Looking Forward: Prospects for Carrying on the Legacies of the Dean and Lamont Campaigns
It is difficult to write about the legacy of the Dean campaign because the forces that catapulted that campaign are still actively trying to change the public discourse and it will be years before the real impact can be measured. It should be noted that much of the leadership of the Lamont campaign was active in Connecticut on the Dean campaign and had even spent some time in New Hampshire for the primary.
The Dean and Lamont campaigns in many ways were closer to movements than any other recent consultant driven political campaigns I can think of. They challenged political orthodoxies, threatened Washington insiders, and provided hope and opportunities to be involved for thousands of people at the grassroots level in a personalized way.
The campaigns were a visible part a larger change in American politics. We were blessed with candidates that had the courage to take significant risks and were willing to speak out against George Bush’s illegal war in Iraq, but the candidacies were only a part of the change.
The 2004 election cycle saw a tremendous growth in the Netroots, which fed and fed off the Dean campaign. The traditional media usually misses the point of these on-line communities and their impact. They have become the left’s answer to talk radio, only more sophisticated, based on truth, and they have been more effective at a comparable stage of development.
These communities: develop a shared analysis, which helps to shape the public narrative; they hold the traditional media accountable when they double as stenographers, provide an alternative to large corporate donors for many candidates and issues, and with increasing success have impacted policy outcomes. Does anyone think that Sen. Dodd would have taken the courageous stand in blocking telecommunications immunity in the FISA bill if not for the Netroots or if he did that the traditional media would have even noticed? The strengthening of these communities may be the most lasting legacy of the Dean campaign.
Unfortunately, outside of the Dodd campaign, it appears that the Democratic candidates for President have chosen to ignore many of the lessons of the Dean campaign. Instead of using the internet and structuring their field programs to encourage independent action and grassroots creativity, they seem to view the netroots/grassroots as something to manage and/or control despite hiring some very talented on-line and field staff. I believe that the Netroots may change this dynamic to some degree after the primaries as the differences between candidates become more clear, but this will probably be done despite the campaigns, which has its plus and minuses. If not, the Netroots will continue to increase their influence through other races.
I think part of the reason for the failure for these campaigns to effectively incorporate the on-line and field legacies of the Dean campaign is because the campaign and its aftermath are very threatening to the Democratic consulting class. It can not be overstated how destructive these forces and their political allies were to these campaigns. The corrupting arrangements that were described in Jerome and Markos’s Crashing the Gates are in many ways only the tip of the iceberg. To one minute be working for the drug or insurance industry and the next minute helping to shape a candidates strategy on health care is so rife with conflicts that it is not surprising that Democrats have not been able to really advance a progressive agenda in decades. To effectively eliminate these conflicts we must push allies to support progressive infrastructure and not hire these firms and we need to do something neither the Dean or Lamont campaign were able to do in the end: win.
Another part of the Dean Campaign legacy is the candidate himself. The grassroots participation and yearning for change experienced on the campaign trail helped to transform Dean as an agent for change. His rise to Chair of the DNC was driven by his grassroots supporters and his fifty state strategy was a direct response to their call for change. The 2006 elections proved beyond any doubt the wisdom of a more movement building 50 state approach over the corporate and consultant driven strategy of Schumer and Emmanuel. Unfortunately, we will need to continue this fight, but if we prevail the 21st Century is ripe with potential for change.
A final piece of the Dean legacy is how it inspired so many people to be willing to step forward and challenge the status quo. Whether at the local, state or federal level DFA, and other groups like Wellstone Action, have trained and groomed hundreds of candidates who are wining as proud progressives. Ned Lamont’s candidacy may have been the most visible example, but there are and will be many more.
Unfortunately, we will need to continue this fight, but if we prevail the 21st Century is ripe with potential for change
I don't think that it is unfortunate that we need to continue this fight. I relish it. Other than that I'm totally in sync with your views expressed here.
December 20, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem I have in continuing to donate money to Democracy For America: After contributing money to various candidate campaigns such as Tester, Gillibrand, and others, I've now seen how those 2, and many others (Webb, Sestak, etc.) have since turned their collective back on those who made the difference in getting them elected. I'm tired of being shit on. These people may have the best of intentions (and we all know about the road paved with good intentions leads straight to hell), but once in office they get co-opted by the Emanuel/Schumer corporatists. Well, *FUCK THAT*!! (Yes, there have been some notable exceptions like Carol Shea-Porter and the newly elected representative in California, whose name escapes me at the moment. But they've been the very few that didn't sell out afterwards.)
I keep getting e-mails from the campaigns of Linda Stender and Mary Jo Kilroy pleading for money. Well how do I know they won't shit on their supporters the same way Tester, Webb, Gillibrand, and Sestak, et. al. did once they got in?
No more will I *ever* donate another penny to any candidate til that person first gets elected, and then proves to me that (s)he is worthy of my support afterward. If that ultimately means I never make another political contribution........ then tough.
December 20, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving money to a candidate doesn't make them mimic your views. Next time give money only to Wellstone type candidates who are open, very liberal and are not going to sway with the political winds. There are quite a few of those.
