Understanding the history of Dem politics can give insight on how to best develop and use tools because some things never change. As Kate Donaghue fervently points out, the really important stuff is local and person to person. There is no substitute for shoe leather. There was a lot of talk about the efficacy of blogs and organizations like MoveOn. Successful groups encourage and facilitate the Kate Donaghue preferred method of interaction. Having worked on Deval’s campaign (and many others), I can tell you that talking points, blogs and tools are simply supplements to basic grassroots organizing. It’s always about a few people getting involved, having meetings, providing some minimal form of organizational structure and then spreading the word. Politics is local, and the people who volunteer are the most important part of the mousetrap. Politics should be about the people who get involved, caring about them, nurturing their involvement, utilizing their unique skills, rewarding them and giving them latitude to make decisions about how tools are used. Campaigns and organizations that don’t value volunteers (or abuse and mistreat them) are a real problem and hurt the party by discouraging continued involvement.
The new machine will always be dealing with an old machine. The lines get blurry sometimes as to which is old and which is new. As an example, I attended the Obama caucus in Springfield. One of my good friends was a candidate for the national convention. He has put his career on hold just to travel and work on the Obama campaign in NH, OH, PA, SC, etc. He’s logged more hours and shoe leather on the campaign than anyone else I know. He lost his bid to be a national delegate. Why? Because even in what is supposed to be a grassroots campaign, the old machine exists. Caucuses heavily favor politicking and do not value or reward volunteer actions and participation. In Springfield, the two people elected Obama delegates used Deval’s name and distorted perceptions of their involvement in that campaign (talk about how fast the new becomes old). I know both well, and I congratulated them on winning. But what was the cost of their winning? How many people were turned off and will never attend a caucus again? When the party comes up with a method for rewarding actions instead of words, we might actually see long term participation. It’s all well and fine to discuss ways to use new tools, but the structure needs to adapt as well. How many people at that caucus became disillusioned as a result of watching the most committed volunteer get bypassed by the political machine? John Walsh and Doug Rubin, I applaud your attendance at the party and I hope you are listening.
Ultimately, every one of us who continues to be involved will become the old machine facing a new one on the horizon. The next version ##.0 mousetrap is just around the corner. We need to embrace the next version and never think the current version can’t be improved upon. Maybe we can spend some time talking about the real problems we face in getting people involved and keeping them involved. What do you think?
Always a concern.
<
p>The process invites one to “be the advesary.”
I had a similar situation happen to me.
<
p>I worked seven states for Jerry Brown in 1991-1992 and then was up for a seat at the convention. Despite killing myself for the campaign for more than nine months, totally for free, I lost the seat in the caucus in Boston’s Brighton neighborhood by a city hall employee out-manned me in the caucus. He won fair and square but I was surprised by how some of the higher ups in the Brown campaign acted when I wanted to go to the convention. One of Brown’s friends, a local attorney, suggested I drop out of the caucus because of the important relationship this guy had with Ray Flynn, the then-Mayor, who didn’t endorse Brown and had delusions of being Clinton’s VP. Jerry was pretty specific that only volunteers who helped in the campaign would get delegate seats but the message was ignored by both Democrats and people within his own organization. To this day it still burns me.
<
p>I was pretty disappointed with the entire experience and I ended all activity within the party not long after Clinton was elected. In fact, I have been pretty disappointed with Democrats for a long time, despite working within the party structure for a number of years when I was younger, on the Ward level in Boston and in New Hampshire.
<
p>I worked for Nader in 1996 and 2000 and had similar disappointment trying to work within the Greens and their insane obsession with diversity and other nonsense. In the end, I because a journalist and I’m much happier being out of the political process – although I still enjoy following the game.
I was hoping that people would talk about this. Since I posted, I’ve had people calling me to talk about their experiences and thanking me for posting about what seems to be a taboo subject (even though there is a long history of same disappontments). Why is it that we can’t seem to address underlying problems and make things better?
This is your key line:
<
p>When the party comes up with a method for rewarding actions instead of words, we might actually see long term participation. It’s all well and fine to discuss ways to use new tools, but the structure needs to adapt as well.
<
p>Until this happens, the structure will continue to chew people up and spit them out with the hope that more will just come along and obey the structure. It’s sad because, for the most part, there are a some pretty decent Dems out there who mean well.
<
p>I’m fascinated too by Nader’s polling right now. It is higher than 2000 and a lot higher than 2004, which he was just a blip on the screen.
<
p>Last week, Nader reached 10 percent in Michigan, higher than he has ever placed in a poll in the state or most states [he received 2 percent in 2000, or 83,800 votes. In 2004, he got 1 percent or 24,000 votes]. Nationally, one in seven voters in a poll last month said they would seriously consider Nader in November. The Suffolk poll out of Pennsylvania showed 4 percent of Dems considering Nader no matter who wins the nomination. When asked if their first choice did not win the nomination, Nader jumps to 17 percent. I’ve been a fan of Nader’s for a very long time but I am shocked by these numbers. Nader wasn’t on the ballot in Pennsylvania in 2004. In 2000, he received 2 percent [102,000 votes]. I don’t know how the break down of the exit polling was for Pennsylvania, to show how many Dems cast votes for him in 2000, and a Google search didn’t reveal the results. But I would be interested in some of those numbers.
