The Future of the Democratic Party
You don't need to be in Denver right now to see the future of the Democratic Party. The future is not in the big money donors or the high-priced consultants, but in the men and women working every day to change, not only, the Party, but the United States. It can be found in local campaign offices where thousands of volunteers come out every day to knock on doors and make phone calls to voters. It can be found in the citizen activists who have gotten involved in unprecedented numbers over the last eight years and especially during this election season. It's in the every day Americans who want a better life for themselves and their families.
The future of the Democratic Party is in people like Donna Edwards who's primary upset of a Bush Democrat went on to win her a seat in Congress. When Donna Edwards said, "I will not be silent" she was speaking for millions of Americans who have been cut off from the political process by the tired and misdirected Washington culture that values power and influence over judgment and representation. Over the years, something happened to the fundamental idea that our republic is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Donna Edwards is a perfect example of someone who understands that she is accountable to her constituents and not to the influential lobbyists who came to control her predecessor. Rep. Edwards' people-powered campaign was built on a framework of involvement by volunteers and small dollar donors who still know that the party that empowers people will be the party in power.
The future of the Democratic Party is in organizations like Democracy for America where I have been proud to work for the past 3 years. DFA is a bottom-up organization that follows the lead of its members and not the other way around. We were early supporters of Donna Edwards' campaign because she engaged and empowered our members. DFA members are at work throughout the country to reform the Democratic Party and take back America from the powers of the past who have tried their best to shut citizen activists out.
The future of the Democratic Party is in local DFA groups like Democracy for Texas who have been rebuilding the Democratic Party into one that can win elections. Thanks to the support of Democracy for Texas, Senate candidate Rick Noriega is within striking distance of defeating incumbent Republican John Cornyn in November. Or, a group like Northside-DFA in Chicago who were committed backers of Mark Pera's primary challenge to out-of-touch Democrat Dan Lipinski. Mark didn't beat Rep. Lipinski, but thanks to Northside-DFA the groundwork is now in place for future challengers who will represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
The future of the Democratic Party is in people like Wendy Sejour, a citizen activist in Miami. Wendy first got involved in politics during the Howard Dean presidential campaign in 2003. Like millions of Americans, Wendy responded to his message of you have the power. Wendy was one of the founding members of DFA-Miami and in 2006 was elected president of the group. Wendy and DFA-Maimi's boots on the ground support of congressional candidates in South Florida has put three Democrats in position to win in November against entrenched Republicans thought to hold safe seats. Getting involved is not always easy, in fact, it can be downright hard. People have jobs they have to go to, they have children they have to take care of, and they have lives they have to lead, but people like Wendy make the sacrifice to get involved because this kind of work is too important to be left up to the professionals.
The future of the Democratic Party can be summed up simply in one word: you.
I'm sorry to crash the parade. But this is a pure puff piece. One need only look at the Democratic National Convention to see where the "future of the party" is going. All of the slated speakers, excluding Ted Kennedy, are out-of-touch party big wigs with no connection to the ground: Hoyer, Warner, Clinton, Clinton etc.
Nowhere on the party platform or on stage are any of the core principles embodied by the likes of Donna Edwards or DFA. Some vague mentions of universal healthcare and "responsible" troop withdrawals are tantamount to nothing. Mere rhetoric.
Here is a great example illustrating the total lack of grassroots, people-powered politics at the convention:
Union househoulds make up nearly 1/4 of all voters in the nation and 1/4 of all Democratic delegates currently in DEnver. Yet John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO will speak for a brief few moments before primetime (they dont want him on TV wehn it matters), and no serious mention of organized labor will be made in Denver. You are talking about the strongest and largest grassroots constituency--that organizes and knocks on more doors and calls more poeple than DFA and moveon ever will--and will likely determine this election (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) and they receive scant attention, at best. Meanwhile, identify based political groups and bufoon politicos will hog the stage and the party platform.
I think your efforts are valiant, but any notion that they are going to transform the party without tearing down the moneyed apparatus is naive.
Sorry
August 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
k-town,
in my opinion, when the DLC gets ousted, and when we have fewer Blue Dogs, and when the liberals regain the power in the party, THEN, the Democrats will be back and be a true opposition party.
August 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to Edwards-- Perhaps she could have a talk with Barack about not taking dirty money. He is up to his neck in it.
August 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
the future of the Democratic Party would seem to include Kay Hagen, holding a Senate seat from North Carolina
liddy dole is in a heap of trouble
atrios has the link
August 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnw1141: when the liberals take back the party, that's when we never win another election.
the only Democrat who's won the White House in the last 30 years was a DLC blue dog who was more of a centrist than a progressive. that may be bad for your purity of soul, but it worked out pretty well for the party: Bill Clinton won not once but twice.
Democrats need to convince the American people that they care about and understand the concerns of the average guy. Kumbaya videos featuring George Castanza and Sheryl Crow are not going to do it. cutting away from convention speeches to show people like Jane Fonda is not going to do it. Democrats are smart people: why is it so hard for them to understand this?
August 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz says;
I make no distinction between liberal and progressive.
Clinton was good for the "party"? Remember, under Clinton and the DLC we lost both Houses of Congress and didn't take them back until the Bush gang practically gave them to us. We lost two Presidential elections to the worst Administration in History. Good for the party, my ass.
As I said elsewhere;
Republicans give us trickle down economics;
The DLC gives us trickle down government.
Hillary asked last night whether her supporters supported her or what can be described, at least by me, as a liberal agenda for the party. Nowhere during her speech did I hear anything supported by the corporate friendly DLC.
August 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party is losing a chunk of itself. It may cost the party this election, but the upcoming defeat will pave the way for party reform.
August 26, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember,change is slow. But it started during the Kerry campaign.
In the expectation that this is a uniquely motivating election, the Democratic National Committee, led by Howard Dean, has been working hard building foundations in traditionally non-Democratic areas -- down to the county level.
The future of the Democratic Party will depend on what those given the torch do to strenghten those foundations.
No doubt, the new, young voters will be easily disillusioned with politics as usual.
However, a certain amount of politics as usual will is a given.... because change is slow.
But if those voters, as they grow older, see progress in the next 8 years then it bodes well for the party.
A good start would be getting rid of Pelosi and Reid.... I don't think anyone thinks they have delivered for their party.
Clinton as Senate Majority Leader is a given. I'm not so certain about the House. Too bad Harold Ford isn't there anymore.
August 26, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi guys,
Sorry for the off-topic post, but there's a possible narrative that hasn't been emphasized in the campaign to woo swing voters: "Do the Republicans deserve to be punished for their behavior these last eight years?". We need to remember and emphasize that a vote is a way of meting out justice. Evolutionary psychology tellsl us that this makes a vote for Obama satisfying in a way that it might not be currently (for some people).
August 26, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the Democratic Party looks like down the pike depends a good deal on what happens this fall. Dean's 50 State Strategy did well in 06, but this fall is the real test. It needs to be understood as taking power and control of party finance away from the linked Lobby Shops, Consultant networks, and DC influentials, and decentralizing it into healthy state parties well on their way to doing what parties are supposed to do, namely win elections. If we are successful this fall, then there will be considerable support for the new decentralized model -- if we fail, the argument for the old forms will gain ascendency.
If the elections this fall are successful, we will immediately face the question -- to what extent should the DNC be an extension of the WH political operation, versus, to what extent should it emphasize continuning to build out the State Parties as a functioning power center. It is a given that a Democratic President selects the Party Chair and top DC operators -- To what extent can the value of party building be built into that set of selection considerations?
I doubt if there will be much sympathy in DC with ideas about taking out various office holders, such as the Edwards campaign against Wynn. Historically purges get little traction in DC, particularly when you have an administration in power. Even top down purges such as FDR attempted in 1938, or what the DLC attempted in the early 90's generally fail or backfire badly. The time to purge is when you are out of power, and sense your long time members, or next in line candidates aren't cutting it for you.
The primary way parties change is from the outside, when a new movement, or set of movements emerge sufficiently so as to force change. Labor did that to the Democrats in the 1930's, the Civil Rights Movement did it to Democrats in the late 60's and 70's, and in a limited way, the environmental movement did it in the 80's. Republicans underwent change in the 70's when the post-Goldwater Conservatives took over the Party. I really don't think there is any clear movement that currently is positioned to force such change, though one or two could emerge.
Should Obama be elected, it will be very interesting to watch what transpires.
August 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats?
Aren't they the guys who gave us Welfare Reform?
Wasn't that $80 billion less for children living in poverty?
What's their future?
Who gives a fuck?
August 27, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink