roadblocks at every turn, before the election season began. We agreed to pursue chartering a separate Democratic club, one which would have a bias toward action and results, whose mission would be to get more progressive candidates elected to office.
The squabbling about the chartering process was ugly, because the local party had to sign off. (Pulling the charter has been a threat at least one chair has used since the charter was issued.) But in the end we managed to start an organization.
A couple of our team found a sympathetic landlord who agreed to "rent" office space to us if we agreed to improve the property. We pooled our resources and painted and patched a decrepit 150-year-old place, each of us doing what we could to create an entity which would get people elected. In my case I cobbled up a network and a fellow Deaniac cobbled up some computers so that we could begin to phone bank using VoIP. We identified candidates to support, knocked on doors, dropped literature, made thousands of phone calls, raised money and made donations to candidates.
And by the end of election day 2006, we knew what we could call our wins.
By the end of 2007 candidates called us.
By the end of 2008, after winning and losing control of the Democratic Party chairmanship, we won it back.
We are the local party now, although it was messy getting here. I’ve spared you the ugly part of losing the party and having our club charter threatened. I’ve spared you all the dull, tedious long hours of work doing mailings and working on voter data and membership drives and slow, dragged out meetings about resolutions and bylaws.
But we got here because we planned, we executed and we delivered. We didn’t always win; one of our hardest fought and most painful losses was for a state seat for which one of our own ran. But we learned a lot from the experience, and the state party now knows what that candidate and the club can do. And right now they are grinding away working for Democratic candidates, several of which are truly progressive.
So what did I learn along this leg of the road?
– It takes a lot of motherf*cking actual work to build a grassroots political apparatus. I cannot understate this. One must be willing to do some really tedious, grotty scut work to make it happen. I’ve cleaned toilets, washed floors, painted, vacuumed, swept, cooked and cooked, licked envelopes and stamps, fixed computers and printers, set up wired and wireless networks, babysat, made phone calls, typed and printed and folded and collated, you name it, and I’ve only done a small portion of work that others have done for our team.
– In every county of my state there are roughly 25 people on average that are hardcore activists who are willing to do the work. Half of them do the majority of the work. Which means in a state of roughly 10,000,000 residents, roughly 2,000 people do it all for the left. And that’s not just Democrats, that’s the entire left. (Many Greens, Libertarians and unallied environmental and peace activists overlap with Democrats, so I think I can say my estimate is pretty solid.) I would bet right now the ratio is pretty much the same for all but the most populous states.
– There are people who will cling to their old perception of the party until they die. Some will not relinquish that vision without a bloody fight. You can expect to be bruised in such battles; develop emotional callouses and find a good source of mental Kevlar. And quite frankly, you may have to outwait some of your detractors quite literally until they die. We euphemistically call this "a generational shift."
– Once you have some success, you will be attacked. You will also find others attempt to co-opt your success. You are doing it right if you have candidates calling you for help while you are being insulted by the remaining old school machine members.
– And the attacks will show up in the local media. You will see distortions of everything you’ve done through a conservative lens, and everything reported will draw multiple letters to the editor from conservatives.
– There are not enough candidates in the pipeline. There are races up and down the ticket right now where we cannot field a candidate, where a conservative is going to have a cakewalk to a win. A substantive number of our candidates are Hail Mary passes which won’t succeed; the candidate is either willing to run simply to force the conservative opponent to spend down money, or the candidate is simply not prepared enough or the right caliber for the race. I can think of one candidate who is just plain dumber than a box of rocks, hasn’t won in three attempts and won’t win again, but they are all we have in that district. We’ve had many training sessions to encourage folks who may be thinking about running, at least two sessions a year and we still don’t have enough candidates.
– Money is chronically short. This is another truth which can’t be understated. In some highly specific cases, where the population is denser, the till may have a lot more money, but the money must be spread over even more candidates. It’s never enough.
– There are not enough people who have the skills let alone the commitment to do some of the necessary work. Being an officer sounds like it’s prestigious and a lot of fun, right up until you are the one having to deal with the angry callers or the stupid media, the one having to record all the donations and file the financials on a timely basis, the one having to take all the meeting notes and record them religiously. Parliamentarians are a pain in the ass, but they are also one of the most critical roles in the organization. Think you can cut corners and do without all this stuff? Good luck earning the trust of candidates and incumbents who need serious, reliable people.
