Did Gore subvert the democratic process? (from dailyKos) - worth reading

[pruner]

by kos
Tue Dec 9th, 2003 at 04:44:54 UTC

Gore endorses Dean. Fans of the Vermont governor exhulted. Most everyone else recognized it as yet another major step toward a Dean nomination.

And a small group have loudly complained that Gore has somehow subverted the democratic process.

Which is, of course, ludicrous.

To begin with, the presidential primaries are never a truly democratic process. The people of Iowa, NH, and the restof the February states have had a disproportionate level of influence. Illinois' legions of good Democrats have zero say in the election of our nominee. Neither do those in Minnessota. Or Massachussets.

Or do they?

In the past, they wouldn't have had a say. They didn't in 2000 (did anyone?). But technology has changed all that.

Dean built his support not on the back of the "establishment", but despite it. That they are all lining up behind him now is testament to what Dean has built -- a massive army of supporters hailing from the entire nation, from Alaska to Atlanta. Those supporters have driven the campaign, providing it not only with money, but with committed evangelizers, spreading the word about Dean in a way that could never be replicated in a 30-second spot -- personally. Face to face, or via an email from a friend, at the family dinner table, or around the watercooler. They have canvassed. Set up tables at farmers markets and college campuses. Marched in parades. Done whatever it took to spread the word and build support for their guy.

AFSCME and SEIU told us Dean worked hardest for their support. He offered the right message at the right time. He took unpopular positions because they were right, not because they were politically expedient. And people flocked to his campaign. Hundreds of thousands of them.

A mere four years ago, an Alabama Democrat would've had no say whatsoever in our party's nominee. But today, Democrats in Alabama have helped spread the word about Dean, donated to his campaign, attended meetups, wrote letters to Iowans, Granite staters, and Al Gore.

So it's true, no votes have been cast. But that doesn't mean we haven't seen democracy in action the past year. 2003 was a clinic in how technology could be used to build a movement, how bytes on a screen could be transformed into off-line activities in pursuit of a cause.

We have been seeing true participatory democracy. Some campaigns got it. Others did not. And yet others simply got in the game too late. Movements aren't built overnight.

I reject the notion that democracy isn't being served. At the end of the day, we'll still have elections to select delegates. Each candidate still has to get his (or her) supporters to the polls. Dean's nomination isn't a done deal. But he sure is in the best position to receive it.

Dean is where he is because of hundreds of thousands of supporters. That is the essence of democracy. The system didn't give most of them a meaningful vote, and yet it didn't matter. They voted (and continue to vote) with their money and hard work.

Nothing precluded the other candidates from following this same path. That they didn't isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing in their inability to harness the power of the people.

Gore simply recognized the power of Dean's movement. Any of the other candidates would've killed for the endorsement, but they didn't earn it. Dean worked hardest for it, and that he got it isn't commentary on our political system.

No matter how much sour grapes would have it be otherwise.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/9/44454/1082

[Eloriel]

1. Fabulous n/t

[robsul82]

2. Exxxxxxxxxxcellent.

Wonderful article.

Later.

RJS

[Terwilliger]

3. is that copyrighted?

Gore can choose who he wants. This reaction is sour grapes (not to say that your side hasn't been just as bad).

[pruner]

4. the dailyKos copyright policy…

© 2003. Steal what you want.

:)

[robsul82]

8. Absolutely.

Point about our side being jerky taken.

Later.

RJS

[corporatewhore]

5. One way i think dean subverts democracy

when he says he is for globalization.No one who is affected by free trade and deals like wto nafta ftaa and so on gets a say on any of these trade treaties.the policies are not voted in congress and they invade our communities in several ways such as a section in the ftaa agreements that would allow for increased privatization of services, and resources such as water. A similar section in NAFTA, referred to as Chapter 11, has already resulted in the assessment of millions of dollars in suits against Canada, the U.S. and Mexico for alleged losses in profits stemming from the implementation of environmental protections.

