Prioritize

At this weekend’s California Democratic Party Executive Board meeting, leaders in the Progressive Caucus, supported by outside organizations like the Courage Campaign, headed an effort to pass a resolution censuring Senator Dianne Feinstein for a number of her votes, including the push to confirm a pro-torture Attorney General. The resolution, submitted late, was killed in the Resolutions Committee: a supporter of the resolution was pushed by one Party staff member, and another staffer made inexcusably disparaging comments in the media about grassroots Party activists. It was all very unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate, however, was the fact that the Progressive Caucus of the party, of which I am proud to be a member, spent the greater part of it’s meeting time talking about the Feinstein resolution, even though only a handful of members voted against endorsing it (full disclosure: I was one of them). As a result, the Caucus had only passing discussion of the rest of the business of the Executive Board, and did not take a position on anything except the doomed, symbolic resolution of Censure. At stake: the Party’s positions on a multi billion dollar Indian gaming expansion contested by the Hotel and Restaurant Workers, a highly contentious education funding initiative and a plan to overhaul term limits. No official positions were taken on these issues by the Progressive Caucus.

Hardly anyone in the state cares or knows about resolutions passed by the California Democratic Party. Sure, a resolution of censure would make some headlines, but it was also a non-starter in a Presidential election year. The most that would come out of it would be a series of press stories about unruly Democrats. Meanwhile, the Eboard meeting was flooded with union folks, Native American tribes, political operatives and education advocates debating where the Party should be on the issues which will actually appear on the next ballot. Those folks know where the party does have power, and were there to attempt to wield it. It’s on those issues where a progressive strategy, where input from the left of the party would be meaningful. But we were busy on the Feinstein resolution, along with much of the “netroots” activist community. I respect and admire many of the progressive leaders in the Party, and am always straightforward and constructive when I disagree with them. This was one of those moments.

I want to move toward setting the agenda as much as anyone. It’s not enough for us to react to things which are brought to us. But a big part of moving an agenda is moving one which is focused on issues which effect people’s lives directly, and not getting swept up almost exclusively in issues which are sexy or which animate communities we are the most comfortable with. I think that there were good people on both sides of the debate over the resolution, and disagree with the idea that the important fault line in the party is between those who support such actions and those who oppose them. All the time and energy that was spent on the resolution, I believe, would have been better spent educating delegates and the public about the initiatives we just took positions on, furthering progress in developing the party’s infrastructure, and building our clubs, central committees and leadership. I know that it’s possible to multitask, but it’s also crucial to prioritize.

is the democratic party possible? Part 1

Several weeks ago, Rick Jacobs, the pundit and activist behind the Courage Campaign, wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times in which he criticized the state Democratic Party for making endorsements in its own primary. In part, his missive seemed to stem from his support for wealthy centrist Steve Westly, who was thankfully beaten by the more progressive and labor-friendly Phil Angeledes for the gubernatorial nomination.
His essay, however, raises important and interesting questions for those of us who are attempting to create a political home inside the Democratic Party. Jacobs argues forcefully that the “party structure” is run by “insiders”, a group in which he seems to include not only elected officials, but unions, donors and large social movement organizations. Jacobs writes:

The last thing elected officials want is a party structure that could have a life of its own, European style, in which policy is actually decided by the party and in which ideas matter more than old connections. The state party's central committee, which meets annually, consists largely of well-intentioned, mostly older individuals who work year-round on political activities. Some go to monthly meetings where a parliamentarian drones on about Robert's Rules of Order and the proper way to make a motion. Most care deeply about the state but have at best a cursory connection to (California’s) 7 million Democrats. And they have no connection to the "decline to state" voters, who also may vote in primaries -- albeit only for initiatives and nonpartisan offices. In short, it is neither a disciplined structure nor a porous, welcoming organizing vehicle for activists outside of the club, or for the millions who vote.

It is refreshing to see a player of Jacobs’ stature recognize a key truth about Californian (and American) politics: the game is rigged to constrain the party grassroots. In fact, California is particularly bad. It’s electoral system, characterized by local non-partisan elections and an insane initiative process make it very difficult to develop the kind of “European style”, idea-based political culture that Jacobs mentions. Elected officials have, over the past twenty years, worked hard to further marginalize grassroots party structures, or to turn them into rubber stamps for their own decisions and endorsements. Add to this the nightmare of McCain-Feingold, which has further weakened political parties by making it harder for them to run coordinated campaigns at both the local and federal levels.

However, this is precicely why Jacobs’ thinking is so, well, whack. We all want to get rid of the smoky room, and empower grassroots activists to be more than shock troops for party elites. That’s not going to happen without the participation and buy-in of social movement actors (labor, feminists, Latinos, blacks, etc). These groups are often derided by Jacobs, Kos, and other Atari Democrats, who see the line of struggle in American politics as between the “netroots” and the “elites”. Would that it were.

Ironically, Jacobs’ main complaint, that the party endorses candidates in its own primary election, is exactly the sort of thing we need to facilitate the “Europeanization” of American party politics. For a more independent, grassroots-based party to exist, it must have some kind of independent power to intervene in politics as a coherent organization. Endorsing candidates in the primary which are “more” rather than “less” worthy of the Democratic Party mantle is a small but crucial power that the party can bring to bear. Otherwise, primary battles are nothing more than expensive beauty contests. The endorsement process facilitated a handful of promising (if ill-strategized) floor fights at this year’s state party convention. If there was no endorsement process, the Progressive Democrats wouldn’t have bothered to show up as part of their attempt to unseat pro-war Democratic congresswoman Jane Harmon.

Jacobs is also mistaken about the ability of “decline to state” voters, (people with no party identification) to vote in Democratic primaries. They can. That’s not a good thing. Campaigns like Westly’s, which sought to appeal to non-Democrats in order to win the Democratic nomination doesn’t build the strength of the party or lead to political contests where “ideas matter”. It pushes all politics to the so-called “center”, and begins the downward spiral of triangulation, poll-fetishization and compromise before the choices are even put to voters in the general election. We are very lucky that last year’s attempt to essentially do away with the primaries and just have two rounds of voting went down in flames.

All of this, of course, is part of an open question. It is quite possible that the structure of American political life is determinant enough that the electoral arena will always be personality-driven and expensive. Certainly, this is the direction that European politics is heading, though at a slower clip. I, for one, am still willing to fight for a democratic Democratic Party, and I know I am not alone. Jacobs and the Courage Campaign have an important role to play, along with the social movements, intellectuals, precinct captains, peace activists and neighborhood leaders. It would be nice if folks like Jacobs would put their money and time where their mouths are. Instead of dumping millions into a network of bloggers and point-and-click “activists”, the Courage Campaign should be identifying, training and supporting activists to –take over- the apparatus that Jacobs argues is geriatric and out of touch.

So, let us move forward, but be careful not to destroy the party even as we are building it.

on the liberal blogosphere

I've been struggling to give birth to an essay about the "netroots" for weeks, and just found something quite close to what I wanted to write over at Clemens' blog. Check it out, cyberpoliticos!