Before I began this journey on the road of activism, I believed there were adults in charge, that I could simply show up and vote at mid-terms and presidential elections, and those trusted adults would make sure that our democracy continued to run smoothly.
What a stupid and naive notion that was.
One of the most important things I’ve learned along the way is this: Leadership is showing up.
Things don’t change, progress isn’t made until leaders show up and do the damned work. For too long nobody showed up, and there are still not enough people showing up.
The corollary lesson is this: Leadership-by-default runs this country.
In other words, the person that showed up, did the work or spent the money to get the work done, got elected. They may have been the biggest, stupidest asshole on earth, but they showed up. And they were assisted on the road to victory by people who showed up. The folks who get more people to show up to work for them are far more likely to win. This is the case in the overwhelming majority of races up and down the ticket across this entire country.
More about that in my next installment.
[Photo: Katie Tegtmeyer via Flickr]



44 Comments

Thanks for this, Rayne.
There are so many people out there who think writing the occasional blog post, diary or comment is all that it takes to create a party. There are others who are willing to invest a bit more time, but only in a process that they control utterly. And of course there are those who are both lazy and megalomaniacal; the only thing they’re good at is leaching people away from joining up with those who really do want to put aside their egoes and do some good — so much so that one of my friends, an older lady with many decades of electoral politics under her belt, thinks that some of the worst ones are actually paid GOP trolls.
Thanks, PW. Back in 2006 I participated in a twelve-week collaborative seminar on the current state of democracy; after all that time, after all the guests who wrote and “spoke” to our group, we came to a couple conclusions.
Democracy is the way it is because people no longer participate; they will spend less effort on it than they will voting for an American Idol.
The media is complicit in this weakening of the process, having screwed up who the actual client is in their business model. They promote consumerism which citizens mistake for participating in democracy, because the media relies on consumerism through advertising sales to pay their bills.
Ultimately we need citizens to re-engage in a participatory democracy.
The old timers you had to fight don’t really want to do anything. They want to feel important and be the ones the candidates talk with. Useless.
@you and @PW:
Like I said in another thread, what I find appealing about Jane style politics is the mix. The mix of posting, call-to-action, activist type of things, and a willingness to keep evolving the structure of it all with the technology available.
For instance, I simply can’t take time for a 12 week seminar for leadership. I can find bits of time to do useful things, like database help, phonebanking help, and street help too with enough notice. I’ve done it before and linked to it ad nauseam, so why bother again.
The trick is in organizing all the willing talent available with the talent’s available time. FDL is getting better and better at that.
A menu of choices to participate in structures would be highly desirable for a lot of folks. I can’t provide that, so can’t criticize such organizing efforts, but am merely pointing out that there’s a lot of energy out there of which much advantage may be taken.
We discovered that the meeting was really a preface to a session at the local pub. We n00bs weren’t invited, of course; over time we learned about deals cut at the bar after the monthly meeting.
That’s what they really wanted to do — drink and B.S. their way through a pretense of democracy.
Of course we still drink after meetings, but now the business is done before we start lifting the twelve ounce weights.
It’s rather Marxian, but we learned early that each gives as they can. One friend with panic disorder can’t handle crowds, but they are a genius with computers. Another member has mild cognitive impairment, but is a marvel on the phone with constituents. Everyone can give something of themselves. Our membership sign-up forms ask about experience and what the person would like to work on and what they’d like to do for this reason.
Fantastic post. Rec’d, but more importantly it should be read by everyone who wants change.
Thanks. I hope it’s becoming clearer why I am short patience for people who complain a lot and do little.
At one point in the last seven years I was an officer or director of six different political organizations, trying to make change happen. What we really needed was six people serving as an officer or director of those same organizations. But the other five people who should have filled those shoes never surfaced. I’ve had to exit some roles for lack of time, and they remain unfilled, crying for someone to do the work.
