|
My original post in normal font, Seventhson's in bold, and my subsequent replies in red. {{and if I get all these html codes right on my first attempt. . . .}} Now I shall take some time to address your post, point by point, if you may permit me. The problem is that the Democratic Party is a self-perpetuating machine. An independent campaign might challenge it, but I seriously doubt even the Dean meet-ups could coalesce into a party machinery. And that's the problem. American politics run on party machinery. The enthusiasm of the Dean campaign is a brilliant miracle, and I'm not knocking it. The problem is that the GOP has an even more superb machine than the Dean campaign, and the only engine we've got that comes even close to matching it is the Democratic Party, either DNC, DLC or both combined. Unfortunately, ever since the major smears against Clinton -- in which the personal and political merged -- the Dems have been utterly spineless in confronting the GOP. Forgive me, but you sound confused. The Democratic party fails to rise to the task at hand, yet they are our only hope? Logically speaking if they do not rise to the occasion now, we can not expect them to in the near future. No, not confused, although my statement does sound somewhat like a contradiction. As flawed and weak as the Democratic Party is at the moment, its infrastructure is still extant. The engine is there; it just needs some fuel and someone to turn the key. My concern is that the Dean campaign, as successful and truly brilliant as it is, is an attempt to reinvent the wheel while forgetting that new tires alone won't get this vehicle rolling. The other aspects of the machinery -- local and state races, political appointments, working with congress and other government agencies, etc. -- aren't in place yet in the Dean campaign, and if the campaign effectively hijacks the DNC/DLC apparatus, any Dean administration (including the campaign in the general election) has to start from scratch. In other words, the very success of the Dean campaign could destroy the infrastructure.
I think the greatest danger here is that so many of the people involved in and energized by the Dean candidacy are people who have not been involved previously. This is wonderful, and it's indeed one of the criticisms I've had of the centrists within the DNC and especially the DLC -- that they haven't sought out the philosophically disfranchised. But if the newly enthusiastic are unwilling to work within the necessary infrastructure and/or unable to build their own new one from scratch, I don't think it will work. We are better off, therefore, working from within the framework of the existing apparatus than trying to build one from scratch. I will concede that the meet-ups can not play a party role now. But what role might they be able to play in the 2006 congressional elections? Or the following 2008 elections. If Bush should win in 2004, than might not the meet-ups be in a far better position to apply pressure against the Bush regime? Might they be a means of applying pressure against the DLC leadership, to turn some around and force others to step down? Conceding that the meet-ups cannot play a party role is the crux. Meet-ups are local and relatively autonomous. They do not involve a larger and more centralized structure. They become essentially guerrillas, which may be an effective strategy in the long run, but we may not have that luxury. There are those of us who already fear that if there is a * victory in 2004, there may not be congressional elections in 2006 or a presidential election in 2008, or at least that they will be so completely orchestrated by the GOP via gerrymandering and BBV as to be ineffective farces. Is that panic or hysteria? Perhaps, but it may also be forewarned is forearmed. Better not to have to find out.
As far as I've seen, there has been no effort on the part of the Dean campaign or the meet-ups to apply any pressure to the DNC or the DLC. If such pressure were to be applied, it needs to be done now, or maybe a year ago; it may be too late now. Again, this may account for some of the comparisons between Dean and George McGovern, in that the McGovern campaign (and Gene McCarthy's) involved so much enthusiasm, so much youth, so little coordination and orchestration. There has to be enthusiasm for the details, the grunt work of organization, not just stumping for the candidate.
The DLC is very pro-business, and until I've looked closer at Dean's record on corporations, other than his acceptance of contributions, I won't pass judgment. But I suspect he is less antagonistic toward the DLC and its philosophy than some of his supporters believe him to be, or that they are themselves. But Gov. Dean is not part of an apparatus that can mobilize voters and candidates on local, county, and state levels, as you so accurately pointed out. Not yet, anyway. And because he is coming from outside the Beltway apparatus far more than Bill Clinton did in 1992, Dean lacks the same level of ability to step in and preside that Clinton did. Now, I will grant that that situation could easily change if a.) Dean chooses a running mate who is an insider and/or b.) the DNC/DLC gets solidly behind Dean prior to the convention. This, of course, presupposes Dean takes the nomination before the convention. Well, the DLC certainly isn't. But Dean will not, nor should we expect him to be a force to turn around local elections. In truth, parties to no mobiles local elections. The function of the party is to give local election members the recourse they need in order to compete in election, and to govern there prospective offices.
