This has been a really interesting thread, inspired by Robin Jack’s article in the Weekly Dig about her experience moving from Occupier to delegate to the State Convention.
So, I loved Occupy. I brought them hot food and coffee when I could. I helped find them a General Assembly space once. They helped to create a voice and a language and set of critiques, regarding the grotesque takeover of our public life by moneyed interests. They have demonstrated how few of us actually benefit from our current oligarchy. Their message helped get Elizabeth Warren elected. It was an awareness-raising enterprise, and they damn well raised it.The only shame is that it wasn’t even more of it. Long live Occupy.
(I can only hope that the climate march in NYC on September 21 will have something of that awareness-raising, galvanizing effect. I’m going. You’re cordially invited – sign up to hop on a bus here.)
So it’s important for Occupiers to realize what impact they’ve had, and that people who work the guts of the Democratic Party’s volunteer establishment really were paying attention, and for the most part had a ton of sympathy, even passion, for Occupy’s message. And I think that goes straight up to both of our Senators and the Governor himself. Our system needs continuous pressure to remind candidates and electeds of the right priorities, because they feel a variety of pressures from all directions. But we’ve got a handful of really good people in office.
This makes it more unfortunate that Jack had to lard her critique with so much pettiness, impatience, and plain old nastiness — running mascara? I don’t understand the point of that. Caucuses and conventions are a pain, for reasons necessary and unnecessary. But Jack brought an enormous chip on her shoulder. She didn’t seem to have an attitude that she had something to learn — that there was something to gain.
She writes, “The only people who really enjoy stuff like that, I think, are either political wonks or folks who like having their asses kissed by powerful people who make personal calls and approach them in arena aisles.” You know, people don’t necessarily take a weekend out of their lives to spend at the DCU and eat shamefully crappy food and wait too long to vote and scramble to convince their peers because it’s necessarily fun. Nor do they live in tents in the freezing cold because it’s necessarily fun. See? You have something in common.
As for “having their asses kissed by powerful people”??? That’s the whole game, Robin! That’s what you’re there for! People fight and claw and — let’s not forget — pay tons of money for that kind of access! Did you somehow miss it? When the candidates came by, did you walk right up and give them a piece of your mind? Did you extract a promise? Did they see your passion and commitment — and your willingness to share it?
I can tell you that doing this blog has given me a chance to speak to most of the statewide elected officials in this state. Oh, and the guy who’s now US Secretary of State. Why? For shooting my mouth off on the internet. Just for being here. Robin showed up *in the freezing cold for months* and shot her mouth off, to my everlasting gratitude and admiration. Doing politics is mostly just showing up — a caucus is a perfect example of that.
All the rigamarole, inconvenience, and bureaucratic crap that delegates have to deal with — that’s the price of access to power. As a newbie, you see them working a system, and it might seem like the system is what they care about: “political wonks”. Or more precisely, “process dorks.” Yup. We know ’em.
What you might not see as a newbie is that they are exerting power. These delegates are opinion leaders in their communities, they organize GOTV drives, and they get people elected. And candidates try to recruit them.
And that maybe the same fire that kept you warm in a tent in the winter, fuels their activities as well. Of course there’s always a tension between one’s own ideals and the workings of a political machine, which any political party is. But this is your chance to work the machine to your advantage. I hope you stick with it. Believe it or not, the party needs you.
And the party needs better food. Amen.
matthewjshochat says
So it’s important for Occupiers to realize what impact they’ve had, and that people who work the guts of the Democratic Party’s volunteer establishment really were paying attention, and for the most part had a ton of sympathy, even passion, for Occupy’s message.
Even after Robin left Occupy, I damn well continued to speak well on behalf of the MassDems. I’m glad that Robin got a chance to get to the State Convention.
sco says
Let’s not let our distaste for the tone of the article mask the fact that the best thing that could be said about the convention was that it was an ‘ordeal’. I had to work very hard to make sure that no one in my delegation was disenfranchised due to the delays & the logistics. I don’t really begrudge anyone for coming out of Worcester thinking that the whole thing was not worth the hassle.
slapNtickle says
That Occupy was a failure. We totally failed. Despite Bastille-storming levels of inequality, we never really convinced the general population of much of anything. While I’m sure we helped build the background for Raise Up etc., we didn’t pass any major legislation, and we made ourselves less likeable as the protests went on.
The Tea Party has a goddamn caucus and multiple Presidential candidates; even as a joke, they are hugely powerful. We have the satisfaction of knowing we stood up for what is right, and…?
By now we should have learned, regrouped, and gotten back to work bringing more people on to our side. I hate it, but I don’t see how you can really look at Occupy as much of a success.
fenway49 says
I tend to agree.
But, if you look at Petr’s diary (either today’s or the linked one from 2011), it discusses the way the Tea Party was appropriated by extremely wealthy people with an agenda that dovetailed nicely with the basic idea of the Tea Party. We don’t have many people like that on the Occupy side of things, so it’s hard to hold it to the same standard in such a money-dominated process.
That reality makes it all the more important that we get our shit together and act strategically in terms of message and concrete political goals.
JimC says
On one hand, all movements fail.
But on the other hand, I can tell you that Occupy Wall Street opened some eyes. I know a few people who work on Wall Street, and they were definitely affected by seeing their profession under protest. Whatever pause that gives them might fade … but it might grow too.
Mark L. Bail says
(Inquiring minds want to know).
Charley on the MTA says
is counted on a generational timeframe, or longer. But did the 1% have an effect on the public? Class awareness? Ask Mitt Romney. I think it mattered. The proper measurement is versus *what would have otherwise happened.*
Remember that the Tea Party has billionaires, and a large media industry behind it. You can’t compare the two, I don’t think — and certainly not call one a success and one a failure unless you are clear on your metric, which is hard to be.
judy-meredith says
And that means you have to go to the meeting of course , learn the rules, participate in debate and hang around to vote.
Occupiers did a pretty good job developing an open process, limiting debate and counting votes in the open air, in the rain, in the cold I think.
And yes Charlie, while I can’t go to NYC for the Climate March, my Church is organizing a delegation
harmonywho says
If you cannot stay til the end of the meeting and hang around to vote, because of your babysitter running out, or your shift starting and you need the hours to make rent….
Yes, the keys to the castle ARE left under the doormat. Convention and Caucuses are VERY open. I am a big defender of this fact and the democratic heart of both.
My axe is that “we” (writ large) need to do better getting that word out to new blood. I have great respect for the work that’s been done so far in this regard. Let’s keep doing more.
kate says
Agreed. I continue to work at getting the word out. BMG is one of the many places that I utilize to do this.
harmonywho says
I wish we could distill some of that more gestalty-narrative sense of Accessibility and Openness and Importance messaging out beyond the people who know already to read the dispatch. The mothers in my mommy/daughter bookclub, for example. They’re so far outside of all of this, but yet, they’re good citizens and democrats and vote in elections. They should vote in caucuses too. How are we, instituationally, reaching them (besides me personally writing up stuff and sending it to them and hectoring them in person)?
sco says
We should be aware of whether we’re erecting barriers so that only the ‘right kind’ of people can realistically stay to the end of the meeting.
fenway49 says
That it’s such a burden for someone to take a day off or get childcare says a lot about our the state of our economy, labor laws, childcare situation. But the fewer people can manage to participate (in a movement of any kind), the harder it is to fix the economy.
Beyond trying to fight deliberate efforts (as Petr described in his post) to wait out the riffraff, I don’t know how we make our meetings much shorter. Maybe we, DTC or grassroots groups engaged in political work, can pool together to create childcare options on the day of the convention for those who face this burden.
kbusch says
with the age of marriage and first child increasing — especially in blue states like our Commonwealth — our political organizations should be bursting with twentysomethings.
fenway49 says
The apathy problem or, in this case, a reluctance of engaged people to work with the Democrats. Honestly I wasn’t particularly involved in my 20s, though I voted and followed the issues.
harmonywho says
And that’s the nut we have to crack. HAVE to.
SomervilleTom says
I have a family full of political and aware twenty-somethings, and that limited sample REFUSES to participate in the political process — not because of apathy, ignorance, or sloth. They REFUSE to participate because they are convinced (with reasonable justification, in my view) that the political process is rigged against them.
I have two older daughters with crushing student loan debt. They did what we expected them to do — they studied hard, they avoided partying too much, they worked dutifully at summer jobs, and they got their diplomas. They were dumped into an economy with NO jobs in their fields AT ALL. One landed in a field (video production) where she is expected to work for FREE for years before being considered for a paying job.
They have crushing debt burdens, heartless bankruptcy laws that offer NO protection, minimal income, skyrocketing housing costs, and no effective public transportation (here in Massachusetts).
They listen to the candidates talk, and they just roll their eyes and laugh. One of them said, dismissively, when Don Berwick announced his candidacy, “Forget him, he’s way too smart. He doesn’t stand a chance”.
There comes a time when the RIGHT thing to do is walk away from a losing game and find another way to get to a goal.
For my children’s generation, working “inside the system” is a prescription for further financial plundering and emotional angst. They are choosing to work OUTSIDE the system, and that includes rejecting the political process.
It is, in my view, demeaning to characterize that as “apathy”. It is, in fact, the opposite.
harmonywho says
Cynicism — which very well be justified — unfortunately the flip side of apathy. And it’s less fun than apathy, which is willfully ignorant or blithefully unaware. Cynicism is full knowledge and despair that you can do anything about it.
But the effect is the same attrition and giving up on their voice and our collective ability to make a change.
We must crack thru it. I am a cynic too, and as I said elsewhere yesterday, it’s the despair I’d feel at *giving up* that is a big part of what pushes me.
It would be easier to be apathetic.
fenway49 says
First with the idea of dropping out. Someone will be President or Governor no matter what they do. Best chance to improve it is not to drop out.
Also with the idea that most 20-somethings are aware. I know a LOT of people 20 to 40 who are obsessed with video games, cult movies, comic books, fantasy football, celebrity gossip, science fiction, punk music and virtually anything as long as it does not involve politics, policy, history, or the like. Screaming matches over Heath Ledger’s best movie, couldn’t pick Deval Patrick out of a lineup. I call that apathy.
SomervilleTom says
It isn’t that I disagree with your observation about the priorities of too many 20-somethings. It is, in my view, instead a question of cause versus symptom.
In my view, much of the appeal of the distractions you mention is that they mask the pain of recognizing the extent to which we and “the system” have abused, betrayed, and plundered them.
In any case, it seems to me that the burden is on us to change OUR behavior — if nothing else because our own behavior is easier to change than anyone elses.
For me, blaming the striking lack of participation of today’s twenty-somethings on themselves smacks too much of blaming the victim for me to sign up for it.
fenway49 says
Have never had a moment’s introspection about the ways “the system” may have abused them to meet that description.
The main problem with the system is that plenty of people who want Reaganomics and its progeny vote, contribute, and generally get in face of elected officials. They’ve taken over the GOP entirely and too many Dems go chasing them. Drowning ones pain in Family Guy episodes does nothing to help that, it just cedes the terrain. They’re not entirely helpless victims, they’re citizens. Bad ones.
Tell me, though, what behavior I can change and I’ll consider it.
Christopher says
If you want things to change you often have to change laws.
If you want laws to change you sometimes need to change lawmakers.
If you want lawmakers to change you have to at very least vote, but also volunteer if you can, even maybe contribute financially.
Ultimately, the system is rigged because we let it be. If we don’t vote then the idea that we don’t matter quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
SomervilleTom says
Your statement that “the system is rigged because we let it be” flies in the face of history and fact. It denies the reality that minorities (including women) were effectively shut out of the system for generations. It is blaming the victim, no different than saying that a woman who is raped on the Esplanade “had it coming” because she was out “too late” or because of how she dressed.
Sometimes the way you force laws to change is to aggressively break them. Sometimes the way you change lawmakers is to make them too ashamed, embarrassed, or — yes — afraid to continue to hold office. Sometimes voting, volunteering, and especially giving money is nothing more than perpetuating and enabling a corrupt and rotting enterprise.
Some of us can be change agents by working within the system. Others of us are change agents by stepping outside the system.
Truly revolutionary change (and I assure that you solving the wealth concentration crisis in this state IS truly revolutionary) requires BOTH.
Christopher says
Of course if people CAN’T vote that has to be fixed, but you were talking about your children who I strongly suspect are very much able to vote. If EVERYONE actually voted all the Koch money in the world would not be very effective since at the end of the day it is still the person with the most votes, not the biggest bank account who wins an election. Your rape victim analogy is outrageous beyond words, and your suggestion that we should make people “afraid” to continue in office sounds a little too close to “second amendment remedies” for my comfort.
Christopher says
…even if you force someone out of office you still have to , you know, ELECT someone to take his place.
JMGreene says
would fundamentally be undemocratic.
Trickle up says
who stay. This is an issue all mass democratic organizations wrestle with, at least those who want to make decision with a deliberative process.
In the Clamshell we called it the Dictatorship of the Insomniacs.
Rules can tame this to some extent, as Judy says, but of course rules invite meta discussion, involve trade-offs, must he understood, create absurd situations that can be mocked, etc.
JMGreene says
-James Madison
jconway says
To get involved. And to wit, while I took a lot of issue with the tone, snark, and defeatism of the article-and recognize that was the fault of the Dig’s spin as much as the author’s intent-she brought up some easy wins I think we can easily accomplish.
1) Don’t hold it on the weekend of Pride
The LGBTQ community is a huge ally of progressives on so many issues, this was just dumb planning 101.
2) Hold it in an accessible arena
We fought for the ADA and we should live by it.
3) Hold it in an accessible arena
The party of mass transit should encourage it’s use and accommodate key demographics of ours (the young and carless/the poor and carless) who need to be better represented.
4) Make it easy to join, and easy to follow
I’ve been following Roberts Rules since I served as a student member of my school committee in 10th grade, and even I had to ask kate how the caucuses worked. We don’t have to simplify how they operate, but we definitely need to come up with an easy ‘Caucuses for Dummies’ kind of pamphlet that makes the process a lot more accessible. If it already exists-than we should make it far more accessible.
5) Hold a mock caucus every now and then
I don’t intend to be an attorney, but doing mock trial, going to the ‘day at the hill’ where we had a mock legislative session, taught me lifelong skills and appreciation of how to properly conduct business in those arenas. Let’s get the newbies on board, and maybe we can have fun and learn from each other. Hold it in a pub and make a game of it. Not everyone who goes is a policy dork-but we can help make it as accessible as possible.
6) Diversify
Let’s get slots for the disabled, LGBTQ, minorities, and socioeconomic diversity via slated slots like the national party, and via outreach to those communities. I want the Brockton mom as much as the JP occupier-they both are outside the party now and I want them inside the tent. And as long as they are willing to work with us, come to us directly, and always politely voice their concerns-I think we can all work together. After all, we share a common goal and a common goal.
Do the easy wins now, and the hard stuff will have a foundation to build on.
Christopher says
1-Pride was a fluke of this year due to the day/date lineup in the June calendar. The convention is usually the first full weekend of June. Another regular event for me is the annual meeting of the Mass. Conference of the United Church of Christ which is usually the third weekend, but was also the second and also got a bit of flak for coinciding with Pride.
2-Pretty sure the arena as a whole is ADA-compliant, but I have yet to see a practical solution to seating disabled delegates with their delegations. If you designate an area for all such delegates some will say they feel segregated.
3-DCU is walking distance of Worcester’s Union Station. Holding it within range of the subway system is too expensive.
4-They are easy to follow and Robert’s is followed in its most bare-bones form. It’s just a matter of asking who wants to run then balloting if necessary.
5-I’m not sure how many you would get to a mock caucus, but we do offer caucus trainings at which we explain the procedure and answer questions.
6-Already done for disabled, minorities, and youth. There is a generous fee waiver system which basically comes down to if you apply you aren’t really asked to justify it.
jconway says
I think it’s heartfelt and a genuine response, but to others it sounds like an insider dismissing change.
#1: “it’s always been in June”-that might not be your intention but it comes across as a traditionalist “we always do things this way” kind of argument. Change the date so it never conflicts with pride-ever. Not hard. We’d be rightly mocking the GOP if they made the same mistake. It’s a slap in the face-would you hold it on st patricks day, tom kipper or MLK day-three other big democratic demographics? I think not. LGBTQ pride matters just as much as any other group.
#2-ADA compliance and actual accessibility are totally different. Could you easily maneuver in a wheelchair? With a limp? Were there lots of easy access railings? Were the balconies steep? These things matter and I’d pick an arena that was fully accessible.
#3-too expensive? Than let’s raise some money for it. It’s not just an issue of optics it’s an issue of actual access to the working poor, the young, seniors and other carless demographics throughout the state. If it must be in central or western MA than rent buses. Make it accessible.
#4-Easy to follow for someone who has been to every one since 1998-but clearly pretty damn hard for a seasoned occupier and a Brockton working mom. I think the newcomers should be the standard we judge ease of use and understanding.
#5-fair, but how widely known is the training? When is it held? How easy to sign up?
#6-there shouldn’t be a fee period. Not for the party that cares about inequality and workers. I might add the author didn’t find it easy at all.
JMGreene says
Here’s the Globe article. Key quote:
harmonywho says
Key point:
I KNOW that the MDP is working to do better, but we need to do better better. EVERYTHING can always be improved and our mission/goal/moral center should be (is?) democratic – All Means All – working moms – activists – welcoming…
As I said on the other thread, I know good people are making important efforts which I’m grateful for. I’m seeing a gap in the official MDP materials though — let’s get some of Kate’s wisdom, for example, on the webpage. (I’m getting repetitive from the other thread)
Christopher says
I wasn’t necessarily defending the date as something we have to stick with, just pointing out that it was fluke of this year. BTW, who celebrates Tom Kippur? – never hear of that one:)
We had a lot of complaints on accessibility this year and the arena failed us to some extent in this regard as well.
I’m not sure how I feel about calling for more fundraising. There are already busses from some parts, the tab being picked up by a local DTC or legislator.
I’m really not sure how to make this easier. The list is on the party website with date, time, and place. You show up and follow the chair’s directions. You volunteer to run or accept a nomination if you wish and the chair tells you how many you can vote for. Highest votegetters win.
Trainings are pubilcized through the website and other emails, but yes, primarily to those who have taken the initiative to seek out information.
I would love for there to be no fee, but I’m not sure practical it is. I’m sorry if someone didn’t get the information, but the fee waiver can’t be much easier or more generous either. It is part of the chair’s script at caucus to point out that fee waiver applications are available. Some chairs hand everyone an application along with the payment envelope to spare the awkwardness some might feel about having to ask.
fenway49 says
Annual herring festival?
😉
SomervilleTom says
Worcester is less than hour from Boston. Good and well-maintained right of way is already in place. Conventional equipment, if scheduled properly, can traverse that route at speeds of 90-110MPH. There is no technical reason why it should take more than a half-hour to get from South Station to Worcester, and there is no reason other than funding why those trains couldn’t run every 15-20 minutes.
This is political problem, it is a political problem caused by we DEMOCRATS who have controlled the public transportation purse for decades, and it is political problem that we still fail to discuss.
The fact that you cite “within range of the subway system” is an indictment of the priorities of this campaign.
It should be as easy and convenient to get from anywhere on the subway system to the DCU as it is to get from anywhere in Cambridge to a location in Quincy or West Newton.
sabutai says
Perhaps someone might posit a connection between the fact that the convention is never within an hour of the Southeast, and the Southeast is going steadily redder over the past 15 years. As for scheduling, when would someone suggest? Any later you’re in graduation/vacation season…
harmonywho says
Earlier, not later
sabutai says
If you can avoid April school vacation, Easter, and Passover.
drikeo says
Though I’d like quibble with two of your points.
#2 – The DCU is accessible, however it is not 100% accessible. This comes up a lot in Massachusetts because so many structures pre-date the ADA. We’ve been retrofitting spaces and coming up with accommodations in order to be ADA complaint. I’ve been to many events/public meetings where people in wheelchairs or with mobility issues were able to get inside and involved with no particular fuss, but later I’ve heard/read that it was exclusionary because the space wasn’t fully ADA compliant. It really has become a game of gotcha for some and I will confess that it has started to wear on my generally sympathetic nature.
#3 – I think we’re stuck with Worcester, mostly because it is central and the convention should be seeking geographical diversity. Democrats in particular need to be sensitive to the notion that they’re the Boston Party. The most effective Republican strategy in this state (not that any has been particularly effective) has been to play off those outside Rte. 128 against those inside of it. However, the convention does remind us that transportation into Worcester is a mess. Also, the disenfranchised are getting pushed farther out of the Boston core and beyond the reach of transit (maybe a bus if you’re lucky).
kate says
In election years in which candidates need 15% to appear on the ballot there is a very tight limit on when the qualified names need to be sent to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. On the other end candidates need to have signatures certified to qualify to be on the ballot. Please forgive brevity. Typing with one hand due to an injury.
Trickle up says
It’s certainly appropriate to talk about how to grow the party among any group—millennial, Occupy, soccer fans.
However I think we ought to recognize that going to the DCU is not the apotheosis of all civic engagement; it’s part of a particular political practice that not everyone shares. And not everyone needs to.
Progressive Democrats ought to feel part of a movement that is bigger than (a) the party and even (b) electoral politics. A movement that includes activists who may never see the inside of a caucus meeting, but who walk picket lines or protest pipelines or occupy wall street.
mem-from-somerville says
I’ve been lurking over it since I read the Dig piece. It seems to have hit the right space in the Venn of the “process dorks” and the passion dorks. I didn’t want to say “versus” because I don’t want it to be us vs them. Seems to me more of an overlapping set.
My first convention exercise was the Warren juggernaut–where we went and did the process stuff to prevent a damaging primary and get Warren into the chute faster. But that’s about as fast as this system can usually go.
And years ago it was explained to me, by older and wiser wonks than I was, that part of the time it takes for the process is so that bad ideas (like the Tea Party) can’t get through the system too quickly. Unfortunately this also works the same way on better ideas too. And in the end, it’s the folks who play the long game that get the forward motion. It may not be as much motion, or as quickly, as desired. But it happens.
Gay marriage wasn’t even on the table when I first started going to political protests. And now we’ve had it for years. But when I began, there was more access to abortion and that’s going away for many women. Because some people are playing long games.
It’s not pretty, and it’s not satisfying. But I don’t see a way to get around that.
jconway says
And to some extent, neither the original author of the Dig piece or the more strident critics of it are playing the long game. For her, the first convention was awful, and she will now step back outside the system and throw stones at institutions hoping they change. They will if many others join her, but, this is not always the case or an assumption. And those critics will keep insisting that our current process works just fine until the numbers showing up grow grayer and whiter than what our actual party reflects. Time to meet somewhere in the middle and coordinate long term strategies for movement and party building and success.
I’d welcome a Green or progressive takeover of the state party, the one that routinely allows dudes like Jim Miceli or the Timilty’s to put the ‘D’ next to their name. I grew up in an era when Bulger and Finneran were the faces of the state party. Time to make sure we don’t fall back but keep moving forward.