“I have this feeling in general that today there are so many politicians that are so afraid to go out there and talk about big ideas, right, I mean we have become so addicted to incremental change and so scared of failure that nobody really talks about change in revolutionary terms any longer.”
Chris went on to talk about what I think is one of the major barriers to seeing real leaders talk about big ideas – money in politics.
“What is happening is that the bar to becoming a candidate for office, certainly for federal office in Congress, but also to a certain extent even to run for local office is not how hard you’re going to work, is not how many good ideas you have, is not how committed you are to public service. It’s one simple question. Can you or can you not raise the money?”
Chris first ran for public office at 24, barely older than many of the people in the room. But it is near impossible to repeat that kind of success with out deep pockets or pandering to big money. Nevertheless, hearing this freshman congressman and his colleagues in the House talk about big ideas – like Chris’ work to make fundamental changes in the way campaigns are financed and pass comprehensive ethics reform was important to me and the young people who gathered around.
More than anything, though, I am excited by what I hear from the interns that are attending the series. These are the young people making things happen right now, on the ground. They are the campaign volunteers of today and the leaders of tomorrow.
“It was a great event. My only regret is that we didn?t have even more time to spend with the representatives.” – Kendra Jackson (intern with Rep. Bob Filner)
“Nice to have the opportunity to hear from congressmen, on leadership and other issues that affect youth today.” – Ann Shikany (Cincinnati, Ohio)
“It was really encouraging to hear from current congressional leaders that were young when they first ran for office.” – Shannon Goldberg (intern with Rep. David Price)
Chris Murphy was not the only speaker in our series who connected with our group:
Rep. Brian Baird on what guides him – “Something we never talk about in politics is character… character is the embodiment of values, putting values into action. And those values would be honesty, integrity and responsibility.”
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton on her tireless effort to obtain a vote for the people of DC in Congress – “Eleanor Holmes Norton has a vision all right, it is not to make the whole world perfect but to make our country more perfect by making the citizens who live in our home capitol first class citizens.”
Rep. Henry Waxman on encouraging people to never give up on what they believe – “I hope you will leave with a renewed sense of commitment to fight for these ideas…fight for things that are more than what is in your own self interest but in the interest of all us.”
This is why Twenty-First Century Democrats does more than just endorse candidates with a “D” next to their name. We find real leaders, with big ideas and we help them get elected with boots on the ground field work, trainings, and strategic advice.
This is why we recently made Darcy Burner our first endorsement for 2008. Within days we will announce the full list of our first round of candidate endorsements. We had an overwhelming response to our call for applications and we found outstanding candidates running for all types of office. Our goal is help them win election and provide leadership to enact bold policies rather than incremental changes.
This Thursday we have another great line up of progressive leaders: Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Jon Tester and Representative Paul Hodes.
If you haven’t lately, stop by the 21st Century Democrats web site where we’ll be adding more information about the speaker series as well as announcements about upcoming endorsements and events. I’ll be at YearlyKos this week, and I look forward to seeing everyone there. We’re excited about the 2008 election and we hope to see you on the campaign trail.
Every once in awhile a post comes along that makes us feel like change is really possible. Nice post.
As I’ve said on a prior thread, I’m suspicious of 21st Century Democrats. Again look at the issues listed on their site
Note the cowardice:
If this is bold leadership, I’m Achilles.
How exactly is this to be done?
I haven’t posted on this. (I’m still waiting for that Giuliani post by the way.) I have commented on Iran here and there.
The Bush Administration has made a concerted effort to antagonize Iran and blame Iran for everything they can get away with blaming Iran. Cheney definitely has his shoulders behind this.
<
p>
Of course, attacking Iran is tactically stupid if you have long supply lines going through Iraqi Shiite territory, or if your chosen instrument, the Iraqi Government, has many members with long and friendly ties and memories of Iran. Our Iraqi Occupation will not take a turn for the better if we drop bombs on Tehran.
<
p>
However, just as in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, we have Democrats afraid of sounding weak on defense afraid of stopping a terrible mistake before it is committed. Iran is a complex mixture of Shiite orthodoxy, democracy, and saber-rattling. It is a good target for deft diplomacy. If Democrats are going to show leadership, they have to take risks for what is right. 21st Century Democrats is all for waiting until what is right polls above 55%. Witness the list I quoted. That is not leadership.
OK, surprisingly, I don’t disagree with that at all. Must be the August heat.
<
p>
Giuliani will have to wait until after a vacation and a busy wee after vacation, but I haven’t forgotten.
<
p>
Here, however is a
taste of the temperment of a guy that I don’t want within 1000 yards of Article II power, let alone “wartime” Article II power.
I can only do one thing when I wee.
But you won’t suceede.
Did the 21st Century Democrats formerly have those issues listed? Isn’t “A clean and sustainable environment” another way of dealing with global warming? Your ferocity in questioning them makes me wonder why? They certainly don’t appear to be advocating for smaller government nor more tax cuts for the wealthy.
From 2004 to early 2006, I was getting fundraising appeals from Democratic organizations, including 21st Century Democrats, who just could not mention, spell, or think the word “Iraq”. Iraq was the crucial issue of the Bush Administration and in writing to the Democratic base, these groups dared not whisper the word “Iraq”? What would happen when the big meany Republicans did? Were they planning to shift the subject to banalities about jobs?
<
p>
Why did that finally change? I don’t know. Was it Lamont’s victory in the primary over Lieberman? Whatever the cause, I was particularly disappointed with 21st Century Democrats for falling into the ranks of the timid. They seemed like progressives.
<
p>
The farther away one is from the Great Orange Satan [i.e., Daily Kos], the more plentiful the Democratic candidates who read today’s polls, espouse whatever seems to be hot in those polls, and then annoint themselves leaders. As Edwards has lately been pointing out, that’s not leadership. Leadership is changing public opinion, moving the polls, speaking truth before it polls at 55%. Last cycle, I felt my money would be better spent by VoteVets.
The issue list comes from their website. It’s their current issue list. You ask
The answer is emphatically no. “Clean and sustainable” is chosen precisely because even global warming deniers can embrace “clean and sustainable”. It’s neutral, bland, and timid. “Please, Mr. Conservative, don’t say anything mean.”
<
p>
This is exactly the behavior one expects from an organization that could not spell “Iraq” until late in 2006.
<
p>
Once actual 21st century leaders actually get public opinion behind dealing with global warming, you can be sure that these very bold, very daring, very progressive leaders from 21st Century Democrats will learn how to spell “carbon dioxide”. Until then, I’m ferociously not holding my breath.
P.S. You’re the same lolorb who made this comment on a Kerry thread. I think we’re sort of in agreement, no? Perhaps not with my ferocity, but at least sorta kinda?
and we are in agreement about leadership. I admit to not having the same reaction to 21st Century Dems, and I was really interested in why you felt so strongly. I know a couple of kids involved with the organization, and I think they are very good progressives. I like the concept behind 21st CD’s. I’m curious if they would endorse Ed O’Reilly. He’s far more progressive than Kerry. He openly supports marriage equality and an immediate end to the war. I think I’ll suggest that he apply for the endorsement — whatdya think?
In fact, I used to contribute to them, but the recent election cycles soured me on them. Possibly their training program is better than their fundraising material or their website.
<
p>
But boy, are they trying to be non-ideological. A conservative grouping would be full of tying conservative principles to patriotism — and I would expect a progressive grouping to tie progressive principles to patriotism. Instead, there’s a lot of talk of pure leadership, as if leadership were an inspiration that came down from on high or was handed down by wise characters in Disney movies to industrious grasshoppers. Their mission statement, for example, says
Very neutral. Don’t Romney and Giuliani describe themselves as I’ve quoted? In fact, you can go to lots of parts of their website and easily imagine Peter Porcupine, EaBoClipper, or JoeTS saying exactly what you read there.
<
p>
Finally, this line makes me shudder:
This election cycle we can put conservatism on the run. Everything wrong with it is on full display. It is a teaching moment. Hound it out so people start talking about the “c-word” and try to hide their conservatism as liberals did after Reagan. Finding “bold ideas that crossed ideological lines” now gives up the tremendous historical advantage progressives have been handed.
and I’m about as progressive as you can get. I can take a step back though and understand that sometimes the conservative/liberal battle is really stupid. There are some issues that are so important, they require looking at them outside of the conservative/liberal boxes. Sometimes, that can result in agreement despite ideological stance.
<
p>
I wish the labels would go away. I wish the media would actually start analyzing the reality and stop framing stuff one way or another.
The longish but very worthwhile essay The Death of Environmentalism examines the failure of the environmental movement, a movement that has tried extra hard to go beyond liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican and just deal with reality. Page 6: “Over the last 15 years environmental foundations and organizations have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into combating global warming. We have strikingly little to show for it.”
<
p>
Sadly, we have these labels for a reason.
… not exactly new. Does anyone remember Angus McQuilken’s Young Democrats? (That may not have been the exact name, but it was something close to that, and that was the concept.)
The Young Dems of Massachusetts (which calls itself Massachusetts Democratic Future) is still limping along. It mainly serves as a small social club for Beacon Hill staffers looking to pad their resumes.
There’s something to be said for that.
Hi, everyone, I’m Shannon and I handle online communications for 21st Century Dems. Mark is traveling to Chicago for Yearly Kos right now, and it’s going to be a while before he can respond to your comments, but I know he’s definitely going to want to.
<
p>
I’d also just like to say that I think our work has been grossly mischaracterized in this comments thread. You may be unaware of what we do, but we provide training and on the ground campaign support for progressive candidates like Darcy Burner and Keith Ellison. I would hardly call that cowardly.
<
p>
You may not like some of the wording on our web site right now, but if you read Mark’s post above, you’ll see that he specifically says:
<
p>
<
p>
We support progressive candidates – it’s not just enough to call yourself a Democrat.
<
p>
KBusch – You said,
<
p>
<
p>
But that just shows that you are not really aware of who our candidates are or what we do. One of the candidates we helped get elected last year was Jon Tester who said, global warming is ” the number one issue facing the world.” So, yes, I’d say that 21st Century Democrats’ leaders are well aware of the climate crisis and are working to fix it.
<
p>
Before you bash progressive organizations, you should look at what they actually do. You don’t have to join us, but we should at least recognize that we’re all working towards the same goals.
Sometimes criticism is a bit painful to read and understanding all the details of what I wrote might be unpleasant for you. Could please you try, though? This is a blog and not a sound bite competition.
<
p>
An example of really missing the point:
I said that the description of what 21st Century Democrats stand for is cowardly. I documented it specifically. Given that we do not live in a totalitarian society, providing training might be very, very good but is no act of courage. (Union drives require much more courage.) Lots of people are complaining about the timidity of the Democrats in Congress. The last thing we need is timidity among progressives.
<
p>
Finally, I contributed to Darcy Burner’s campaign last cycle and plan to so again this cycle. I’m glad you guys are helping her out. I just hope you don’t muddy her message with the extremely thin gruel your website wants to sell as progressive.
<
p>
And really, are global warming and preventing a war with Iran so unimportant to you guys? Or are you waiting on the polling?
I’m Dan Lucas, the Political Director at 21st Century Democrats. Shannon let me know about the comment thread from Mark Lotwis’ original post. These are my thoughts about your comments.
<
p>
I think you are taking our organization’s work and ideals out of context. It seems unfair to me to pull one page of content off our site (admittedly idealistic) and then impugn our overall integrity.
<
p>
Since 1981, when our founders, Tom Harkin, Lane Evans and Jim Hightower, began our work, we have consistently helped to elect progressive Democrats to office at all levels of government. As I look over the list of recent candidates we helped to elect in 2004 and 2006. I don’t see any timid politicians. This doesn’t mean we always agree 100% with the position they take. Hey, it’s not a perfect world.
<
p>
Unfortunately, it’s a big country and there are a lot of different voices, sometimes each yelling louder then the next. This is as it should be. Democracy is a complicated business, which calls for years of work and struggle to pass effective progressive legislation (and stop wars).
<
p>
I’m sorry you feel that we are “cowardly” because we have not adequately addressed your concerns regarding, global warming, the Iraq war and potentially an Iran conflict. I believe when you look at the people we support in 2007 and 2008 our positions on these issues will be quite clear.
<
p>
I am glad you have energy and passion for politics. 2008 is our best chance since 1974, (the Watergate year) to really change Congress and hopefully win the White House. We have a long way to go till election day, November 2008. I look forward to seeing you along the way.
<
p> -Dan Lucas
I have criticized multiple pages from your website. I have criticized your fundraising appeals. You may support good candidates, but so, to be frank, does DFA. DFA does not pretend that neutral phrases about environmentalism are progressive. MoveOn does not pretend that to be progressive it is enough to wait until late 2006 to even mention Iraq.
<
p>
Please explain then why I am not supposed to believe your communications but your candidates’ positions?
<
p>
I say this as a former contributor, but how you communicates, which is the essence of campaigning after all, no longer inspires confidence.
Nicely said.
<
p>
The work of 21st CD’s speaks for itself. You’re doing the difficult and time consuming job of training people for the future. That is making change happen.
<
p>
I find it ironic that the progressives who have yelled the loudest about change are sometimes not open to the concept.
Why so late on Iraq?
I don’t. Every one of their progressive candidates is a strong leader. Exactly what I seek. Dan explained very well. Their focus is on shoe leather and training. Good. That’s what wins elections for progressives. I don’t want to quibble with them about phrasing or lack thereof. I want to help them get their candidates on the ballot and elected. I hope they consider Ed O’Reilly as he is exactly what they are looking for in so many ways.
I should have pointed out that it’s very odd to have gotten such a response like this
from the person handling online communications. I would have thought that the questions that I asked in this thread might have been answered on your site. Perhaps you might find my skepticism useful for thinking about how to rewrite it so that you’re not fending off criticisms from the likes of me. By contrast, when I went to the Wellstone Action site, I said to myself “these people are doing good stuff I can support and, even if they aren’t, I can learn a thing or two here.” Your site is no where near as strong. Another commenter here felt it was full of platitudes. If someone has that reaction, you might take notice. Some copy-editing would help too.
<
p>
Further, you write “We support progressive candidates — it’s not just enough to call yourself a Democrat.” So you supported Murphy in CT (good for you) but why not Lamont? And why not Donna Edwards now? You might feel I’m picking on you, but you guys bristle at my trying to sniff out your politics. You point me at the candidates. That would suggest it’s fair game to ask about candidates. Again, DFA supported Lamont and put some muscle behind it too. Why didn’t you guys go to bat for him?
<
p>
(Again: when I ask this, I believe there might be a good reason, but the weakness of your site leaves you open to a big heap of doubt.)