Tweet
The Democratic Party is widely recognized to be compromised and corrupted by moneyed interests. The default setting for the Democrats’ backbone is somewhere between “slimy eel” (giving lip service to progressive values while betraying them covertly) and “spineless jellyfish” (caving to the Republicans out of cowardice). The barriers to reform from within are formidable. On the other hand, third-party challenges are almost insuperably difficult. Worse yet, both approaches – the purely “inside” approach of reforming the Democratic Party, and the purely “outside” approach of running third-party candidates – weaken the progressive movement, because of the inevitable differences of opinion as to which approach is best.
This division of effort is unnecessary. We can fashion a prosthetic spine for the Democratic Party, supplying externally the courage and integrity that it lacks. We can thus combine the advantages of internal reform and external third-party challenge, and enable their advocates, in effect, to work together simultaneously on both approaches. The hitherto marginalized Green Party could, by a certain change of tactics, play a central role in this new, combined approach – and thereby emerge as a major progressive force on the national scene.
We can learn something from the Tea Party and their attitude toward the Republican Party. They treat it strictly as a tool, and do not waste emotional energy (positive or negative) on it. Most (all?) of their candidates are run as Republicans. But they keep money and other resources (such as the effort of volunteers) under their own control, and offer such resources only to Republicans that they believe to support their principles. Thus, they avoid being co-opted by Republican insiders. Their approach is flexible and case-by-case. Sometimes they run primary challenges to Republicans they dislike; other times, they endorse and support favored Republicans. In exceptional cases, they might run their candidates as third-party or as write-ins, although I am not aware of any such cases; but even if this third-party approach is seldom used in practice, the potential is always there, and acts as an unspoken but ever-present threat to establishment Republicans who might be tempted to defy the Tea Party.
In short, the Tea Party acts as a feedback-control servomechanism, or a governor (in the engineering sense), for the Republican Party and its candidates. It has had considerable success in pushing the Republican Party to the far Right. We need to use similar methods to push the Democratic Party to the Left.
The Democratic Party needs a progressive governor party analogous to the reactionary Tea Party. A progressive governor party for the Democrats could neutralize infighting on the Left, allowing people with widely diverging opinions on the ultimate reformability of the Democratic Party to join together in taking immediate steps to amend its behavior in the short term.
Historically, the Green Party has tended to run its candidates exclusively under its own party label. But it could transform itself into a governor party and prosthetic spine for the Democratic Party, by selectively supporting Democratic candidates who meet progressive standards. There may not even be a need for extensive formal changes in its structure or bylaws to accomplish this transformation. There is ample precedent for candidates being endorsed by more than one party. The Green Party could see this strictly as a matter of tactics. In some cases, in order to be able to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary, the Greens would need to hold caucuses before the date of the Democratic primary. If the Green candidate won the Democratic nomination, that candidate would appear on the general election ballot with both Green and Democratic endorsement.
Dual endorsement by the Green Party would serve as a valuable seal of approval for progressive Democratic candidates. It would say to disillusioned progressive voters: This candidate is for real. In this way, the Green Party could reignite hope for authentic change and progress. It could also set the stage for its own dominance in national progressive politics – the kind of dominance that the Tea Party has (regrettably) achieved on the Right. We’ll know we’re getting somewhere when insider hacks start complaining about “infiltration” of the Democratic Party by the Green Party.
In races where a hopelessly compromised establishment candidate gains the Democratic nomination, the Green candidate could undertake a third-party challenge, appearing on the general election ballot with Green endorsement only. The long history of the Greens as a third party – including Presidential campaigns by Ralph Nader – would lend credibility to the potential for such a post-primary challenge, and force Democratic insiders to take such a scenario into account before the primary.
In some very liberal states or districts, the Green Party might be able to run a credible campaign against establishment candidates of both parties, using its traditional third-party approach in the general election, without a primary challenge. The chances of success in such races would be enhanced, not diminished, by the increased attention and influence that the Green Party would gain through its governor-party work within the Democratic Party elsewhere.
If the Green Party chooses not to step up to the plate in a governor-party role, it may be necessary to form a new and separate governor party, in an even closer analogy to the history of the Tea Party. But splintering and fragmentation have always been a problem for the Left, and are best avoided when possible. Of all existing progressive political forces in this nation, the Greens are best equipped to play the role of a prosthetic spine for the Democratic Party.
This post is based on my commentary on TheMalcontent’s post A line too bright to ignore. I am indebted to him and to others who wrote comments on that post. I am also indebted to my wife for the “prosthetic spine” metaphor. I had originally intended to use the title “A prosthetic conscience for the Democratic Party”; she commented, “They don’t need a conscience, they need a spine!”
4 Comments
Great thoughts, and well-argued, Sebastos.
One goal I see for the New Progressive Alliance is to act as the sort of “governor” you describe here, so if I could change one thing in your proposal, it would be just that. I believe we need a governor of all the various factions on the Left and that requires looking at the Democratic Party itself as just one more faction, the weakest, in fact. Greens, Socialists, Working Families Party, Labor Party, Peace and Freedom, Lefty independents, etc. etc. are all soooo much more attuned to (and willing to fight for) real Progressive/Lefty ideals and issues that, if we can unite them, they can quickly grow and replace the Democratic Party. And not a moment too soon.
As you can tell, I believe the Dems cannot be reformed or “pushed Left,” at least not in any meaningful way. They are too far gone and have been for too long. But we can endorse and support alternatives to the Dems, and more and more, I am seeing a host of efforts at doing so. Here, for one. Also in the words of Cindy Sheehan, who doesn’t want to be involved with the Dems in any way, and views involvement with them as a liability for the Left, not a positive in any way.
I think what the Teabaggers are successfully capitalizing on is the sense that the GOP is bought and paid for by big business and other big-money interests, bigger than any money their true believers have, at least. Their failure (or refusal) to see that the Koch Brothers, the appropriately named Dick (Armey) and others – who also have more money than they’ve ever seen or ever will, all at one time – are pulling their strings and using them is their liability, and there is a clear parallel in that with what I’m talking about vis a vis the Dems, above.
The only defense we have against the same sort of co-option for our movement, I believe, is a dogged grasp on the true extent to which today’s Democratic Party is complicit in the rape of the average American. We must refuse to loosen that grasp and, I think, hold to an overarching goal of replacing that party with (at least) one real alternative.
But one is not enough, and as we create (or embrace) multiple alternatives, there will be a need, if we have any hope for victory, for bringing them together. Big media/big money will continue to control the messages received by the (uninformed) masses, and those messages will continue to lead voters to choices which perpetuate the fascist reality we now inhabit. So there again, I see the NPA being the common peg for all the diverse groups on the Left, through its simple yet very clear, and very clearly Progressive, platform.
I’m wondering how the Greens would feel about this. One of their basic tenets, I believe, is an absolute ban on accepting corporate money. I don’t believe there would ever be a Democratic candidate who would meet this criterion.
Thanks for your thoughtful response!
It depends on what you mean by “weakest”. In terms of ability to advance a progressive agenda, yes, it is the weakest. Eels are not good at weightlifting. But in terms of entrenchment – voting base and ballot access – the Democratic Party is still too strong to ignore. Any purely external third-party approach needlessly sacrifices the numerous progressive voters who still have not yet become disenchanted with the Democrats. Their voting strength must be taken into account even by those whose ultimate goal is the complete replacement of the Democratic Party. Even if that is the goal, it does not follow that a direct third-party approach is best.
We need to find a way to leverage the entrenched base of the Democratic Party without being corrupted or influenced by its leadership and funding sources. A governor party, like the Greens, would give us that leverage. The flow of money and other resources, such as volunteer effort, would be selective (under our control) and strictly one-way. We use their ballot access and their entrenched base, but we never take their bribes or do fundraising directly for them. Nor do we give their corrupt insider leadership a seat at our table. All contributions of money and time would go directly to the governor party, and would be placed at the service only of Democratic candidates that we trust – never at the service of the national Democratic organization.
Again, it depends on what we mean by “pushed Left”. Has the Tea Party really succeeded in pushing the Republican Party to the far Right? In one sense, no; the establishment Republican insiders are still firmly in charge, and their agenda has not changed at all. But electoral outcomes and public opinion are being driven increasingly by the Tea Party and not by the Republican insiders.
If the Tea Party at some point decided to switch to a strictly external third-party approach in rivalry with the Republican Party, the chances of success in that endeavor would not be diminished at all by the governor-party approach they have used hitherto. Quite the contrary, they would actually have a chance to succeed at replacing the Republican Party now, whereas their chances of success when they were first organized, in 2009, would have been essentially zero.
Likewise, even if our goal is to consign the Democratic Party to the history books, we must be willing to work with their true believers at the outset. I’m not as familiar as I would like to be with the history of the Old Left, but I believe non-Communist liberals of those days frequently worried about Communist “infiltration” of the Democratic Party. We aren’t Communists, but we may need to learn from them, as well as from our archrivals in the Tea Party.
I personally don’t care one way or the other whether or not the Democratic Party survives, and I’m agnostic as to whether it can truly be reformed. What is absolutely clear is that we need to seize the reins of power from its current leadership as quickly and effectively as possible – and we need to evaluate a wide range of strategies for doing so. The most effective strategy may be one that looks very odd and implausible at first glance. A lot of people, from all parts of the political spectrum, laughed at the Tea Party when it was first created. I don’t hear much laughter now.
In commentary on TheMalcontent’s A line too bright to ignore, I anticipated these issues:
On the other hand, it is probably not necessary to limit ourselves to small contributions in order to turn down corporate money and avoid corporate corruption. In Daniel J. Galvin’s recent FDL book salon on his book Presidential Party Building, he wrote (Daniel Galvin @ 33):
He also responded positively to some remarks of mine on this topic (Daniel Galvin @ 94):
Labor can provide serious funding without the kind of strings that corporations would attach. And if the Green Party chooses not to reach for the brass ring, organized labor could work with any other party (such as the New Progressive Alliance) that might take the initiative.
One source of real dilemmas could be funding that ultimately comes, in part, from corporations, but might be viewed as not under their control, and therefore acceptable. For example, although a progressive Democratic candidate might refuse all direct corporate donations, funding from the Democratic National Committee might be viewed as acceptable (and hard to refuse). Or what about George Soros? Personally, I would not see a problem (and indeed would welcome Soros funding for progressive candidates), but some progressives might.
Deciding where to draw the line would require some work, although there are likely to be existing Green policies on such borderline cases. But it is unlikely that any such dilemma would be a deal-breaker. Even the most hard-line doctrinaire approach, although perhaps unnecessary, would leave available enough funds to allow a credible challenge to establishment Democrats – especially if labor started routing all of its support for Democrats through a governor party.