Webb, for instance, was never a liberal; after all, he used to be a Reagan Republican. Webb had some serious contributions and on other topics may have been more a conservative Democrats - the main cause for the senate Democrats succumbing to the Republicans/Bush.
Why do you blame Emmanuel/Schumer and not Pelosi/Reid is beyond me.
December 21, 2007 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I *DO* blame Pelosi and Reid! They get no free pass from me *AT ALL*! Those 2 have a backbone of Jell-O and are hopelessly captive to the nameless/faceless consultants that look for every opportunity to compromise and ultimately cave in. Emmanuel and Schumer, however, make sewer scum look reputable. It really is difficult for me to come up with words adequate enough to convey my hatred and contempt for them. Until they and their fellow cronies are at long last driven out of office and the Democratic party establishment, we are swimming directly into a riptide.
If you mean to defend Emmanuel and Schumer in your post, then please explain why I am in error to bash them unmercifully. I'll tell you upfront that you'll never convince me, but you're invited to try anyway.
December 21, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a hard time harshing on Webb; after all he knocked off George Allen and he's hardly been a Joe Lieberman Democrat. I like Webb and I think it is profoundly unrealistic to expect a junior senator from Virginia to be the next Russ Feingold.
Can we at least wait until we have the White House and Congress firmly in our control before forming the circular firing squad???
December 23, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No more will I *ever* donate another penny to any candidate til that person first gets elected, and then proves to me that (s)he is worthy of my support afterward."
Totally agree that we have to hold government representatives accountable for tangible, effective results. If we set a higher standard, we are likely to get a better result. When did we get so lost that we became willing to vote for the lesser of two evils?
I don't know if American government ever operated in a way that made it rational to put blind trust in candidates, but the way it operates now makes blind trust downright foolish.
Public financing of elections is the only solution I see to ensure that higher quality candidates who are capable of delivering can beat out the slickest talkers and fundraisers.
December 21, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once they learn the ways for tapping into corporate and lobbyist money they will have no need for our puny little $25 donations, with all of the headaches involved in figuring out how to please more than half of us without offending the other half.
The only workable method for influencing candidates is to take the gamble and support them before they get elected. It is up to us to do the homework needed to find out if "our" candidate really does think as we do. And, we don't all think the same on all issues either. Politics can be difficult.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 21, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom correctly states that goal is the achieve a progressive agenda and implicitly claims that the Netroots a both central and unavoidable part of achieving the goal.
I absolutely agree on the first and basically am less clear about the second. We always had and still have grassroots, we just called them unions. Are we substituting Netroots for union, are we augmenting unions? Both options are problematics because they are elitist by definition. If we had 30% of the population unionized, the MSM and the Village wouldn't be what they are. Advertisers would be very reluctant to insult 30% of the buyers.
Another reason I am not sure about the role of the Netroots is its current status. I find many of them manifesting only qualified openness to reality. It's almost as if it is a left of center MSM and Village. I will strongly object to call many of the visible and widely read organs of the Netroots progressive. Most of them hardly ever deal with the poor, the working person, or workplace conditions. Instead they are devoted mainly to Bush, foreign policy and health care. Even social security comes only up when one the so called progressive Democratic candidates is found to agree with Bush on that topic.
Last and least, running a presidential campaign requires professionals. You cannot do it with academics, Netroots volunteers or former congressmen (see the lack of success of the Edwards campaign). That's a fact. Professionals of that sort tend to work public relations or lobbying jobs. This does not mean that you have to hire Mark Penn; there other talented campaigners. So, if we are against the current crop of campaign professionals we better have a decent substitute.
December 20, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really insightful post.
Your analysis brings to mind the current threats to net neutrality that could compromise some of the progress you discuss.
If AT&T, Comcast and Verizon (busy lobbying Congress with hundreds of millions) succeed in their stated plans to control internet content, consumers and voters will no longer have equal access to or control of the Internet content we choose from. If we allow Congress to fail on this issue, candidates and voters and movements will be set back to where we started before Dean.
An effective, permanent solution to shut down any non-neutral activities is way overdue.(e.g. Comcast’s covert interference with its subscribers' peer-to-peer file sharing, AT&T’s censorship of Pearl Jam’s political lyrics and Verizon’s continued claim it has a right to decide what text messages it will allow after its initial denial of NARAL Pro-choice text messages users had agreed to receive, etc.)
December 21, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its interesting how these campaign techniques change the way candidates think sometimes. Dodd seems like a new man. I think it really irked him to see Lieberman ignore the primary loss and he immersed himself in this new way of thinking about things.
Maybe I'm wrong but 5 years ago would anyone have said Dodd would be the guy standing on the floor to shoput down telecom immunity?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many politicians we support have sometimes disappoint us--like the Dem Senators and Congressmen---except Gov Dean---he continues to work to make the Dem party for the people, of the people and by the people--encouraging activism---and his work make doubly hard by the growing cynicism as the realization that the Dem congressmen and senators continue to disappoint us by not fighting hard for what is right.
December 21, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the rules people:
#1 Less Evil is better than more!
#2 If you do nothing you are putting other people in charge!
#3 Disappointment is part of life, how you deal with it is what matters.