But as you already noted, these recourses are NOT forthcoming. So we have to do it ourselves. But there is that money issue. How can one fund a campaign without money? The Democratic recourses have been very tight for a while now, even under Clinton. They have been forced to basically "pick" their battle grounds. The result of this of course is that they abandoned both heavily republican areas, as well as heavily democratic areas as well, focusing only on the "battle ground" states. The local elections there are written off.
This of course is a self fulfilling prophecy. We should not be surprised to see much of America turning "red" if we constantly seed them to the Republicans. Indeed, many of these Republican districts have a shocking number of liberals and progressives. Especially in the cites. But they are held down because of gerrymandered districts. I can tell you that in my district here in Kansas, with the last election, the Democrats won every office they competed for. Right up to the governors house. But the problem is that only a few of these seats were ever contested by the Democrats. Indeed, all that may be needed to beat the Republicans is simply to show up on the ballot. Again, this is something a viable party organization can accomplish. (And yes, I do expect Dean to mobilize local candidates; that's what "leaders" do.) What the local Dem organizations have at their disposal -- and which they may not be using efectively -- is machinery. They have things like computers and voter registration lists and meeting space and liability insurance and copiers and faxes. These assets are already in place, and they can be used. They aren't being used. And instead of making the effort to put these assets to use, the meet-ups are in many cases by-passing them. And yes, I understand that in the case of a primary, the party offices often can't provide services to a candidate. But when a meet-up becomes almost totally independent of the party, there is a disconnect and services are lost.
For example, here in the Phoenix area, the cable tv service offers a local access channel, on which the county Dems have a program. I have to admit that I have never seen it, because I don't have access to the cable system. But I do have a friend who works for the program, and about all I ever hear are complaints about how poorly it is run. Indeed, it's kind of taken for granted by the party and sometimes it actually works at cross-purposes. Here is an asset that might not even be made available to an "upstart" party, and might in fact be lost if not utilized.
That's why I said the party needs to waken from its timid slumber. It has assets, it has resources, and I don't think its unwilling to use them. As has been pointed out in other posts all over the place, we are at a much more perilous point politically now than in 1992. The congress is firmly in GOP hands at the moment. We have been able, as the Dems, to take a moral high ground for the past three years because * has had to contend with the fact that he was not elected by the majority of the voters. Even the 2002 GOP wins could not erase the fact that * lost the popular vote to Gore. That all changes in 2004 if * wins the popular vote. In essence, if * wins in 2004, he has a mandate based on his ability to and his rightness in overruling the will of the people! That's a really scary notion, in my estimation. I must disagree with this. The Democrats have NOT taken the moral high ground. Even though they have had plenty of opportunity to do so. Remember that Jim Jefferds secession from the Republican party handed the Democrats the Senate. And rules being what they are, the one vote majority gave all of the powers of the Senate to the Democrats. But the Democratic leadership was in fact Republican light, and did more to vote on the Republican agenda, than even giving voice to the Democratic one. The Democratic senate signed off on every Bush agenda he presented them. And even worked on Bush's behave to crush resistance to W's bills in the Senate.
This very Democratic Senate also told us to "get over it" in regards to the Florida elections. It was the Democrats that told us this, not the Republicans. There was a long long list of scandals that hit Bush, even before 9-11. The most notable one the California Electric Crises. The Dems openly supported Bush's refusal to apply price caps, or to other wise intervene in any way. And the Senate Leadership openly refused to investigate the happenings of the crises. To date, the highest ranking investigations are published by the California Investigative Burrow, lacking federal authority. And its efforts to hold Enron accountable languished until a Federal investigation into Enron's bankruptcy, sapended documents that detailed the inner workings of the electric crises.
The Democrats have not taken the high ground at all. They have in fact sold us out at every turn. As I suspect you very well know, given the following. Please read very carefully what I wrote. We have been able, as the Dems, to take a moral high ground for the past three years because * has had to contend with the fact that he was not elected by the majority of the voters. I didn't say the Democratic party took the moral high ground or took advantage of their position; I only said we as Dems were able to do so. In fact, the leadership did not act upon their advantage, even though they had it, as I pointed out in the section following that quote.
