WurfWhile

Matt Stoller, who is supporting Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chair left a comment yesterday asking what I, “as a local candidate,” am looking for in a DNC Chair. I’m going instead to do it as a Democrat - because Democratic values are my reason for running as a local candidate. Some of the basics are not news to anyone, we need greater ideological coherence (a message) so that everyone understands what Democrats stand for, we need much better infrastructure at the local level in all 50 states to provide support and we need to better connect on a long-term basis with communities throughout America, instead of looking at each election in isolation. What isn’t discussed as much as it should be is that we need to deliver to Americans policies representing what Simon calls “…the very best of what it means to be a Democrat” - and that requires a lot of consideration, it can’t just be bought. For example, when Democrats controlled the congress and presidency we failed to pass national healthcare. It was a big failure for Clinton and for Democrats - and we own it. We shouldn’t let it happen again. Likewise, we need to recognize that volunteers can be our biggest strength, but not if we treat them like temp hires - which means we need a long-term commitment and management strategy for local areas that maximizes the results of volunteer efforts - something I don’t think anyone has figured out yet.

What strikes me most about the DNC Chair talk is that most people have little idea what the Chair does - it seems that outside of raising money, electing Democrats and acting as a spokesperson, little is known about the Chair. I share the general ignorance - but find Joe Trippi’s effort to educate enlightening. The question I have about it is this: at a time where Democrats seem to have few seasoned, well-known national leaders that unify the party, is it still true that we want to have a DNC Chair who does not ask “How do we reshape our message?” Is it true that we want to wait as long as it will take (a primary season for the 2008 election) to find out what Democrats stand for? Joe has infinitely more experience than me - so my question is if not the DNC Chair - who is the Democrat in charge who can/will shape the message for the Party?

All that said, we can at least listen to what the candidates for the office are saying - and what’s being said about them. While I like much of what I know/hear about both Dean and Rosenberg - I also have concerns about both. [Click below to read more]

Simon Rosenberg
I took a look at Simon Rosenberg’s DNC Chair website and while he hits most of the right notes - what troubles me is his extensive venture capital and business background and his political usage of it to develop New Democrat Network (paradoxically, I also see it as one of his strengths). For example, Simon argues

“The Republicans understand the division of labor required to run…a political empire, and…[t]hey run their politics like a business.
….
What we need at the head of the DNC is someone…who has a proven track record at running a business or political organization.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the DNC has become a business that could raise as much as $1 billion in the next four years.”

I’m going to play the contrarian here. I think that while raising money is a key attribute of what the DNC Chair currently does, one goal for Democrats should be publicly financed elections - eventually leaving the DNC Chair to (actually) focus on building up a party, which no doubt requires raising a lot of money, but is quite different than just raising money. Perhaps fortunately, we need to start building the Democratic Party back up today, and can’t wait for publicly financed election. The fact that we raised more money than the GOP in the 2004 presidential election is testimony to, among other things, the fact that money doesn’t buy elections for Democrats - at least not on a regular basis (coordination problems between Kerry and 527s acknowledged). You need money, you need enough to compete (believe me I understand that from personal political experience), but if the Democrats believe in the primacy of money, and if they believe that the DNC “is a business” I think we will fail to create a lasting majority. We need to provide a real alternative, because the GOP “business” model has used campaign money better than we have of late to slice and dice the electorate for a narrow, transient majority. And according to the December 16th Economist article Simon quotes, the GOP is doing better with their volunteers too.

There’s another, related reason I worry about money. Matt Bai’s New York Times article, “Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy,” shows the ideological influence of money donors as a potential pitfall:

“To see the potential effect of such motivated ideological donors on a political party, you need only study the modern Republican Party. The families who contributed the seed money for what would become the conservative movement were philosophical rebels who followed Barry Goldwater. Like the new venture capitalists, these ideologues started out not with specific policy ideas but with a broad sense of fear, a notion that the system of free enterprise was under siege from radical forces. (The guy who most kept them up at night, oddly enough, was Ralph Nader.) Their money spawned academic proposals, some of which, like privatized Social Security or missile defense, were so far beyond the mainstream of their time as to be considered ludicrous. Not only did these ideas ultimately infiltrate mainstream Republican thought, but much of the agenda ultimately triumphed in the broader arena of public opinion.

