I have read recent posts and comments, specifically from/about KOS and Deval Patrick that seem to be critical of people that have had successful careers or have a soapbox (or soapblox) to speak from. These comments seem to be saying that if you are a successful business person you donât have a rightful place in the Democratic Party. This sort of sentiment is not limited to BlueMass group. In fact seems to be endemic within the party.
This is dangerous. We as Democratâs are viewed not as pro-consumer, but anti-business, not as pro entrepreneurial but anti-small business. Our attitude toward success has a lot to do with that.
If we canât even be supportive of successful Democrats, how can we expect Massachusetts voters and the American people at large to believe that we want them to be successful? How can we talk about working to provide opportunities to achieve the âAmerican Dreamâ and then criticize those that have achieved it? And yes, becoming wildly successful and even becoming a billionaire is part of the American Dream.
I assume you’re talking at least in part about my post discussing kos’s interview in the NY Times. And I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was trying to make (perhaps the fault is mine for not being clearer; if so, I apologize). I was assuredly NOT saying that people who have been successful can’t be good Democrats. Neither kos nor I was talking about Democrats generally; I, at least, was talking more specifically about the blogosphere (I think kos was too, but I can’t speak for him).
<
p>
My point, and I think the point kos was making in the interview, is that the blog phenomenon is most interesting for its ability to allow those who have not previously published books, or been on TV, or otherwise become “famous,” to nonetheless have a voice in politics. That strikes me as an unqualified good thing – more small “d” democracy is generally preferable to less. The HuffPo writers that I talked about who were already “famous” and have decided that they also wanted to blog are often a great read – as I said, I’m a big Arianna fan – but they by definition are not representative of those who previously had no voice. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read them. Just means that if you’re looking for NEW voices in politics, or you want to hear what the previously unheard voices are saying, HuffPo and the like maybe shouldn’t be your first stop.
<
p>
As for those who criticize or don’t trust Deval Patrick because of his success in the business world, however, I agree with you. Those Dems need to get over their apparently inherent suspicion of anyone who has succeeded in the private sector. Those are exactly the people we should want flocking to our party.
with everything David wrote (except that in the case of the referenced comment by Kos himself I think his primary point was to market himself as a “real” blogger and deride his competitors in a self-serving fashion). I note that I consider myself, I hope not unreasonably, as a businessperson.
<
p>
HOWEVER, before we proceed further with this discussion, I wonder if you were in fact referring to David’s post about Kos. To what exactly were you referring?
My comments were primarily directed at the Deval bashers and the Democratic Party in general. I agree with giving a voice to people that do not have a platform from which to speak (otherwise I would not be heard from right now!), but not while discounting what other successful people have to say.
<
p>
To me KOS was saying he filters not on message or idea but on where the message comes from. I guess in some way part of my post was directed at Davidâs post. My take was that David was endorsing KOSâs statement (or I should say my interpretation of it).
<
p>
This sort of filtering could lead to a community of all single minded people preaching to the choir, which may not be too far from where KOS is. That type of movement does not interest me. A big part of why I respect the work you guys do is that you clearly do not take this approach, as evidenced by the âother wingedâ blogroll and some of the posts I have read.
<
p>
So to sum up, KOS is tangential to my point and was probably best left out. To quickly restate my point – we cannot champion the American Dream if we are discounting and trying to tear down those that achieve it. The Democratic Party needs to do a better job embracing successful business people and could benefit a great deal from some good business discipline.
Off the top of my head:
<
p>
WARREN BUFFETT (hello!!)
John Corzine
Maria Cantwell
Deval Patrick
Herb Kohl
Chris Gabrieli
Robert Rubin
Mark Dayton, FWIW (from business family)
Andrea Silbert
<
p>
etc. etc.
<
p>
I mean, the Dems aren’t going from zero here.
I’m sure you could come up with many more with time (although your list doesn’t have many elected folks), but that’s not really the point (or at least my point). The Dems have a perception problem and a candidate problem.
<
p>
Do you disagree?
Candidates, I’m not so sure. Like I say, that was off the top of my head. It seems like the Dems do pretty well at recruiting rich self-financers to run for office, or at least they used to.
<
p>
But yes, there is that perception, and the knee-jerk stuff has got to go. So I agree with your basic point, but there’s something to work with.