And yes, the Dems did roll over on numerous issues, from the Florida recount to Enron to the energy committee to 9/11 investigations. The list is almost endless. As a person who is philosophically far more to the left than even most liberal Dems, this appalls me. But as a pragmatist, I also know that the two-party system is currently still firmly entrenched in our political consciousness as well as our political apparatus. To try to sunder it now would be political suicide. As I have said in the past with reference to the Greens, until there is an ESTABLISHED infrastructure, which the Greens do seem to be working on as evidenced by their recent near-victory in San Francisco, a third-party national candidate is at best a spoiler (usually for his/her own interests) and at worst a buffoon. With all that taken into consideration, I'm utterly appalled at the lack of leadership shown by the DNC apparatus. I understand and acknowledge that there must be a certain leeway shown to those candidates who choose to run in the primary. That is, after all, the democratic process. But is it wise and prudent for them -- and I'm speaking primarily of McAuliffe as DNC chair, Daschle as Senate dem leader, Pelosi as House leader, and Bill Clinton as "elder statesman" and proponent of the DLC -- not to caucus and support the candidate who a.) most closely projects the party's traditional platform and b.) has the best chance of winning? (Wes Clark, by the way, has said some truly brilliant things about the lack of leadership in the * administration; those comments could just as easily apply to the Democratic party.) I've read so many posts here on DU from people who have said that Candidate X doesn't really match their personal views but they're going to support him/her anyway because of some intangible. . . .yet whoever wins the nomination, they will back that nominee. So is this really any different from, "I will back whoever the Party leadership annoints in terms of throwing their support to her/him because she/he adheres to the party platform and is considered electable"? I call this the baloney sandwich standard. The problem is that when you are prepared to vote for a baloney sandwich, chances are rather good that this is what you will end up with. You have shown great reservations about the DLC controlled Democratic party. But this being the case, why do you still profess loyalty to this same apparatus? Because this is what is expected of you? Because you feel that this is what it will take to win? And yet given this, why the hesitation to join up with Dean? Is he not better than a baloney sandwich? You seem to agree that the Dean meet-ups might help with the organization, and are rather quick to recognized their accomplishments. But these compliments seem to have little baring in whom you support currently.
The fact is that the DLC works against us. Their performance thus far is NOT the consequences of incompetence, or even of cowardice. Look at there voting record? The DLC thus far has support the corporate agenda 100%. And it is no coincidence that it is corporate money that supports the DLC's campaigning machine. You mentioned Clark, who also has very deep corporate ties. Were you aware that Clark is currently sitting on, or serves as a high ranking consultant to 18 corporations? One of which is chaired by Hennery Kissneger. His annual compensation is 25 Million dollars annually. Larger than the state budget of Kansas which is at 20 million dollars. Thus explaining the seemingly close bond Clark enjoys with the DLC.
And why is the DLC openly attacking other candidates such as Dean? High ranking democrats recently put out an attack adds comparing Dean with Saddam that could have very easily been written by the Karl Rove machine. I ask you this question. Have you ever known of an "unelectable" Republican?
The reason to explain this is actually simple. The DLC is loyal to the corporations. So to are the DLC's sponsored candidates. Leabermen, Gepheardt, Clark, and Kerry. Indeed, Clark only came out onto the seen when it became clear that Gepheardt's pro-war position was getting him booed off the stage.
This is why the Dean meet-ups have so much energy. The fact is that they are not gearing up for the battle in the General election. They are gearing up for the primary. They know that in order to challenge Bush, we must fist eliminate the GOP's first line of defense, the DLC. But one can not be prepared to vote for a baloney sandwich, if that is what the present to you, while also being reluctant to sign on with the Dean campaign. This is not consistent logic. The difference may be a baloney sandwich with mayonnaise versus one with mustard. :-)
And you've confirmed the real danger point to this whole discussion: my point that the meet-ups do not, in fact, seem to have much focus on the general election. Do they believe that once their man is nominated, it's all over? Not hardly.
I've been furious with the Dems -- leadership as well as footsoldiers -- in general for their willingness to watch this absurd field of candidates suck all the money out of the electorate. Money, time, energy, enthusiasm, devotion, loyalty. The GOP will go into the general election campaign totally united and with a quarter BILLION dollars in campaign money, emotionally rested and refreshed, ready to take on whoever the Dems put up. The Dems will go in with almost that much money ALREADY SPENT, drawn from an electorate that is battered by a shitty economy. Worse, however, the Dems will go in with fractured loyalties. And that could be the coup de grâce.
Right here on DU the Dean supporters are calling the Kerry supporters names and vice versa. Clarkies hate Deaniacs, Koochies hate HolyJoeys, and no one likes anyone very much (with apologies to Tom Lehrer). Do you think all this growing animosity is magically going to go away when the primaries are over? Where is the spirit of cooperation going to be if one camp KNOWS that the other camp is gloating? (And heaven forbid that they actually DO gloat.) And now you're advocating that we eliminate "the GOP's first line of defense, the DLC." No, we have to waken the leadership of the DLC and get them to support a viable candidate. There is no room for internecine squabbles. That is political suicide. I don't like the DLC and I don't like most of what it stands for. But if it is Republican Lite, it is at least still not VRWC, fundamentalist religious nutcases, and *. It is a Dem organization and it should be USED, not discarded in favor of. . .. what???? And what does all this have to do with Saddam Hussein? Nothing and everything. Nothing, because Saddam Hussein should not even be an issue when we are confronting unemployment and taxes and education and infrastructure and religious freedom and a host of other really serious issues. Everything, because the GOP will spin this as far more important than anything else. And we will let it all happen, because our own egos are so delicate and so desperately in need of stroking that we have to support Our Candidate above all else. I might ask you to speak for yourself. For one who attends himself to logical thinking, resist one's own ego. Along with the other human emotion, fear. And dispite your contempt for the Saddam Husane issue, you clearly still fear it.
Why already I now see the Bush going back on the defensive. With Saddam suddenly becoming front page, other questions quickly follow, such as where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? I just saw CBS giving a long segment into explaining why they haven't found these supposed stock piles. And heavens forbid, they gave us the other shoe as well, telling us "Saddam is not likely to have asses to such high level intelligence as where WMD would have been stock pilled. That knowledge would most likely have been left to his subordinates." And evidence is now starting to surface that Saddam was most likely in US custody for months. Don't that just beet all.
Indeed, it is the ego that drives us to place all of our eggs on one candidate. But as I have said, the Dean meet-ups are not really about Dean, as much as they are about taking control of the system. Witch I might add is the whole thrust of my 'thousand front war.' Mine was an editorial/rhetorical "we," not an explicit one. The plethora of "Give up, * has already won" posts suggest there are a lot of people with no faith right here on DU. Their surrender suggests there is more spinelessness in the general population.
I have neither fear nor contempt for the Saddam Hussein issue: I see it as a reality that we who are anti-* have to deal with. I certainly don't fear it, or I would be cowering under cover of posts like "All is lost!" What I fear is the craven capitulation of those who call themselves democrats, again both here on DU as well as out in the real world.
Howard Dean has campaigned on the issue of being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. I won't debate here the merits of his claim. But I will point out that his proclaimed loyalty to the party -- he has said he won't go third-party if he doesn't get the nomination, and I'll take him at his word for the moment -- indicates that he recognizes the advantages and assets the party has. But as Everett Ehrlich pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, it appears Dean is more concerned with appropriating only certain remaining valuable assets of the party organization, not the party itself. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58554-2003Dec12?language=printer)
<snip>
Dean is not interested in taking control of those depreciating assets. He is creating his own party, his own lists, his own money, his own organization. What he wants are the Democratic brand name and legacy, the party's last remaining assets of value, as part of his marketing strategy.
<end snip>
I would not have a problem with this if the history of third-party challenges were not so bleak -OR- if the GOP were less strong. Right now, it wields such enormous power that only a concerted, concentrated, and coordinated assault will suffice. Dean is not going to be a victorious David going after the GOP Goliath; without a solid machine behind him, he's going to get creamed.
Now, I don't want anyone to accuse me of being anti-Dean. He's not my chosen candidate -- I'm not sure I have one at this point -- but I do believe that IF HE AND HIS CAMPAIGN (they are not one and the same) ARE UNABLE TO UNITE AN INCREASINGLY FRACTURED DEM PARTY, he will be extremely vulnerable to the GOP juggernaut.Tansy Gold, who thinks she has conquered the html monster but isn't quite sure. . . . . . |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