That success built a governing majority for Republicans, but it may have come at a cost to politics as a whole. In 1965, the Republican Party was an inclusive organization, comprising not just Nixonian pragmatists and Goldwater zealots but also liberal followers of Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge. Forty years on, it is getting increasingly difficult to find a true moderate in the Republican Party, let alone a liberal, so far to the right has the party’s equilibrium tilted. This was in large part — if not entirely — a consequence of the kind of political philanthropy that [Rob] Stein and [Simon] Rosenberg have come to emulate. The culture of the party came to reflect the ideology of the men who subsidized it, and the national dialogue, as a result, has grown less temperate and less tolerant.”

Rosenberg by far isn’t just about money raising - or using media, or the internet, although they are his strengths, but I’m not sure that his experience with the grassroots is all that extensive (see Rick’s post). I’m not sure that he often goes around talking with average people to find out what’s on their mind (as opposed to polling) - though I ask readers to please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. In the end, however necessary, money, media and the internet isn’t the way to a lasting majority, for any party. We need to make broad, long-lasting connections with people to forge a permanent majority party.

Howard Dean

While Howard Dean has gotten himself involved with the grassroots and has a grassroots organization (Democracy For America) behind his efforts, the main concern I have with him is how effective would he be with party factions and political insiders?

In a discussion with key bloggers yesterday, Dean is reported to have had the following exchange:

“eralyn: do you think we can win elections if we don’t focus on the issues? howard says his job would be to get other people elected, and would not claim to be sole spokesman for the party. however, if he is asked what he thinks, he’ll answer it and will do his best to correctly reframe the issue.”

I wasn’t in on the conversation, and I may be misinterpreting the sense of what went on, but in isolation the above paraphrase points to my worry - is Dean perceived as so sufficiently polarizing/damaged that he may be gun shy when it comes to pushing the party in a direction that it needs to go? Now some may take this as a testament to Howard’s will or ability. It isn’t. Unless Joe (or someone else) provides me with a better argument, the next DNC Chair will need to use persuasion to move the party in a policy direction - the question for me is after his primary loss, does Howard have the political capital (or can he get it) to move the party on the issues? And if his belief is that the DNC Chair shouldn’t be involved in the issues - that it somehow is not necessary to the role of getting people elected - is that what Democrats need for party building? Who is going to form the message prior to the primaries for 2008?

Some Thoughts About A Winning Message

Before the end of this coming weekend I plan to roll out my suggestion for a Democratic agenda with a domestic focus, one that looks at things like retirement, healthcare and economic well-being in the security framework. Modern America is more and more about insecurity - it was there before the terrorist threat gained visibility and it isn’t going away anytime soon. It is one of the overarching issues of our time. The real risk of losing your retirement, becoming unable to afford healthcare and medication and being constantly on edge because of the lack of stable jobs that pay a decent wage is reality for most Americans, from the poor to the upper middle class, and Democrats ignore it at our peril - because these are our voters. There is a role for government to play addressing the need for greater security on the home front - not just overseas. A level of security is a precursor for most people to enjoy real “opportunity” - what Simon considers a Democratic value.

Some Thoughts About The Grass Roots

To grow a community, we need leaders in the community. For all the (justly) heralded volunteerism in the 2004 primaries with Dean (where I speak from experience) we lacked organizational direction and resources. My sense is that with Kerry it was worse. People that can inspire and lead volunteers, I mean really lead them in productive ways that maximize their talents and deliver on their promise, are not a dime a dozen. You need to find as many as you can, and train many more, to do it right. These people should be organizers who live in the community, know the people and get to work organizing them through understanding them and delivering for them - for years. They should be a permanent part of the local infrastructure for Democrats - and they should be able to get the resources needed to do the job right. Perhaps we need numerous Democratic scholarships in communities for the college education of future Democratic leaders? Perhaps we need local salaried professionals on the ground like Dean suggests? There are obvious turf considerations, and local and state parties will necessarily be involved. We need a DNC Chair to create the conditions for state and local party buy in for a national project to create community infrastructure. Perhaps we need the leverage that Dean has with Democracy For America (see Zephyr bullet-point)?

Conclusion

If the next DNC Chair can make the Democrats a relevant party, developing candidates that deliver on the issues that matter, over time it will make us the dominant party. Republicans compete with Democrats only when Democrats consistently fail to deliver meaningful policies for the people.

While Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, among others, have spoken to these needs in varying degrees, the question is who can deliver on them? I don’t have an answer - I hope whomever wins does.