[JaySherman]

6. Some people should go crawl under a rock and never come out.

Sheesh! Who are these clowns, anyway? Anyone got a link?

[ibegurpard]

7. Thanks pruner!

Excellent article! :toast:

[pruner]

9. kick

[hlthe2b]

10. Very nicely put...

I hope (regardless of chosen candidate) that most DUers will read this...

[Melodybe]

11. Thanks this is a great article.

Globalization is not a bad thing, what is bad about it now is the imperialist way that richer nations are raping third world nations. Dean has said that he is for globalization but not in its present form. He wants nations to respect workers rights. He wants for other nations to become as great as ours, but they can not do that the way things are now and he wants to change that.

[corporatewhore]

13. He has not come out

against corps being able to privatise things like muncipal services like water.I think that fed ex challenged the very existence of the canadian post office under chapter 11 of naftaI think that you might be suprised to know that the free trade agreements are working towards being able to sue communitys who refuse to take down their environmental laws as "barriers to profit"That is the very nature of all of theese Naftas Wtos Ftaas is to break down all barriers to trade and to liberalize it. What my main point is that the people who are affected by it cant vote on it that is how it subverts democracy

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Jeb Bush was right: "What is this problem Democrats have with voting?"

The Democratic Party has been systematically trying to subvert the primary season since 1984. By top-loading the schedule, the Party seeks to coronate its hierarchical choice; this gave us Mondale in '84 when Hart actually had a decent chance.

Now, there's clearly been an upset in the power brokers' plans, but there's such an abject terror in letting it play out naturally that the panic is palpable. What's the fucking matter? The primary season is a great way to see who sorts out over time, and who can weather the storm. We've thrown all that out the window now, and are attempting to have politics the easy way, without actual politics.

What Al Gore did today and will do tomorrow is absolutely idiotic. It's "fair" in the strictly legal sense, but it's skittish and akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game. It also reeks of a fear of the unknown. In days of yore, the greybeards tended to stay out of the fray BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED, and this allowed the poor saps in the general public a chance to actually have a voice in things. Now, we have little if any.

What's the goddam problem with letting the peons actually have a voice? That was the implied intent of the primary system. Although states like New Hampshire have ridiculously more influence than they ever should, at least there was a pretense of a plebiscite. We've come to expect this, and deserve it. The only possible rejoinders to my line of argument are essentially conservative thuggery: "stop whining", "that's the way the world works", "who said life was 'fair'", "ha ha ha" and the like. This announcement is as nauseating as it is unnecessary. If it works--and I guess we'll know shortly--the Republican machine has a 3 to 8 month GIFT from us: they will be able to concentrate all of their firepower early and bring everything to bear. The other candidates' voices will be stilled, whereas the media would have had to at least somewhat cover their assaults on Junior when they were still viable or semi-viable candidates.

So, we've reduced our firepower and reduced the enemy's targets. Brilliant.

[slinkerwink]

14. Did you even read the article?

Dean's campaign, by far, is the best example of participatory democracy---if you don't know what participatory democracy means, go look it up.

Dean has 500,000 supporters working for him on their own time, unpaid, and they're canvassing neighborhoods, even in later primary states, they're talking to their friends/families about Dean, they fire off letters to biased articles, and most of all, it is their money that fuels this campaign. The Dean campaign is not just about Dean, it's about US----the people.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. After all your virulence, are you going to get huffy now?

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept.

You have been tireless in your support of your champion, while some of us have committed the sins of actually engaging in qualified discourse. If you take the time to read my post, you'll see that it's an argument against Gore and others in the party establishment for wanting to avoid popular voting in order to either install their choice or just kill the issue before the general populace sullies it all with their tiresome wishes.

Yes, the Dean team has worked wonders, but some of their--and his--tactics are very reminiscent of conservative tactics: smearing and outright lying, while demanding the moral highground as a given. It's laughable to see the Deanies shriek when Clark partisans hit them with the same tactics.

Howard Dean does not unquestionably deserve the nomination. He is not the new messiah, and his tactics have been nastily insulting to some very fine people. You won't see that because, for some reason, you feel entitled to his ascendency. He feels entitled to it, too; that's why you hear so many personal comparisons between him and Bush. (He's an infinitely more decent person, beyond question, but the pomposity, privilege and authoritarian style are eerily similar.)

Don't feign the dudgeon of the wronged; Deanies have rubbed everyone's nose in it long past the time when it was an endearing fervor of the underdog. Now it's the lockstep crushing of inferiors. Maybe he'll win; if so, he's going to have to work with those "cockroaches" and the "Bush-lite" losers who are far more to the left and concerned with the commonfolk than he is, so it's time to join the party and not piss all over anyone who has the effrontry to point out that the Emperor thinks he's precisely that: a monarch.

More than anything, gain the wisdom of knowing when one's position has changed. You people are not the wronged victims, so please back off from the self-granted right of unconditional, unlimited retaliation.

If you don't think that establishment Dems have been averse to actually letting the people into the decisionmaking, then you're missing something; that was the subject of my post.

[CWebster]

24. get over it

and reserve your venom for Bush.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

36. Looks like you are doing most of the bullying and bombast

Whose real majority? Edwards groundswell? Please, what right to you have to hiss and spit when your man complains about Northerners going down South and telling you all what to do --especially during church hour. Does he think we don't recognize the obvious pandering and code words? Then he prides himself as being so above the frey during the debates.

Ahhh, you must mean the majority posting non-stop Gore-bashing threads? Gotcha.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Your guy didn't invent virtue, and his edicts are divisive

Dean started out by attacking everyone in sight as being morally inferior. The ones to whom this label couldn't even remotely stick--like Kucinich--were merely ignored.

The very idea that Dean has the saintly right to be an extreme slanderer and have the right to live without reproach is akin to a claim of aristocracy.

Boy, I've been icky and resolute in my rhetoric, but I've praised your guy when he's done the right thing and haven't ever used door-slamming rejoinders like "get over it" and "stop whining". Yes, I've pointed out the self-annointed groupthink of the Deanies, and I've cited points about it; you people have the right to act however you please, but you have the social responsibility to be held accountable for it. That is something many of you consider yourselves above.

Dean is good, therefore he can lie about the Senators supporting tax cuts and repeat the lie even after being confronted. He can make flatly incorrect statements about speaking about race in front of white audiences. He can try to excuse this by saying that he can't be held responsible for listening to all speeches of his opponents, and then he'll turn right around and demand that everyone hang on his every word with the Confederate Flag issue. His word, to him and his people, is infinitely more "valuable" and "virtuous" than the others, so he doesn't have to play by the same rules. That's just silly; John Kerry has done more to defend the weak and fight the forces of greed than Dean has by any definition. He can deliberately lump them together in smear after smear while calling them "Bush-lite", and somehow he's impervious to any examination of his checkered past. He calls Congresspeople "cockroaches", and when they get a little heated with him he shrieks as if he's somehow morally above reproach from those he's attacked. All this springs from an early stance against the war, but one where he didn't have to stand up and actually cast a vote, nor where he was given the confidential intelligence snow-job from the administration. These people intensely dislike Bush, and have had to repeatedly hear themselves slandered as piddly inferior fellow travelers. It's no wonder why people like Kerry mutter "Dean Dean Dean" after his tirades.

Your assessment of my calling him and his supporters to account by labeling me a bully is ill-founded and a typical authoritarian attempt to dismiss any criticism. This is ridiculous.

[Sugarbleus]

17. I totally agree..

Let the process flow naturally!
I am a SEIU member....I BLASTED them for endorsing someone so early in the game--something akin to AARP! They DIDN'T ask me what I think.
I am a peon and my voice never gets heard in high places. I working on changing that with all my might for the rest of my days.
NAFTA IS A HORRIBLE THING for the common working class person in America. Dean is for yuppies and no one else.

[JNelson6563]

22. Oh POE you are much mistaken

The "peon" have favored Dean by a wide margin for some time now. In fact, the establishment was so alarmed when they saw none of their own making any headway, the peons uncooperatively going for the guy who proclaimed loudly that this war is wrong and Bush is an asshole.

Tell me POE, do you really believe Clark jumped into the race becasue a few thousand folks e-mailed him, asking him to? Or...did the establishment see that none of their own stood a chance?

IMO (and a few choice insiders I know with no horse in this race) Clark was the establishment's last minute answer to this insurgency by Dean. I think if they'd have made the move sooner we may be seeing things play out differently. Which tells me it's time to unseat the establishment, or at least make them a little less confident of their security. They are too little, too late all too often.

For more details on what I know but cannot share publicly, PM me. I've long thought you reasonable and certainly trustworthy.

BYW, how do you feel about Edwards as AG? I would be delighted. Beyond delighted even.

Julie

[HFishbine]

26. What the peons are doing

There are peons and there are peons. The peons who support Dean (myself included) have written letters to Iowa and New Hampshire voters encouraging them to support Dean. 5,000 peons are headed to Iowa to hit the pavement in support of Dean. Nearly as many are headed to New Hampshire. Peons who support Dean are sending him money; $10, $25, $50 at a time.

My state's primary is so late as to likely be irrelevant. However, this peon feels more empowered than he ever has. Maybe some of the peons who support other candidates need to accept a little reponsibility for the campaigns of their candidates.

31. . In days of yore,

. "In days of yore, the greybeards tended to stay out of the fray BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED, and this allowed the poor saps in the general public a chance to actually have a voice in things"

Which days were those? The smoke-filled room days?
Interesting irony, you chose the phrase "in days of yore" -- straight out of a fairy tale, IMO.

[loyalsister]

15. Truly the whole thing is being taken FAR too seriously

It was recognition of ideas in common, a great campaign and momentum- nothing more. It sounds like he would like to see other candidates stop handing the pukes ammunition for the GE in case Dean is the nominee, too.

[NWHarkness]

16. Last time I checked

Al Gore was an American citizen, free to endorse anyone he sees fit, any time he sees fit.

[ima_sinnic]

19. yes, and all that happened was an endorsement

--now Al Gore has the power to determine the outcome of an entire election?? all of the candidates are picking up endorsements from somebody or other--I haven't heard any whining about any of those.

[unfrigginreal]

20. I honestly think that had Gore endorsed one of the others this early

then we would have been bitching and moaning and making over the top(subverting) accusations. At the same time, the campaign receiving the endorsement would be celebrating with just as much enthusiasm as the Dean camp has.

It's an indicator of our passion to produce a winner next fall. We all know the stakes are higher than they've been in our lifetimes. We all want the best candidate to take on Bush. We have different ideas of who that person should be.

I'm ecstatic that Gore will endorse Dean. I've felt that his last 2 Moveon speeches gave us some clues that he felt we needed a change in the Party. His endorsing this early just shows that he no longer believes in politics under the old rules. He's listening, it's more than can be said of many in our Party.

[Ksec]

21. Gore was wrong

He went with Dean way too early. Its not illegal but its immoral. I dont think past Presidential hopefuls should be imposing their will after they failed when it was their turn. Gore should have waited and let the people make up their minds . Maybe after the vote , then it would be OK for him to jump onboard and help.

I think Gore stepped out of line . He should apologise to both Clark and Lieberman for what he did to them.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. Gore is now immoral? come on for goodness sake

by what standard did he fail when it was his turn, but getting more votes than any other democrat in history and any repbulican other than Reagan? Gore did fail either the party or the country. The party failed him.
Jeesh, speaking as a nonfan of Dean, leave it alone.

[Terwilliger]

34. FOR PITY'S SAKE!

:eyes:

Who's imposing anything? Are you saying your fellow Democrats are just stupid goons who hear Al say jump and they say how high? Is that what you're saying?

Al Gore has every right in the WORLD to support WHOMEVER the FUCK he chooses!! Why is this such an alien concept today?

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Both Clark and Lieberman have recieved endorsements from politicians

What makes this on immoral and Charlie Rangel's endorsement of Clark ok?

[CWebster]

23. It IS the campaign,

stupid.

And it is key to what kind of presidency it is most likely to be. Interesting, inclusive and active. Dean is hard worker and the state of the nation reguires that kind of drive to confront all that ails us.

[kentuck]

27. Gore has a right to endorse whomever he wants....

He's a private citizen, just as you or I. Just as Bill Clinton has a right to endorse whomever he wants...wonder why he's not endorsing General Clark, a fellow Arkansan?

[mzmolly]

28. Damn straight!!!

:toast:

[realFedUp]

29. really good.

I'll pass this one around. thanks for posting it.

[kodi]

30. excellent assessment of the issue.

democracy is not just voting, it is the hard and dirty work, day-in, day-out of building a campaign and movement.

dean has done it, al gore sees it, and has supported it.

[theboss]

33. This is silly justification

All Dean has is momentum. He hasn't won a damn thing yet. Momentum can change in a heartbeat in a primary. There is still plenty of time for him to call the Pope a cocksucker or something. But what Gore is doing is adding a tsunami to the already impressive momentum. This is why ex-presidents and other big-time players should stay out of the primaries.

[Terwilliger]

35. who do you support?

which candidate?

[theboss]

37. Not sure yet

Depending on the day, it's either Edwards or Clark with Dean occasionally popping up as my favorite on Sundays when I read the New York Times Magazine.

My anger today is not because I am a partisan. I'm a big believer in process. I think the process has been subverted.

[Terwilliger]

39. I dont understand

So, if Gore was still a senator or some other party functionary, his endorsement wouldn't matter, but now it does?

I still don't see why he should be faulted here. If Gore believes in Dean, why wouldn't he want to help him out before the first primaries?

[theboss]

42. Yes, that's right

By all rights, Gore should be running in this campaign. And if he ran, he would probably win. But he chose to step out of the limelight. And he occupies the entire spotlight because his name recognition is probably greater than the rest of the field combined. A primary is supposed to be about learning about candidates, testing them, seeing how they react. It's slow-developing plot.

Gore has pulled a deus ex machina and tried to end the play in the middle of the first act. He's playing kingmaker.

[ajacobson]

44. Who knows why?

My theory of the moment is that Gore got concerned that field is too crowded and wasn't coalescing around a front-runner and could possibly lead down the road to a brokered convention, which would be a sign of weakness. Dean's got the dough and the campaign apparatus so he's the one. The only logical explanation for the timing is that he didn't want to wait until Super Tuesday--maybe he felt the position of rest of the field would strengthen in the meantime.

I don't begrudge Gore his power of endorsement. It's the only thing of value he's got. I do think he's a prick for not diplomatically informing the other campaigns about his decision, at least for courtesy's sake.

I may be in a minority on this question but I think it is folly to winnow the field when nearly all polls show >20% of likely Demo voters undecided. The whole point of primaries is to build momentum and if a candidate is declared "the one" this early, IMHO this doesn't automatically coalesce support around that candidate. It just makes the rest of the process seem empty and stupid. That's not going to motivate undecided people.

[SEAburb]

38. Dean and Gore are attempting to hijack the primary process

It's heavyhanded and unseamly. And alot of Dems are going to be left with a bad taste in their mouth. The backlash cometh.

[kodi]

40. no they are not, dean has built a nation-wide campaign organization

you need to read and understand what kos wrote:

"Dean is where he is because of hundreds of thousands of supporters. That is the essence of democracy. The system didn't give most of them a meaningful vote, and yet it didn't matter. They voted (and continue to vote) with their money and hard work."

these people have been engaged a lot more and a lot longer than any primary voter will have been by simply going to a primary election poll and pulling a lever.

[pruner]

45. kick

:kick:

[arendt]

46. Projection Alert - Bush is the one subverting democracy for 3 yrs now n/t

n/t

[slinkerwink]

47. :kick: