Why The Democratic Party Isn't Responsive To Its Base

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 15:08


The unfolding story of the Democratic nomination process in the Minnesota 6th Congressional district is a "teachable moment" in progressive politics. From TPMdc:

The Democratic field to go up against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is now shrinking, with 2008 nominee El Tinklenberg announcing that he has dropped out of the race in order to avoid a messy Democratic contest.

This could be a sign of the party circling around state Senate assistant majority leader Tarryl Clark, who got in the race in the past couple weeks. The other remaining Democratic candidate is Maureen Reed, a former University of Minnesota regent and 2006 Independence Party nominee for Lt. Governor, who raised a significant sum of money before Clark got in.

It is difficult to imagine a better anecdote to describe why so many Democratic elected officials are not responsive to the Democratic base.

Instead of the nominee in the Minnesota 6th being determined by the local Democratic voters (or, in Minnesota, DFLers), it has instead been determined by fundraisers.

Given this, if Maureen Reed goes on to defeat Michele Bachmann, who will she be more accountable to--the local Democratic voters, or to the fundraisers? Structurally speaking, the answer is clearly the fundraisers.

That Democrats ever convinced themselves primaries were a bad idea was one of the worst defeats to progressive politics in recent American history. Exchanging Democratic primaries for Democratic fundraising contests goes a long way to making Democratic elected officials unaccountable to the Democratic base, but very accountable to large donors.

All Democrats, all progressives, and really all Americans need to stop thinking that primaries are a bad thing. Since primaries are elections, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that elections are a bad thing.

If we voluntarily give up on primary elections, then we are voluntarily giving up on the concept of government that is accountable to the American people. The broken market for Democratic primaries, which does seem to be rebounding a bit of late, is one of the main reasons why the Democratic Party--or at least a significant percentage of Democrats--often appears to be more like yet another extension of Wall Street than like a real alternative to Republicans.

Chris Bowers :: Why The Democratic Party Isn't Responsive To Its Base

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why The Democratic Party Isn't Responsive To Its Base | 33 comments
Possibly our best tool (4.00 / 2)
Running  Real Democrats in  primary races up against any evidently DINO Democrats -- who have proven themselves to be horribly damaging to the progressive movement of the Democratic Party -- is possibly our most important weapon for changing the landscape of the painfully discouraging politics we have been living through.

The only other piece of the political landscape that I think really competes with the importance of running and winning with Better Democrats would be continuing to put a full court press to expose the dishonesty that passes on to the public through the dishonest and also lazy, stenographic media conglomerates.  

Get the money out (4.00 / 1)
And Clean Money elections to get at least some of the overt bribery money (campaign contributions) out of the process.  
[ Parent ]
good bloggin' (4.00 / 2)
Marriage seems not to have dulled your edge.  
Clark not Reed forced El's hand (4.00 / 1)
It appears that the AFSCME Council in the district has just or is soon to announce an endorsement of Clark.

The fact that Reed is using her IP contacts to raise money is not reflective of local Democrats or the Party.  

It's always like this (0.00 / 0)
you look at other democracies around the world, same thing, voters don't get to chose whom the parties nominate to run in their constituencies, the parties do...it's actually LESS bad here.

In the end, this has a lot to do with wanting to take out an entrenched incumbent...in order to do it,said Democrat has to raise a ridiculous amount of money for the general election, so even if voters got to decide who the nominee is, it's going to end up being someone who will be accountable to fundraisers anyway...the difference is, you might have had a divisive primary.

Less bad? (0.00 / 0)
C'mon, agitate for the government you want, not the government that is arguably better than others.
[ Parent ]
The government I want (0.00 / 0)
does not exist anywhere on this earth...the closest type of government to the one I want is right here.
[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
But why settle?
[ Parent ]
Missing The Point (4.00 / 10)
This isn't about parties choosing candidates.  It's about fundraisers choosing candidates, and the Dems then clearing the field for them.

If you have strong parties that have clear, strong policy positions, then party discipline can actually improve responsiveness, since its much easier for the average voter to follow such major positions and how they play out than to suss out a local politician who's skilled in political theatre.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure (4.00 / 4)
There are parties, and then there's Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC. Never mind what we're for, let's tailor the candidate to the district. If it tends red, let's choose and fund a red candidate, and run the others into the weeds -- who gives a rat's ass if the party rank-and-file in that district is bluer than the district as a whole.

This may be a formula for winning seats, but it's definitely not a formula for building a strong party, or for advancing the party's message, or for governing like real Democrats. Howard Dean had the right idea. He saw the party as a vehicle for advancing our agenda; the clear implication being that winning elections without taking clear positions on issues is ultimately just another way to guarantee that the government goes into business for itself.

That's why so many of us interested in turning the country around wound up giving money to MoveOn, or ActBlue, or the PDA, instead of the Democratic Party. If we're ever going to convince voters, we have to talk straight to them, persuade them, even if we lose elections now and again. You can't win an argument if you're unwilling to argue in the first place.

In my own district, a number of us spent a lot of energy trying to get a strong progressive candidate nominated. The response from the party -- from the state hierarchy right down to the county chairpeople and other local bigwigs and moneybag donors -- was to lecture us on viability, and on you can't govern if you can't win elections, accompanied by veiled threats of being purged if we didn't straighten up.

The upshot: the DCCC's candidate -- very recently a Republican, for chrissake -- took the dough, won the nomination and the election, and has voted with the Republicans ever since arriving in DC. Everybody is pissed about it, even the ones who were most adamant about lecturing us party-wreckers. No doubt Rahm Emanuel was happy, though, which seems to be all that counts. That's the real reason, in my opinion, why Howard Dean became a desaparecido five minutes after Obama got his 270th electoral vote.

[ Parent ]
Also Missing The Point (4.00 / 4)
The Dem Party doesn't stand for much of anything, so it's not what I'm talking about.

My point is that experience with weak parties (which we've always tended to have in the US compared to most other democracies, but much more so over the past few decades) is not a good guide to what politics with strong parties is like.

Weak parties may bulk up on steroids (money) to intimidate those who would stray.  Strong parties have a different dynamic.

On balance, I think we'd be much better off with stronger parties, even though they bring their own special problems with them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'd take my chances (4.00 / 1)
with stronger parties, all else being equal. I understand Chris's point, and yours, but I don't see that the kind of party that you describe, and that I'd prefer, could ever exist for long within our electoral system -- the big tent and all that. The problem, as I see it, is that other organizations -- notably labor unions, civil rights organizations, etc. -- which in the past developed agendas and very effectively held the party accountable for sticking to them, are no longer competitive either in terms of bodies or money. There just isn't any other way to the New Jerusalem at present except through dollars, and we aren't likely ever to have enough of them to matter.

As you and others have long pointed out, we have to change the game. How to do that is still a conundrum, and is likely to remain so for some time, despite some promising developments, of which OpenLeft is itself one.

[ Parent ]
This is exactly right, and it is part of the larger issue Chris rightly points to (0.00 / 0)
We dont have a strong party unless we have energized voters to demand their rights.

A Democratic party in a democracy is pretty damn odd when it leans on money and pushes away democratic party control.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
it might be a Democratic party, but it ain't a democratic party (4.00 / 2)
any more than this is a democracy.  

It's a plutocrat party masquerading as a democratic party.  The campaign finance laws guarantee that it is and remains the party of money, so the Rahm Emmanuels of the world find it pretty easy to hijack primaries and cheerfully violate the will of actual voters.  The finance system which overlays the parties ensures that donors will always have more to say than voters.

Sure we should challenge the candidates of money in primaries, and even with third party runs where necessary or possible.  

But it is what it is, until it becomes, or we make it something else.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

[ Parent ]
Rule Jockeying (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure what Rahm's goals are, but I do think his strategy has to do with gaining the initiative to set the agenda.  Once it's acknowledged that concensus doesn't happen over the course of a legislative session, then setting the agenda is a HUGE advantage.  Figuring the angles so the leadership sees progressivism appeals to the party base AND the independents is necessary to getting to the floor.

It may be that one also has to look for allies the likes of Buffet and Rockefeller.  Certainly wealth brings desire for stability which moderates change, but fabulous wealth also brings a certain ideological freedom.  Security enables one to act morally without fear and while retaining others' respect.

I guess what I mean is that monetary backing reduces the temptation to compromise one's ideology for reasons of pragmatism.

[ Parent ]
Yeah ... how's that divisive Democratic Presidential Primary turn out? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
For a while, not good (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
False (4.00 / 2)
At no point was McCain on track to win.
[ Parent ]
difference being (4.00 / 2)
Without naming specific countries, few systems afford individual members the kind of free rein that the US one does.  In particular, parliamentary systems have strong party systems where there are severe penalties for bucking the party leadership on votes, typically losing your membership in the party, followed usually by losing your seat in the next election.

My guess is that what makes this better is that it is harder to bribe an entire party that has to run on a coherent platform.  Picking off individual members is cheaper and easier, particularly if you focus on key committee members - you don't need to buy off 218 members, just a few in the right places to get your desired outcome.

[ Parent ]
Well said (4.00 / 1)
+4
Very Good Point (4.00 / 7)
But the larger question is "How else does this fit into the larger scheme of things?"

By this, I mean where did this sort of mentality come from, and why?

I know part of the answer, from Democracy Headed South, by August Cochrane III, which is built on the thesis that American politics circa 2000 was analogous to Southern poltitics circa 1950, as described in VO Key's classic, Southern Politics in State and Nation.  Cochrane argues that the elements are different, but the functions similar--like gills vs. lungs.

One thing is key--both have weak party systems, which encourages individual candidate entrepreneurship, which in turn makes candidates more beholden to the money side of things, and drains the people side of policy content, upping the aspect of entertainment and spectacle.

What now seems to be the dominant pattern on the Dem side is using the party to clear the field for whichever candidate can do the best job of raising money on their own--a strategy in which the Party is actively colluding against itself, as well as its base.  But, of course, the Party likes being abused by the wealthy and powerful, so it's all good from their POV.

This only further underscores how central campaign finance reform is to every other aspect of politics.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Not sure why "entrepreneurship" is your scapegoat here (4.00 / 1)
It would seem to me that entrepreneurship from a grassroots level could be the key to circumnavigating big established donors. Why wouldn't "raising money on your own" from lots and lots of small donors be a strategy to align with the base?
[ Parent ]
the $75000 problem -- THOSE PEOPLE do NOT Live Like Us. (0.00 / 0)
How many of THOSE PEOPLE got to their station in life by being a manager, by being a professional, by being trustafarian? How many of THOSE PEOPLE got to be professionals or managers or still have their trust fund by ROCKING THE BOAT? How many of THOSE PEOPLE are willing to rock the boat, OR, at the end of the day, how many make choices to delay change, or make a choice for some kind of psuedo incremental change, cuz ...

things might get WORSE for them?

As someone who has lived on 50 grand a year my entire 49 years, except the 1 year I made 51k, AND, as someone whose household income had exceeded 75 grand about 5 years of my 49, I can PROMISE you that budgeting housing in safe neighborhood and budgeting a reliable car and budgeting the incessant inevitable health care needs --- it is ALL easier with mroe money!

$75,000 = appx. $32.50 an hour.

Those living on more do NOT live like the rest of us, and keep f'ing selling us out!

rmm.

go to the following tables in the statistical abstract of the united states.

673 - Money Income Of Families--Percent Distribution by Income Level, in Constant (2006) Dollars

about 29,500,000/78,454,000 are living on over 75 grand, so
about 48,800,000/78,454,000 are living on less than 75k

670 - Money Income Of Households--Distribution by Income Level and Selected Characteristics: 2006 [Excel 111k] |  [PDF 453k]

about 35,000,000/116,000,000 are living on over 75 grand, so
about 81,000,000/116,000,000 are living on less than 75k

680 - Money Income of People--Selected Characteristics by Income Level: 2006 [Excel 199k] |  [PDF 466k]

about 22,000,000 / 208,000,000 are living on over 75k, so
about 186,000,000 / 208,000,000 are living on less than 75k.

http://www.census.gov/compendi...

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

The mentality. (4.00 / 4)
Good points, Chris. Watching the health care debacle, I've been speculating about how our liberal Dems rationalize it in their own minds when they sell out the public interest in their compromising. I think I found the words in a novel I happen to be reading. A character admits to himself that he has been "calling my cowardice duty and my weakness sacrifice". It's all noble, you see.  
Good Point, Wrong Example (4.00 / 5)
I agree that primaries are a good thing and that progressives should use them to our advantage.  That said, El Tinklenberg dropping out actually improves our chances of getting a progressive legislator in Congress.  Tinklenberg was endorsed by the Blue Dogs in 08 (who then failed to raise money for him) and is iffy on choice.  He's always had a tough time with base supporters, with progressives in Minnesota.

Tarryl Clark is a pro-choice Democrat who has won in a very pro-Life district, and she has worked hard at party-building throughout the 6th CD.  El got out because she is a formidable opponent and because he wasn't willing to put up the fight.  He also wouldn't have had a fundraising problem if he hadn't made the boneheaded decision to give all of his money to the DCCC in the hopes they'd carry him through the cycle.  If he hadn't done that he might not have been opposed, or at least he'd have the resources to wage a fight.

So, again, I agree with your general point but, in this case, the fact that the field is clearing for Clark is a good thing for progressives.  It's still a very tough district to win, but if we win with Tarryl at least we won't get a Blue Dog.

He also hired Dana Houle (0.00 / 0)
which would cause me to vote against him in a primary as an indication of poor character.  Dana is the rhambo of dkos.
[ Parent ]
Well said (4.00 / 2)
Tarryl Clark is a great candidate. I was hoping she would run for governor, but this works too. She has a strong base of support in the district and is more progressive and a stronger candidate than Tinklenberg.

Maureen Reed is highly unlikely to win the DFL endorsement. Tinklenberg dropped out because he knew he wouldn't win the DFL nomination or primary with Clark in the race (Tinlkenberg lost the nomination to Patty Wetterling 2 cycles ago because he was the less progressive candidate. The writing was already on the wall with AFSCME endorsing Clark today)

So again, good point, but its probably best not to go off about a race you have no clue about.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
New paradigm coming, keep working. (0.00 / 0)
The trend in fundraising is to circumnavigate the big aggregators, like PACs, lobbyists, and yes, political parties. It's already happening in the nonprofit charity world where organizations like kiva.org and donors choose are connecting donors to recipients directly without a middleman or organizational apparatus. Things work slower in the political world because there's less pressure to be accountable (really!) and the participants are generally less professional (big time).  
Such a great post! A great veiwpoint oin a lot of issues reated to the triumph of right wing politics in America since the second world war. (0.00 / 0)
If yoiu have ever wondered why the democratic Party wouldnt run on the issues that excite people, like healthcare and banks ripping us off, ever wondered why campaigns have been oddly less that trying to drive home the issues that will comit people to your party, like jobs and corporate crime, if you have ever wondered why Dean seemed like a breath of fresh air (it wasn't emailing), if you ever wondered why they keep telling you primaries are bad, while they actually bring new energized people into the struggle, if you ever wondered why we're told that democratic control is messy, difficult or ineffective: you now have a perfectly simple answer in Chris Bower's article here.


All Democrats, all progressives, and really all Americans need to stop thinking that primaries are a bad thing. Since primaries are elections, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that elections are a bad thing.

Let me just add this change:
All Democrats, all progressives, and really all Americans need to stop saying  that primaries are a bad thing. Since primaries are elections, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that elections are a bad thing.
And maybe we ought to start insisting on that. Demanding that.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
Fundraising (0.00 / 0)
It's the yardstick that seems to matter most. Party insiders largely control the flow of cash and can selectively funnel money or choke off funding. Then fundraising becomes the viability argument that continues the process. Been there, done that.

The only way this changes is public funding of campaigns. But given what I've seen over a public health option that is overwhelming favored by the public, I think I'll see a single payer system embraced in DC before I'll see public financing of campaigns.

Prairie State Blue Covering Illinois Democratic politics.

The DP knows it doesn't have to be responsive to its "base" (0.00 / 0)
...because the vast majority will fall for the evil-lesser fallacy and vote for them anyway. So, they look to please their major funders, corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals, instead.

The D leadership will never be responsive to progressives or the left, until progressives and the left stop giving Ds their votes regardless of how anti-progressive the D leadership's actions may be.

So long as Dems have a solid majority (4.00 / 1)
and Blue Dogs hold so much power, I suspect that progressives are actually better served by having a Bachmann in this seat than yet another BD/ConservaDem/DLCer.

Being in the minority, Bachmann's vote is basically meaningless, and her incessant lunacy is, I think, good for our side, as it further alienates centrists from the GOP (in other districts and states), along with the Kings, Hensarling, Foxx, etc.

Whereas another BD/ConservaDem/DLCer is another anti-progressive vote. Unless Dems lose a lot of seats or the majority, the house is basically divided between BD/ConservaDem/DLCers and progressives (not every member belongs to either, but nearly all lean one way or the other). And the more things are tilted towards the former, the harder and worse it is for progressives. We shouldn't enable that.

When regaining the majority mattered more than anything else--because without it, nothing else was possible--it was ok for progressives to back non-progressive Dem challengers and incumbents who were in danger of losing their seats. Now that we have the majority, I think we can afford to not support these types. In fact, I that it's essential that we don't.

If some of them lose their seats because we refused to support them, then maybe the others might change their tune. Right now, our power lies with our willingness to withold support from anti-progressive Dems. Fuck "loyalty". We're loyal to policies, not people.

So long as we're in the majority and Repubs are almost entirely far-right, it's better for a given seat to be held by a Repub--especially a truly crazy one--than by an anti-progressive Dem. We can and should use this reality as leverage against anti-progressive Dems.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

You should realize that the 6th district (0.00 / 0)
has been gerry-mandered to benefit the GOP. That's how such person as Bachman can win it. The real story here is that it is even competitive. Much the same way as it would be big news for the GOP if they had the ghost of a chance to take the 5th (Keith Ellison's seat; formerly Marty Sabo).

Unfortunately, tailor-made for a blue dog type.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Why The Democratic Party Isn't Responsive To Its Base | 33 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox