Regulars carp that they’ve never seen the insurgents until they just showed up at a caucus. Insurgents sometimes encourage this by winning once and then never coming back to do the steady work of reform from within.
Insurgents often think that some ideal of fairness that they grasp intuitively can override the rules. They may be unhappy if you exclude them from voting at a caucus because they missed the deadline for registering as Democrats, as if the regulars are supposed to be able to see in their hearts that they really were Dems in time.
Process reforms can help these relationships work better. Transparency is a big one. I’ve been to at least six Mass. Democratic Conventions so I’m prepared for strange delays while the power brokers put the fix in. New people are very put off by this. I don’t like it either, but the rules permit it. My desire to change those rules doesn’t mean I’m blustering about changing their outcomes this time around.
Politics is both competitive and cooperative, a combination of hard ball and burying the hatchet. The rules are the rules, but we need to help each other when the primary is done.
Often in the past, we haven’t helped each other. Scott Harshbarger would’ve been governor if both wings of the party regulars had cooperated. (Can’t blame insurgents for that one.)
Modern campaigns need such deep organizations that those organizations have to be permanent. They can’t be put together overnight. As Democrats, we are waaaay behind the Republicans on this.
My challenge for regulars and insurgents alike:
That’s one part of the formula for winning.
As a hybrid of the two, I have to say you’ve done admirable justice to both sides. My hope is that we can emerge from this latest imbroglio without causing mortal injury to either side. Time will tell.
It’s all true, and beautifully said. Except the part about them being “young, beautiful and impatient.” I was at the convention; some of them could scare paint off a Pontiac.
<
p>
I thought this line was particulary insightful:
<
p>
“Regulars carp that they’ve never seen the insurgents until they just showed up at a caucus. Insurgents sometimes encourage this by winning once and then never coming back to do the steady work of reform from within.”
<
p>
This is the one thing that truly frosts me. We had an insurgent State Senate race about six years ago, and lo and behold, we had all these new people join the party and help get their candidate the nomination. They have never been back ….until now. They missed four years of fundraising, voter registration and the rallies since then. And now they’re back. They show up when they want something.
I must take exception with your labeling me an insurgent. I became active in the party because I was moved by Robert Reich, author, professor, Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor, Inspirational Visionary Leader. I have remained active in the party involved long term, as a progressive in an organization whose work overarches campaign seasons. I am supporting Deval Patrick not because I am part of some supposed insurgency, but because I have again been inspired by the call of a leader who inspired me, as have many, many others. Further I think that anyone good enough to be selected to serve at the highest levels, at the pleasure of the inspired administration President Clinton as have Secretary Reich and Assistant Attorney General Patrick are more than qualified to elected governor. As for “Party Regulars vs. Insurgents” Reich and Patrick have served with distinction at the highest level of the Democratic party. Insurgents?????
Are you sure your name isn’t “Sacred Cow?” Did you lose your “raillery” on the way home from work today? Do all you guys have your shorts in a knot every single day of the week? Isn’t it a tad stuffy in that shirt of yours?
<
p>
“Lighten up, Francis.” Not everything is High Mass at the Cathedral. If you can’t see the humor and decency in these well chosen words…well, bless your heart…I guess there’s no playing with you today!
I used the term a few days ago when describing myself. Before then I had not seen it here.
<
p>
(Falls on his sword to prevent further bloodshed.)
Please come in and stay active.
<
p>
In retrospect, Reich looks like a better choice than Shannon, though I still like her. Maybe that’s only because he wasn’t in the general, and he would have lost, too, but a friend said at the time that we needed his celebrity against Mitt.
<
p>
I chose Shannon as my candidate for practical reasons, not ideological ones. I thought her real history of fiscal restraint would appeal to independent voters. Mitt taught me a lesson about that by relying on the voters’ ignorance of that distinction. (Even so, Shannon could have won if she hadn’t been so tired and off her game in the last two weeks. By the way, her loss is proof that even an organized and united Democratic Party is not enough.)
<
p>
A key difference for me between insurgents and party regulars is whether they already have an in-state campaign network. Insurgents Deval and Reich did not, and Deval’s accomplishment in building one is really impressive.
<
p>
But feel free to come up with better labels.
Hey, at least Reich wouldn’t have offered to show Mitt his tattoo!
<
p>In all honesty, by the end of that campiagn, the Shannon O’Brien that was on the ballot in November was not the same Shannon O’Brien that I had supported in the primary, at the convention, at the caucuses, and at fundraisers in the previous year. (Remember, Birmingham was the favorite early on- supporting Shannon in 2001 would make me an insurgent!) I don’t know what the heck happened; it may have been campaign fatigue, or just taking bad advice from her inner circle, but she wasn’t the same candidate after the primary. I don’t think that Democrats in general- and definitely not Shannon- were destined to lose that race.
I know it’s been said many times before, but we Democrats tend to treat our unsuccessful candidates as pariahs, while Republicans treat their unsuccessful candidates as top future prospects. Since Nixon, for example, and until GW Bush, each non-incumbent Republican nominee for the Presidency had run and lose at least once – Nixon in 1960, Reagan in 1976, Bush I in 1980, and Dole in 1988. In contrast, Democrats have turned their backs on Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
<
p>
But, until you are in the eye of the storm, and have experienced a race for Governor or President, you have no idea what to expect. Harshbarger and O’Brien, for example, would be better prepared to run for Governor this year than any of the other candidates. Running for other state-wide offices, like AG, Treasurer, Lt. Gov, just isn’t the same. Any of the present field who makes it past the Primary is in for a rude awakening.
Of the Republican Presidential candidates you name, only Nixon lost the general election and later returned to win. The last Democrat to lose the general for President and be renominated was Adlai Stevenson. He lost again in 1956.
<
p>
Like the other Republicans you name, Al Gore had previously run a losing primary campaign for President – in 1988. Since he only “lost” the general in 2000, he might be a good choice again.
<
p>
This fall’s gubernatorial general will be a different ballgame, true. Will Gabrieli’s money win the primary or only tap out the nominee?
I am the one who is the hack – but I was working the other side of the street! :~)
but one of those was not listed… Clark. I consider him an insurgent, but still get the argument that he was “the Clintons'” candidate all the time. Having never worked on what I consider “insider” campaign (though I voted for Galvin this weekend… mostly because I don’t think Bonifaz has convinced me he knows how to perform the job, beyond elections… at least not yet), one thing folks working on “insurgent campaigns” need to get used to is losing primaries. You really need an exceptional candidate to make it through to the next round. So far I have not been on a wining campaign. I am hoping to witness that feeling once in my lifetime. We shall see if this is the year. Unfortunately, “insider campaigns” have been getting us accustom to loosing general elections.
<
p>
In my first campaign I was working for Bradley as I was living in Manchester, NH. The weekend before the primary I was out working my own ward when a HUGE SUV with Tenn. plates came up and almost a dozen campaign workers rolled out clown car style. The driver stepped out and basically told me I shouldn’t be there and that my candidate didn’t have the right to run. (Before anyone says it yes Gabs deserves to be on the ballot :P). Within 45 minutes they had covered the area that had taken me all day to do myself. I was dejected and broken. We went on to loose the vote by 4% the following week (in which I stood in 5 degree weather for 13 hours while trying to not get caught on tape by Mo Roca and Nancy Walls, then of the Daily Show, making an arse of myself (some voters and several campaign workers were not so smart). Honestly the treatment I got from the McCain people was friendlier than what I got from the Gore camp. (The Bushies were exactly what you would have expected⦠no other campaigns were present at my polling place). Many a cup of coffee, muffins, and heat packs were traded between the two camps. I have not understood, even to this day, why two insurgent campaigns from different parties could be so supportive of each other and their volunteers so friendly to each other while both campaigns were treated so badly by their “insider” brethren. It is what turned me off from working with Gore’s folks in the general and I kick myself about it to this day. Had we gotten NH (which we only lost by about 7K votes) FL would not have mattered.
<
p>
I think we all need to keep in mind that we are working with a lot of people who are in the same position I was in 2000. They are first time campaign workers and they deserve all the respect we can give them. These are the folks that we are going to need in November no matter who wins the primary. Keep them involved, keep treating them civilly, and recognize the contributions they make no matter who they support. Todayâs competitor SHOULD BE tomorrow’s ally. It is up to each of us to make sure they are.
<
p>
(PS I did help organize a major fundraiser for Kerry in Watertown at the Hellenic Center after Clark dropped out and then worked for him in northern Maine during the general… so I learned my lesson, but others might not).
Another argument I hear from my city committee members is that folks always show up in election years and “then we never hear from them again”. Honestly I believe this is the failure of the committee. We should actively be going after these folks when they DO show up and make sure WE stay in contact with them. For many people the committee system is Byzantine and confusing. If we want to expand our ranks WE need to make the effort to keep campaign workers involved. (end rant)
Although I am a Patrick supporter this year, there is no question but that I fall on the “party regular” side of the equation. But keep one thing in mind, many party regulars like me started out as insurgents 20 or even 30 years ago. We made changes in the Democratic Party that have made it much more open and transparent than it was when we started. And while we haven’t necessarily given up on our ideals, we have made compromises in an effort to win. In my view, almost any Democrat is better than the Republican alternative, so many of my choices have been made on my belief about who is most likely to win. Galvin, Kerry, O’Brien, and Gore were and are far superior to the Republican alternatives. I am sure that the Bonifaz, Dean, Reich, and Bradley supporters believe that they were and are far more true to ideals that we all really hold in common, but I have made my choices on pragmatic grounds – who is the most progressive Democrat who can win. And, by the way, I think that is Patrick for Governor this year.
While I have been active in Democratic campaigns for many years, I have supported candidates that fall in both the traditional and insurgent categories. I voted for Galvin, even though a majority of the Cape delegation went Bonifaz. Sure Galvin a bit of an odd duck, but he’s been a damn good official. I have also supported Deval Patrick for well over a year. I think it’s fantastic when people you don’t normally see in a campaign, get involved deeply, they get the fever :). Maybe the question needs to be how to keep these people, or whether or not they even can be kept. I think many people say to themselves, “same old, same old” when looking at candidates and periodically, someone excites them enough.
<
p>
Part of the reason insurgents get turned off is the reaction they get from regulars, perhaps? They get involved, but don’t feel their involvement is welcomed or appreciated Yes there is another side to that equation, but I’m more interested in getting more people in the tent at this point.
I know why I am involved… I was asked. Our campaign political directory during the Clark campaign was a member of the state committee. He was frequently asking us, particularly in the leadership to attend and join our committees. Sevral of us did and end up leading several town delegations in Worcester this past week. Not only do I think the DTCs need to reach out to the campaigns and invite people in, but also the campaigns themseleves should take a moment every once in a while to convince their supporters to go to their DTC.
Part of the reason insurgents get turned off is the reaction they get from regulars, perhaps? They get involved, but don’t feel their involvement is welcomed or appreciated Yes there is another side to that equation, but I’m more interested in getting more people in the tent at this point.
<
p>
OMG, yes! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that. People who left the Dem infrastructure, or even the whole damn party (Unenrolled) because they didn’t feel welcome or useful and didn’t see the PARTY as doing anything useful in between major election years. God I hate that.
<
p>
I joined my City Committee. It’s met a total of…ZERO times since I joined in April. If they meet every two months that’s a miracle. That’s WITH some leadership amoung them who have initiative. But no one else seems to join it to do any work! So people leave.
It’s probably because I’m from Newton, but we have a lot of party regulars here that are active all months of the year, every year, who are supporting Deval.
As a grassroots organizer, I’m not sure it is possible to clearly make the distinction between insurgents and regulars. I agree with Deval Patrick that labels don’t build community. Almost anyone who participates in campaigns for a period of time can be construed as a “regular”. I think your framing rubs everyone the wrong way. I’ve had state committee members tell me that there is no “them” in the state party. I have to agree with that. There are people who have worked within the party for years who don’t necessarily agree with the status quo. There are others in the party who quite obviously don’t understand the need for outreach and inclusion (or don’t walk the talk).
<
p>
I think the group that really gets this is Progressive Dems of MA. They are all about enhancing the existing party and promoting a return to true democratic values. They have been doing exactly what you suggest: building organization, strengthening relationships and bringing diverse groups together for the common good. I agree with their approach.
<
p>
I’ve also come to realize after years of working at organizing that a large percentage of volunteers will only be motivated by an exceptional candidate. They will stay marginally involved in an organization until they are moved to action. These people need to be encouraged and empowered (not dismissed).
I learned more about running campaigns in one afternoon with PDM than I did in a whole weekend at DCI.
Which diverse groups are being brought together for the common good by the Progressive Dems?
<
p>
To be completely honest…I felt that they had a “check list” and if you don’t make the benchmark on every single one of their issues – you’re not invited to the party. I didn’t get the “big tent” message at all.
<
p>
If I’m wrong – then here’s your golden opportunity to educate me.
I think there is a lot of confusion over PDM, PDA, etc. From the Progressive Dems of MA website PDM, they are all about inclusion and promoting civic involvement. I love the definition for progressive (which just about anyone can agree with left, right, or middle):
<
p>
< blockquote > Progressive politics advances the idea that a primary function of government is to promote the well being of all citizens, not just that of one group at the expense of another. We believe that government should be an expression of the highest aspirations of people to make better lives for themselves, for their children, and for their communities. We believe therefore that government must play a vital role in improving health care, education, public safety and the environment; in furthering economic and social justice; and in supporting our country’s peaceful and constructive engagement with the world community. A cornerstone of the progressive approach to public policy is to promote fair and equitable treatment of all people regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or financial status. < /blockquote >
One of these days, I’ll get it right. 😉