The last one I had to leave still needed white papers laying out progressive positions on public health care at state level and on state budgeting. That’s a pretty big opportunity, a big hole.
Read and rcc’d.
Great series Rayne.
Waiting for more.
THis inside look to it all is fascinating.
Kelly, GREAT comment @4.
Another great one Rayne. Keep it up. I think whether one tries to take over the Ds at the local level, or build a national third party, one is in for “. . . a lot of motherf*cking actual work to build a grassroots political apparatus.”
Leadership is the problem, not the solution. It is hierarchical, but we are so accustomed to hierarfchy we cannot or do not want to think in other terms. Rayne, nothing you have suggested so far is new or uses the internet to circumvent the grass roots approach. We need to organize everyone at once.
Rayne,
Solid insights. Thanks.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Speak it Sister! Great stuff and dead on right. If you want to change the world you have to do it yourself with the help of some of your friends. It is going to take a hell of a lot of work and it is not going to be easy or fast but it can be done.
Leadership is the problem if you only see leadership as hierarchical, top-down.
I personally subscribe to Robert Greenleaf’s vision of Servant Leadership, in which we all of us can lead by serving others which requires doing the work.
At one point in the early 1990s this country was on the verge of remaking its notion of leadership. Business was doing it to improve profits, flattening organizations to remove costs and redundancies through reengineering. The new flatter organizations required people to each be leaders in their own right, universal soldiers who could wear many hats.
That vision needs to be restored, this time systemically and to those in government. We should be rewarding those who lead by doing, those who serve others; we should not be rewarding those who merely take, who seek to be served rather than serve.
Yes, this is all terribly old school, isn’t it? Deep archetypal struggle common to all humankind.
Rayne – Great stuff! So far, you’ve described how difficult it is to launch a presidential campaign that challenges the party establishment and to build grassroots momentum for challenging the system at the local level. Which, in your opinion, is a more realistic vehicle for change?
And amen to the servant leadership model!
That was one of my greatest personal insights — as you said, going to take a hell of a lot of work and it is not going to be easy or fast. I was grossly naive plunging into this.
This was not something to be done for a Congressional term, or a presidential term. A democracy takes a lifetime to maintain; this isn’t something from which we can walk away feeling like the work is done.
The lessons were already set before us; our founding fathers spent their entire lifetimes on creating a democracy. Should we really expect it to take less time and investment to keep it?
Sorry. Leadership is always top down. If you want to say the leader reaches consensus with his or her followers, that’s not leadership, that’s something else. Semantics is always a pain, but if we don’t use words as intended we make difficult conversations even more difficult.
You’re not dictating the terms of my speech.
This is a perfect example of the resistance that Marinated points to at (12). Once you begin to ascribe to a top-down-only model, you might as well admit you’re an authoritarian personality.
The problem is leadership ONLY in the respect that the model needs to be changed. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to settle for top-down; it’s disempowering, disenfranchising, and affords the unmotivated an excuse for not doing the work by giving them a bogey man to blame other than themselves.
I am not an authoritarian personality because I say leadership has a usual meaning. Language is difficult enough without each of us making up new meanings for words. If your enlightened leadership is everyone together deciding, that’s not a leadership model. As for Marinated’s post, I do not see the relevance. What I suggest is further from the beaten path than your suggestions seem to be although I am not sure what your suggestions are.
As for your comments on present hierarchical leadership models, they are right on. We prefer blaming leaders rather than take responsibility for decision making. You see that here. I don’t see your leadership model changing that.
We are trying to change our rules so that we can get rid of elected party officials who are supporting R candidates by raising money and by using their credentials as “Democratic party officials” to promote their R candidate.
We are getting pushback from the good old boy network (that extends to a new generation of men) who want to be party officials, for the idea of the “power” they wield. It is bizarre.
My position is that this is the USA, and if they want to be citizens and “free range Democrats,” they can support anyone they want, but they have to resign their party position. It is not rocket science.
We have also done all the slog and continue to do so. I am not the most active owing to my on-going elder care in a town I do not live in but spend a lot of time in . . .But I do know the work you have done.