#4 Giving up is not an option.
Here is the plan.
Get enough of a Democratic majority (even if we don't like all the Democrats) so that we can risk losing a seat to a Republican for a term or two in order to replace an unacceptable Democrat.
Right now we don't have enough Democrats, especially in the Senate, so support even Webb like Democrats and understand what you are doing so you will be less disappointed when they act exactly as you should have expected them too.
The Litmus test.
Demand that Dean remain head of the DNC under the next president -- Hillary? Obama? Edwards?
December 22, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"giving up is not an option"
Right on. There other options besides throwing in the towel, which never got anybody anywhere.
While we are necessarily waiting to see what candidates will do once in office, we can put time and money toward advancing the fight to get the money out of elections. Then in future elections, the candidates will be held accountable.
We could form coalitions within our parties that will seek to identify better candidates and hold candidates accountable for their actions once in office. This could be started by networks of people participating more in local party chapters to ensure the parties themselves more responsive to the majority views of their members. If the party leadership in our States doesn't respond, they can be replaced, too.
If reps in Congress were voted out every time they betrayed their constituency in significant ways, candidates running for office (who wanted to keep their offices) would begin to pay more attention to the voters. And a government that is responsive to the people is something the majority from all parties can agree about.
Despite all the corporate money out there, we still have our votes and our voices, which if used collectively, would be more powerful than any special interest.
I don't have all the answers, but I have no doubt that there is a way to resolve this.
December 22, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are in Walter Karp territory here. The late Karp said there are two kinds of people in politics, hacks and reformers. Hacks are Clintons Lieberman, Pelosi und so weiter. Think of hacks as status quo careerist self interested politicians.
Reformers are Wellstone, Dean, Bill Bradley, Edwards I think, Kucinich certainly, Dodd lately, Feingold. Morally driven.
The hacks in both parties have more in common with each other than with the reformers in their own party. The hacks will work in collusion to keep reformers out of power. Always always always. Keeping reformers out of power is the primary goal without which the game goes sour.
IE the Rs and Ds working together to keep Nader Perot Lamot out of the debates.
Karp says if there is a reform vs hack race the hacks of both parties work to support the hack, like with Lieberman.
In a perfect hack world we have two hacks running and it doesn't matter which hack wins. The hack with the least reform energy behind him or her is preferable but either hack is acceptable.
Bill Clinton and Herbert Walker were both corporate centrist hacks and nothing much changed except Clinton had more style and was much much smarter.
"Indispensable Enemies" is Karp's best book and when he gets to dummy candidates and thrown elections we enter a whole new paradigm for understanding American politics.
Dummy candidates include Mondale, Dole. Dukakis, Humphrey.
Hannah Arendt, Bill Moyers, Greil Marcus and Lewis Lapham are all Karp fans. Victor Navasky drank with Karp, called him a genius and wouldn't publish his stuff in the Nation because it was too critical of the Democratic Party.
Indispensible Enemies used to be up on line. Check it out and amazing things will snap into focus.
Bo Richardson
December 24, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A final piece of the Dean legacy is how it inspired so many people to be willing to step forward and challenge the status quo. Whether at the local, state or federal level DFA, and other groups like Wellstone Action, have trained and groomed hundreds of candidates who are wining as proud progressives. Ned Lamont’s candidacy may have been the most visible example, but there are and will be many more."
I agree with much of what Tom has said, I argue some of it as a matter of degree. In fact, I don't think that the above quoted effect was the "final" piece, I think it was the greatest piece of the Dean legacy.
Over the last 4 years the netroots has exploded in motivating thousands to get involved, either as candidates or volunteers. I absolutely agree with Tom when he says "They have become the left’s answer to talk radio, only more sophisticated, based on truth, and they have been more effective at a comparable stage of development."
The netroots has allowed progressives, liberals or whatever we want to label ourselves to become energized together in a new way. The effect has clearly changed the dynamics of politics.
The results have been amazing and they are only beginning. The next step must see the synergy between the energy, vision and passion of the netroots and the candidates. (for whatever office). For this synergy to work in an election setting (as opposed to advocating for policy or just for what's right) this synergy must happen. Specifically, it must result in organization.
The netroots is some self executing phenomen. I don't think the post seeks to imply management and direction isn't important, instead I think it means that there are ideas, leaders and skills the candidates are taking advantage of. (I agree with Tom, and the Clinton campaign has clearly shown, the consultants are not doing us justice.)
Organization, idependence and grassroots creativity don't need to be mutually exclusive terms. It merely requires a willingness between candidates, their campaigns, and people to work together and listen to each other. The Lamont example is perfect. The passion was there - I live in Connecticut and was very involved in 1996 election. The work done by the Lamont volunteers, the vast core of which came from the netroots, was truly amazing in its passion, creativity, committment and drive. What made it effective was the field organizing skills of Tom and a whole bunch of other people. They took an huge amount of energy and directed it with brilliantly. (frankly you can't find anyone better to make a field operation work than Tom) Without them it would have been all unfocused energy, much of which would have been wasted.
That, I think is truly the lesson of the Dean and Lamont campaigns.
February 23, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink