Dane County Dems: this is what democracy looks like
January 15, 2007
I have a few thoughts on the Dane County Democratic Party meeting last week, and on the grassroots rejection of some of the party leadership’s endorsements. Russell Wallace summarizes the goings-on thus:
Two unopposed Madison Common Council members, Zach Brandon and Lauren Cnare, both of whom are quite conservative by Madison standards, were denied endorsements despite the recommendation of the Dem Party leadership. So Zach and Lauren earned the rather dubious distinction of being referred to as “…our local Joe Liebermans” by Common Council President Austin King. Several other endorsements recommended by the Party leadership also failed, although they were in races where more than one Dem was running.
One reason, at least in part, that the recommended endorsements were voted down was because Austin had organized a bloc of liberal and progressive members that “engineered a coup”, in the words of Wayne Bigelow, the county party chairman.
I have two thoughts about this.
One: this is what a strong party should be; this is what a strong progressive movement ought to be doing. People have accused Austin of “packing” the meeting, which is only half true. Our Democratic Party is open to anyone, and everyone gets a vote. But it’s not as simple as that. To join the party, you’re making a financial commitment, and more importantly, you’re making a commitment of your time.
People don’t pay the $25 membership dues because they want to deny the party endorsement to some alders with whom they often disagree. They do so because they care about the direction of our country, and because they want to get involved in our political process. If packing the meeting was part of what Austin did, the other part — by far the more important part — was making Democrats.
If we’re going to object to that, we might as well just give up and go home.
My other thought is about the tone of the debate, which seems to come from a presupposition of bad faith on the part of opponents. Paul Soglin, whom I respect and usually agree with, called the grassroots move “morally and politically reprehensible” and “selfishly motivated”. It’s an odd definition of morality that condemns getting people who agree with you involved in politics, and then convincing them to vote how you want them too.
I thought the sick leave proposal was, and is, a good idea. I think it’s one of those things that makes life just a little easier for the people who could really use the help. I think Madison has an important role as a laboratory of liberalism, and that successfully implementing new ideas here can open up opportunities for similar proposals at a state or federal level.
But I don’t think that supporting a sick leave proposal (much less supporting the particular sick leave proposal that was voted down last year) is a core issue of the Democratic Party, or that it demands party unity. There are issues that do demand unity — opposition to President Bush’s effort to end Social Security was one of them, for example — but those issues are less common than many of us assume. I mean, hell, George McGovern voted for Gerald Ford in 1976, and no one will ever challenge his Democratic credentials. In a party that is 120 million strong, it can’t be otherwise.
I see no reason to assume bad faith on the part of fellow Democrats who disagree, and I see no reason to respond like Lisa Subeck (whom I also respect and usually agree with) does, when she writes:
Message to Zach: Get over it and move on. Join the Republican Party or pull a Joe Lieberman and become an “independent”. Calling yourself a “centrist” scores no points here.
What’s the point of this? Why do we want people to leave the party? I have no problem with active primary contests — they are a good thing. I have no problem with denying Zach the endorsement of the Democratic Party — he’s to the right of the average Madison voter, and definitely on the right wing of the Democratic Party, and there are other Democrats who would be better aldermen. (Although when Zach says “The irony is my Democratic credentials were challenged by a guy who worked for Ralph Nader and is a member of three different political parties,” one has to concede that he has a point.)
Losing a primary challenge — to say nothing of losing a minor intra-party fight about who should get an official endorsement — is nothing new in politics, and it’s not a reason to expel or renounce the losers. I can think off-hand of several issues about which I disagree with the moderate bloc on the council. I can also think off-hand of many, many more issues on which me, the liberals on the council, the moderates on the council, PD, and pretty much the entire Democratic Party are in agreement, with the GOP on the other side. My point is that we’re all still Democrats.
I know that my Green friends think there is some huge and untapped silent majority of Americans who don’t care about politics because the Democratic Party isn’t progressive enough for them. I don’t know where they get this impression from, but it’s pretty clearly not true.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take strongly progressive stands, or that we shouldn’t try to move the nation’s political discourse to the left. It means we can’t overlook the fact that we’re going to need to build coalitions, and infrastructure, and otherwise do the hard work of making the country more liberal. People may be waiting for us to lead, but they’re not sitting there in the social democracy camp, waiting for us to catch up.
Last year, I criticized PD for endorsing Rae Vogeler over Herb Kohl, and I argued that getting involved in the primary process instead was the way to go:
If only there were a grassroots progressive organization, independent from, largely overlapping and broadly aligned with the Democrats! Such an organization could provide serious and effective support to deserving primary challengers. It could be one of their real strengths.
We’re always looking for ways to strengthen our democracy, and make more responsive a two-party system that is often out of touch with the actual political desires of most Americans. Progressive Dane, and similar parties around the state that don’t exist yet but should, provide one of the best ways I’ve seen to do so.
I still think that, and the grassroots effort that denied our party’s endorsement to folks whom most of us consider too conservative is an example of how effective it can be.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Ben,
Fair post. I think you hit the issue on the head in not needing unity on sick leave but needing on opposition to bush’s SS reforms.
Sick leave is a local issue and SS more national in scope. The biggest critique of PD Dems (they are mostly Dems) is that the DCDP has no local vision. Its identity, unity, cohesion is on national not local issues.
Both PD and 4LGP have a very specific platform on local issues. What is the Dems position on water quality, sick leave, living wage, transportation, density, green space etc.
We also need to remember if it wasn’t for Monica (and that dress), Clinton would have pushed though disastrous reforms very similar to GW.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Without doing the fact-checking to make sure, I think the Common Council is composed almost entirely of Democrats. There may be 2 or 3 PD members who are not also Democrats, and there might be 1 or 2 independents on the right, but by and large, every political debate that goes on is one that occurs within the Democratic Party.
That makes it hard for the party itself to have unity on these issues — the whole reason there is debate about them in our politics is because there is debate about them within the Democratic Party. (If all the Democrats on the council supported sick leave, it would have passed easily and it wouldn’t be an issue.) The disputes, obviously, occur at intersections of disagreement.
I think, certainly for PD, and perhaps also for the 4LGP, having a united local platform is a real strength, if they use it correctly. PD has been doing that. The Green Party has not.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
We also need to remember if it wasn’t for Monica (and that dress), Clinton would have pushed though disastrous [Social Security] reforms very similar to GW.
That’s totally false. For one thing, President Clinton was elected fifteen years ago. The financial situation of the country, the national economy, the political environment, and the state of liberalism, were different then. It’s true that “privatization” wasn’t the boogey-man that it is now, but the reforms the Clinton-Gore administration was talking about — remember the lock-box? — were totally different in kind than the proposals by the Bush Administration that sometimes used similar language.
Clinton at one point proposed having the government invest some of the trust fund in private securities, in the hope of getting a better rate of return on our money. The actual structure of Social Security would remain untouched. At that time, we had a big surplus, a rapidly shrinking national debt, very low interest rates, and a booming stock market. In that situation, what Clinton proposed made a lot of sense.
At no time did he ever propose replacing Social Security with a series of personally financed retirement accounts.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Give me a break. Read through I far Bill was willing to go.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts3.html
Awhile ago CounterPunch had an in depth piece on SS and Monica. Clinton was willing to privatize a good chunk of the SS surplus at the time and had strong Republican support. All that unity was lost on both sides with impeachment. This country owes Monica an enormous debt.
Far right regimes rarely come into power without the centrist move first. That of course is a concern of at least one PD member, whose concerned that the perceived cooperation between the Dems and PD will bring Madison back to the days of Barry and Klug. The point being that PD is good for a progressive Madison and the Dems. Without them the Dems will venture to the center and then its only a small leap to Rebublicanville.
January 16th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Sorry I’m late to the party, but I’ve had a few fires of my own to put out. Very eloquent post, Ben. I wish I had your writing skills.
When the Dem Party establishment packed our DFW meeting about two years ago, all we heard from them afterwards was “grow up and stop whining, that’s just how politics works.” Funny how things change.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Just a quick fact check on the Common Council Party makeup. I believe Noel Radomski and Paul Van Rooy are not Democrats in that they are Republicans or Libertarians. Likewise, on the left, Brenda Konkel is a Green and not a Democrat.
Zach Brandon might have a point in saying the Austin King, in that he worked for Nader, has less a place to call out anyone on their Democratic credentials. However, there is no person on the council (right now…let’s hope come April) who has been to more party meetings and functions than he. By at least a 2-1 margin. I’ve seen Scott McDonnell (county board pres) there a few times, I’ve seen Larry Palm and Zach Brandon there (on the day Joe Wineke spoke) once (although Vicky Selkowe is a regular - she’s Palm’s opponent and was the biggest reason for Austin working on turnout). And when a Democrat reinforces right-wing talking point on taxes, spending, economic justice, etc. when talking about Democrats (regardless of showing up on Vickie McKenna’s radio show - including encouraging her righty listeners to show up at the Dane Dems meeting to back his people/vote against the progressives) he loses his ability to do any credential-measuring.
But that’s not what this is/was about. It was about reformers taking on the establishment. We on the reform side are looking for a party that works. A party that is active (and incidentally, while the Dane Dems might not have a full-on platform that is as far-reaching as 4LGP, neither does PD, and the Dane Dems have an active resolutions process, thanks to the tireless work of Dennis Coyier, among others - including Austin, where he is incredibly active, that takes on local issues in droves). A party that no matter ideology, always looks to build up Democrats and the progressive movement (as the electoral vehicle for said movement).
January 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am
[...] On the other hand, if Green leaning liberals want to come under the big tent, they should be welcomed. Democrats who understand this concept are the ones that help to build winning coalitions. [...]
January 16th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Thanks for the additional context, Peter. I agree that reforming the party to make it as democratic and responsive as possible is more important than any individual endorsement or non-endorsement. Especially in a city like Madison, being democratic, open, and responsive is the key to energizing the progressive left, and making the Democratic Party the conduit for that energy.
The actual policy impact of progressive activism will be much higher if it’s done through the Democratic Party, and that, in the end, is the point.