My current US Rep is someone I would call a friend and a progressive, and it is still hard to get support for our progressive platform. DC is a very difficult place. I used to think of politics as my “sport.” But it is not very much fun a lot of the time.
Great post, rec’d.
Takes me back to the time I was running our union’s local, and the difficulty of getting anyone to actually do anything – which seems to be a problem in any volunteer organization. I never could get anyone to run for Treasurer because it required actual, you know, work. (The most candidates I recall running for an office were the three that ran for Sergeant-at-Arms, apparently because the incumbent didn’t have to do anything except show up for the meetings.) I recall having signed one of my treasurer’s reports as “President, Chief Cook and Bottle-washer.”
Ah, you just mentioned a challenge I should address in a future post. One of first things I noticed as I became politically active was the absence of people with families.
There were plenty of retirees, a few young people, but there was a demographic swath missing among the ranks of activists. It’s the folks who have either children at home or eldercare who aren’t represented. I know I had to do a lot of juggling with my kids and day care to make meetings, and quite often I brought them with me (ask emptywheel, she’s seen them at a state party convention). This is not an option with eldercare situations for the most part.
What I think MoveOn and the Dean campaign tapped in their early online outreach was the ability to be active in spite of the demands of family. If this is what life permits, great — it’s still engagement.
But we do need to find a way to address the needs of this particular demographic, because they shouldn’t be disenfranchised or disempowered from the democratic process by their need to actually practice real family values, especially when they may be most in need of government services.
Thanks, MayDaze.
Yeah, that treasurer’s slot is probably the most difficult one to fill, regardless of the organization. Apparently bookkeeping folks are conservatives or apolitical…
I hear you about the Chief-Cook-and-Bottlewasher — I literally spent half of the August DFA Meetup cleaning the kitchen, rinsing out returnable bottles left by another progressive group’s meeting. [sigh] But we really could use the $$ from the bottle returns, you know?
Overall great post Rayne, if people aren’t involved then they won’t make a difference. It is more effective to write a letter to a representative than to write a blog post.
I have been an assistant treasurer for both a local state race and a failed congressional race. My experience has been a little more demoralizing than yours. With all the democrats saying we need to change the party from within, it is in my opinion, wishful thinking.
During this last democratic primary my candidate is a long time successful prgressive state senator. He ran for Congress this year and was forced to drop out of the primary by the establishment democrats in Washington DC and the State. They threatened his career in the party if he didn’t drop out. They were going to take away his committee chair and stop funding his campaigns.
The reason they wanted him to drop out was that they had their own more moderate candidate. The more moderate canidate had lots of big dollar contributions from corporations. I have since left the democratic party as it is not run by the grass-roots it is run by the corporations and the establishment.
Yeah. I can feel your pain in my gut reading this. This is where I think the next challenge is for progressives who are inside the party: we need to find the way to disconnect candidates from the so-called powers that be.
These are merely rhetorical questions, don’t want specifics because they might indicate more than you really want to share:
– Was it the state party chair who handled the discussion with the candidate to drop out?
– Was it the DCCC who handled the discussion?
– Or was it a pile-on by both?
– What leverage did they use to force the candidate out?
– Was there internal polling showing numbers?
– Did Dem voters including progressives in the district get a chance to offer feedback before a final decision?
I’d really like to know where the pinch point is in these cases, and it may be different on a state-by-state, seat-by-seat basis. I know in my own backyard the state party chair called a primary opponent and asked them to drop out and didn’t offer much in the way of information during the phone call as to why he was asking. This tells me we should be recruiting and grooming party chair candidates before January 2011. It also tells me that we need to open a dialog within the party about incumbent protection, too, since there was an incumbent involved who really needed to retire years ago.
Was it the state party chair who handled the discussion with the candidate to drop out?
– Was it the DCCC who handled the discussion?
– Or was it a pile-on by both? It was a combination of state chair, national pressure.
– What leverage did they use to force the candidate out? They threatened his committee chair and standing in the party.
– Was there internal polling showing numbers? He did have an internal poll and he was polling very well. He actually got in the race with the encouragement of the state. The ironic thing is they thought he was the only democratic candidate that had a shot in this district.
– Did Dem voters including progressives in the district get a chance to offer feedback before a final decision? Yes, but the candidate that came in later had a ton of money and was friends with the governer. The sad thing is that their candidate is losing badly to a Teaparty candidate in the general. My Candidate had to decide whether to run independent or ruin his demcoratic standing in the party if he stayed in and lost the general election.
The republicans had 4 candidates in the primary and the democrats only had one.
I see a few things which could be worked on:
– The state screwed up – time to work on replacing the chair. Don’t encourage a candidate and then pull the rug out from underneath them; it’s completely unethical.
– The local parties should adopt by resolution changes to their bylaws which encourage primary runs; the local parties should have a dialog about the minimum requirements candidates should have in a primary (i.e. $XX money on hand, filings prepared, X number of volunteers lined up and management team on standby, and written campaign strategy). If all counties in the district could get on board behind this, could then move out to rest of state, but at least have the local parties on board to encourage primary runs. (Obviously primary races didn’t bother the Republicans, why should it bother Dems?)
– The candidate should have told them to piss up a rope. Standing in the party? Bah. What that really means is “still have cred with the machine” and right now, this progressive doesn’t have it anyhow if he was asked to drop out. If anything this year might have been the year to run against the party by saying “The machine politicos don’t want you to vote for me even though the numbers say you want me; give them hell and vote for me in the primary.” It’s going to take candidates doing this more often before the machine gets the message.
– I don’t know what the committee chair was in question, but I don’t know if we aren’t going to have to sacrifice a few of these along the way to make the point.
Good gravy but we still have so much damned work to do.
Watch this video http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7175395/
and then go here http://www.democratz.org
Liberals will end their frustrations beginning today.
You know, it would be nice if you just wrote out what you wanted people to do instead of hijacking traffic to sites which readers can’t pre-screen.
I typically avoid clicking on links like these, even if it’s possible they have real merit, simply because I don’t know anything about the site at the link and whether it contains malware.
I agree, but how do you fight a system from within, when there are no choices to begin with. It is the people that get elected that make many of these choices for all of us. If we keep voting for the democrats that say they are better than the republicans, but then make access to the ballot so difficult for anyone else, what have we really gained? The arguement that I hear all the time is the republicans are worse, but it is actually the democrats in the party that are the problem. A republican has no say in the democratic party, so why wouldn’t I want the conservative democrat to loose to the republican? It moves the democratic party to the left.
If we don’t have public financing for elections will we ever get candidates that we want? What incentive do elected officials have in changing the current system? They are already part of the system. Why would they want to make it easier for somebody to run against them. Whithout cash it is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to win.
We’re going to have to figure out a way to decapitate the party (and by this I mean a political coup, not a call to violence) and give it a transplant from within.
There are methods to do it, but it’s going to take more organizing. The challenge is that many of the people who’d like to get behind this effort are not experts on party rules and operations. We’re going to have to hunt down experts who are willing to work with us.
Your post reminds me of CHS and You are the change you’ve been waiting for.
And CHS and the work FDL actually does, hands on, is why I’ve been her for five-plus years as a community member.
Thanks for reminding me of her today. ;-)
[edit: I just realized it's one year ago this past weekend that CHS went on hiatus. [sigh])
“I have since left the democratic party as it is not run by the grass-roots it is run by the corporations and the establishment.” Same here. I see no pt. in wasting anymore energy on this party it’s fatally compromised.
I’ve sensed a growing conviction among many of the posters here that the Dem. party needs to be tea bagged, but the problem is unlike the reactionary Mad Hatters tea bag movement, Progressives do not have the deep pockets of the Oligarchs to reach into. In fact WE are the real targets of this crowd and our own Corporatist elite in the Dem. party as well. Listen to the endless hatred being directed @ anyone who dares to even bring up the notion of a Progressive Incomes tax for instance. You’d think such an idea would be simply a mainstream notion by now so long in use that why would anyone even bother to challenge it, right? WRONG! The Right wants the Progressive Income tax removed and from what I can garner won’t give up till it is. Along with this fight we see them also moving to eliminate most if not all of the “new Deal” reforms and legislation like SSI, unemployment Insurance, and the War on Poverty era reforms as well, Medicare, food stamps etc. We have a helluva fight ahead of us and were not going to get much in the way of help or support from what’s left of the Dem. party. The right has successfully co-opted both the major parties and is even pushing the political goal posts further to the right as we chat. How do we effectively counter their $$ and the Corp. orgs. already in place to support them? We are unfortunately, a poor unorganized rabble, long on frustration and anger, but short on pitch forks and cash. It’s an unfair fight. The nobility has thousands of yrs. of experience crushing revolts, rebellions and revolutions and we the people are forced by sheer desperation to figure it our anew every generation. I fear for my kids.
This is a FANTASTIC peek into the moribund world of Democratic Party ‘functioning’ (really, dysfunction). You are much to be praised and thanked for it. And, I must say, you’ve basically confirmed what I had suspected.
I think you are unfairly being attacked, e.g. here.
Please publicize your series, especially this installment, far and wide, so that you can point people in the right direction.
In fact, I’ve long thought that people who run for office should document their experiences in blogs and videos, precisely for the reason that others can learn the roadblocks that old-boy networks of Democrats (or Republicans, for those that lean that way), and not waste time working around these roadblocks, unduly.
I also believe that people should do so so in order that, as members of voting blocs, (who will vote 3rd party if they feel it’s easier and better for them) they can have a rational basis for deciding whether to vote for a Dem or whether to vote for a candidate running on a 3rd party ballot line. I fully expect that, in general, the clubby members of local Dem machines are not going to let reformers waltz in let democracy bloom.
So, the question of how hard it is to reform the Democratic Party, county by country, vs. supporting a third party, needs as much sunshine as possible.
NOW FOR THE $64 DOLLAR QUESTIONS:
1) DO YOU SUPPORT A MASSIVE EFFORT TO DOCUMENT THE DYSFUNCTION SHOWN AT LOCAL PARTY MEETINGS OF BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS?
2) WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE FACT THAT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MOVEON, AND PROMINENT BLOGS SUCH AS DAILYKOS, NEVER (? RARELY ?) PUT OUT CALLS TO THEIR READERSHIP (AFAIK) TO GET INVOLVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL? I take it as a sign of their cooption. They’re big on whining, and focussing attention on Republican outrages (as well as exaggerating them, as is particularly evident with the Tea Parties), but how often do they urge people to act as you have acted?
3) WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THE THE MASSIVE SUCCESS AT DISPLACING LOCAL DEM PARTY OFFICIALS THAT OCCURRED IN NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ? This was written about a the Progressive Democrats of America website, in an article called Progressives and Revolutionaries Win 25 Seats in Local Democratic Party. Does it not make sense to study the METHODS used by these Democrats to carry out their coup?
Exerting political muscle at local Dem meetings, as newcomers, is going to be hard, but you have to admit that if you and 24 like-minded people win seats all at once, it’s going to be MUCH EASIER, CORRECT?
I think if you’ve actually been reading my posts you’ll realize that not only is corporate money a problem, but the lack of citizen participation in depth and quantity is a problem.
If we leave the party apparatus to run by itself, who or what will the party actually represent?
Appreciate the feedback. And if you wanted to do me a favor, you can tell Archangel M that accusing someone of lying can be actionable. In their post at Docudharma they claim that I’m lying about third party organization.
Um, yeah. Right. Let’s go with the example Archangel M cited, the Green Party, and I’ll talk about them in the context of my home state. We’re talking about a party which can’t muster even 10 county organizations in an 83-county state. They may have 26 candidates running this election season for state/federal legislature, but that’s less than one tenth of the total seats. And Green candidate Cynthia McKinney took a whopping 8,892 votes in the 2008 presidential race — compare that to Ralph Nader running for NLP with 33,085 votes, and Bob Barr running as a Libertarian with 23,716 votes in the same race, where more than 5,000,000 total votes were cast for all parties. The NLP and Libertarians actually have a smaller presence in this state in terms of organization than the Green Party, and they each outstripped the Green candidate by more than 2X the votes?
Give me a freaking break. **
You know what else really sucks about this lack of organization? These little tiny parties for their lack of organization and inability to act strategically and tactically end up f*cking the entire left. I’ll give a specific instance: in 2008 the state senate here was on the verge of flipping majority. Only a very small number of seats — like a couple! were required to flip the senate. It was essential to flip it because new legislation which could reduce the number of foreclosures was being held up by the Republican Senate, along with a lot of other equally important legislation. (Quite literally, the Republicans wanted to pass foreclosure/mortgage legislation written by a foreclosure services firm instead.) There were two senate districts in which Greens fielded a candidate; in one of the districts, the candidate filed paper work for his candidacy, but that was it. They never door knocked, never printed or dropped literature, never did media outreach, never attended a candidate event of any kind, never filed any more campaign finance reports. They drew down a few hundred votes, though, in a race where the margin was only a few hundred votes between the Dem and Republican.
Nearly the same thing happened in another district, where the vote margin between Dem and Repub was less than 300 votes; the candidate in this case actually filed more paperwork, but still did virtually nothing in the way of campaigning. They pulled a few hundred votes.
And the state senate stayed Republican, causing gridlock for the next two years, including the shutdown of government and shortages of money during the first month of school last year for hot lunch programs. (I know this intimately because I worked on a whip effort for a progressive caucus to fix this budget debacle.)
Admittedly, there was something the Dem candidates in these two key races could have done: they could have courted the Greens and promised to vote progressively on their issues. This is thinking outside the box which must be done going forward. But that Green voters actually believed either of their candidates were credible and would actually represent them? Bah. They got exactly what they worked for — and they didn’t do the work. While the Dems screwed up by failing Tip O’Neill’s famous rule, “Ask for my vote,” the Greens screwed themselves by not doing internal polling and offering to support the Dem if the candidate would caucus for them.
And Archangel M says I’m lying? Uh-huh.
I’ll answer your questions next in a separate comment.
[** I just remembered two things: first, NLP has died as a national party and only exists in Michigan, yet they mustered 3X+ more votes than Greens. State law here also requires a minimum of 15,000 votes to remain listed as a party on the ballot, too; the Greens here couldn't organize well enough to make that threshold and could be at risk of delisting.]
In response to your questions:
1) DO YOU SUPPORT A MASSIVE EFFORT TO DOCUMENT THE DYSFUNCTION SHOWN AT LOCAL PARTY MEETINGS OF BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS?
You won’t get in the door with Republicans. You can try, but they will rat you out and make your life miserable if they find out you’re trolling them. Depending on the locale, this is not something to take lightly. Read up on the College Republicans and YAF and you’ll see that some of these folks are not to be trusted.
As far as Dems go, they should have more visibility and transparency (up to the point where it interferes with their ability to run against their opposition, i.e. internal polling info, so on); it may be one of the ways in which we put candidates/elected on the spot. They may get corporate money, but they still have to have our votes; they need to earn them every day.
2) WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE FACT THAT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MOVEON, AND PROMINENT BLOGS SUCH AS DAILYKOS, NEVER (? RARELY ?) PUT OUT CALLS TO THEIR READERSHIP (AFAIK) TO GET INVOLVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL?
After Howard Dean went to the DNC, DFA had to put up a wall between itself and the Dem Party for legal reasons. 501c4 and PAC organizations cannot organize with parties, must be separate. This does cause a kind of schism between these activist groups and the party.
Of course there is nothing keeping members of these groups — and I’m a member of both DFA and the Dem Party — from exercising their First Amendment rights to discuss the successes and failings of these groups.
Ahem.
3) WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THE THE MASSIVE SUCCESS AT DISPLACING LOCAL DEM PARTY OFFICIALS THAT OCCURRED IN NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ?
I should indicate here that I’ve worked with PDA before on a subcommittee, so I’m familiar with their work and their mission. I’ve not been active with their group for awhile now, but I do know there’s a strong overlap with these folks and other progressive activists within the Dem Party.
The situation in New Brunswick is exactly what we were encouraged to do by Dean. What the article doesn’t tell you is that this took one helluva lot of time and effort to organize, a lot of networking and a lot of trust between the progressive members to get this done. I applaud their work; it’s a great model. (And I’m pretty sure this is the same thing we did in my county.)
What happened in New Brunswick must happen across the entire country.
But here is one important caveat: the PDA is a Democratic organization. I don’t know this for a fact, but it may be able to coordinate within the Dem Party for this reason, without running into the legal pitfalls which prevent DFA from doing anything which appears to be coordinated effort. PDA acts more like a progressive caucus within the Dem Party, in other words.
As for MoveOn: it’s a nonpartisan organization, and it faces the legal separation between 501c4/PACs and parties. 501c4 and 501c3 organizations also have limits on what they can do in terms of politics — 501c4 can lobby, 501c3 can’t. Both can advocate on issues, not on candidates.
DailyKos: To the best of my knowledge it’s a privately-held entity. I can’t begin to know what is going on there in terms of strategy and tactics for this reason.
I’ll try and find time to respond more, later. For now:
Would you consider making some sort of roadmap for progressives to take over the Democratic Party apparatus, with milestones enumerated in terms of # of participants, # of volunteer hours per month, # of positions in the party apparatus captured, vs. what they can expect in terms of progressive members of Congress?
Your series is enlightening, but IMO it needs to be expanded to include a roadmap, and somehow propagandized beyond the blogosphere.
IMO, you can’t blame progressives for being dissatisfied, especially those of them who did indeed support Democrats with a lot more than just their votes. However, just telling them to get involved, as often happens; or just telling them to hold their noses and vote for Dems, again, is not going to inspire anybody.
I think what would inspire lots of people is if you laid out a credible roadmap with goals, and discussed successes like what happened in New Brunswick.
As an analogy: If your doctor tells somebody to “lose weight”, that is not going to be as successful as if he says “lose 50 pounds over the next 8 months, 6 pounds per month, and here’s a specific diet that will take you there. Oh, yeah, here are before and after pictures of patients of mine who followed a similar diet.” Just saying “lose weight” is too nebulous. Also, they probably already know that!
I’m asking you to be the doctor, and you to design the diet. Your ‘diet’ will be a political one, and furthermore one that needs to be embraced by groups of people.
If you create a credible plan, you could post a dashboard showing where progressives are, vs. where they need to be, on the FDL website.
===============
Secondly, I meant for Republicans to police their own party, and document whatever hurdles are placed in their path
I tried to edit my previous comment to say “take over the Democratic Party apparatus”, instead of “take over the Democratic Party”.
What a coincidence, because a “road map” is the next post in this series.
It’s going up in just a moment after I finish a few minor tweaks.
Now that I’ve got my post published, I’ll respond to your comments:
I AM a progressive. I AM dissatisfied. I was so damned dissatisfied in 2002 that I got off my butt and did something about. The work is not done — hell, I specifically remember somebody saying this:
I’m not freaking done with this. It’s going to take a lifetime, just as it took the man I quote a lifetime. I am not telling anybody to simply vote for a Democrat; I’m telling them that until they get involved, until they get off their butts and do something, their options are slim. It’s also an insult to the democracy we have — for which the founders signed out their own death warrants in the form of a Declaration of Independence and then shed blood — that we can’t even manage to attend a meeting or two a month to maintain let alone improve the democracy we have.
If we want something badly enough, we have to be willing to make sacrifices. In this case it means doing the work of organizing.
All politics are local; the map provided must be customized for the locale in which it is deployed by the people who live there. I can’t tell them X number of anything, I can only ask them to consider it. And as for the map: we know it works, because much of a couple of states and some counties have used this same general map customized to their own needs. But it doesn’t work if ignored.
With regards to the New Brunswick “insurgency”: the road map provided won’t help with this, it will only provide a way to insert progressives into the political process, providing them with concrete goals on which to focus. Because every existing local organization is unique, shaped by state and local charters and bylaws, progressives seeking to emulate the “insurgency” model must start first with participation, then learning how the organization functions, how to acquire a critical mass in terms of voting blocs within the organization, and then stack key votes as necessary with supporters. That’s about as basic as I can get given the individuality of every organization.