Thank you for bringing this up. That would be the answer to what happens when volunteers becoming disenchanted and search for alternatives. Dems lose because of it.
although i know people are tired of hearing it: i am thoroughly skeptical of the dems or any party or candidate, because in general, i can be assured that no matter how many promises anyone makes to redress the withholding of lgbt civil rights, chances are they’ll find something “more important” to focus on after getting elected.
<
p>because lgbt people have been rolled by the party and its officers and candidates so many times, i no longer donate money to it or to national candidates. i am also VERY sparing of my volunteer time. i almost never give any money or effort any more to candidates other than local ones i know to be good strategic allies for civil rights.
because many people whom I’ve encouraged to become involved have exactly the same attitude and have “checked right back out”. Candidates and the party need to walk the talk. I brought an 86 year old woman to the Springfield caucus. Even though the party platform contains specific language relating to disabilities and accomodations, I was appalled that the only seating at the event was on bleechers and the path for getting into the auditorium was a long, narrow hallway filled with people (not exactly easy for anyone who is elderly or disabled to navigate). I grabbed chairs for a number of those who could not climb up the bleechers. It should not have been any type of surprise that this would be a need. If you’re gonna state that you support something, it should damn well be supported and a consideration in advance. I’d like to see a lot more caring and nurturing of participants. As one of my good friends who is disabled says, the Dem party has all but lost the disabled voting block for doing little but paying lip service to their needs.
you know, i had completely forgotten about that term. guess it’s time to resurrect it, sadly.
<
p>there is an interesting dem primary race happening in NC to unseat libby dole. there are presently two dem contenders: jim neal and kay hagen. initially hagen said she was not interested in running. but when openly gay jim neal started really gaining popularity and traction, the dscc convinced hagen to get into the race and supports her to the extent of virtually not acknowledging neal’s existence. what is the message the party is sending here? popular = bad. gay = bad. party hack = good. lgbt people notice these things, and we also notice that the party at large doesn’t care that we notice. double love.
….at Lynnes I had a reaction briefly, not unlike what is describe in this post, being what drives me (and a growing percentage of Americans) to remain or register Independent is that feeling of having to join a well established club before I get to participate in rights guaranteed to me in the constitution.
<
p>I have been framing this feeling for some time in realizing the town I live in picks up the tab for helping private clubs select the delegates to their state and/or national convention with funding the primary election that was recently held. Why is that? Your choices are register GOP, Dem or Un-enrolled (and for the record I despise that category and but it does gain you the ability to choose which
private clubsparty ballot to pull). Why is this coming out of my tax dollar?<
p>I was talking with a good friend of mine (who happens to be the chair of our towns GOP Committee and more liberal socially than many of the Dems I know) discussing this and thinking of the incongruity of it all that if I mention my friend and his affiliation with the GOP how quickly you see the reaction (negative) unless they happen to know him already. I think of the sometimes grief I have gotten for having a close GOP friend. We discuss how he gets pigeon holed in spite of the fact he despises Bush and ain’t to happy with McCain either for courting those who ran that particular private club into the gutter.
<
p>So my question becomes is the purpose of Blogging left to give voices outside of the political machine? My answer is yes and in the aftermath of the meeting last weekend my interest in continuing this would hinge on whether participation is just another recruiting tool to increasing party membership or to a give that broader voice a place to be heard.
be improved with the same efforts? I can’t help but wonder if there’s a way to bring back the disenchanted Nader supporters or independents into the Dem fold (where they would be in all likelihood if not for a lot of hurtful history). As for having Republican friends who are just as disenchanted, I think there are quite a few who come to BMG to visit.
… …party affiliation? (Rant alert coming)
<
p> I worked hard on Andréa Silbert’s campaign so know it was an uphill battle to beat the anointed Tim Murray, while she who raised more money in contributions than either of her opponents was ignored as far as DSC help.
<
p>And then there was Nikki Tsongus being anointed by the National Democratic committee, a fact that led to Oganoskwi’s good showing as there was high independent resentment at the butting in of national politicians to our local race.
<
p>Confirmed me in my Devout independent status until the parties get some new kind of religion (not just a new machine) that actually practices big tent not just preaches it.
<
p>Meanwhile Blogging is the savoir of the independent voice.
I’m puzzled by some of the comments on this thread.
<
p>
<
p>We’re grateful to those who plunge into a campaign at the grassroots level – at least, if they are working for the candidate we favor – whether they are sacrificing income and making it a full-time, months-long quest, or a weekend and after-work hobby. Volunteers who do this kind of work get an overview of the system and the process, and may get a better notion of how to advance themselves as candidates for a convention seat or other elected office.
<
p>But you have to understand the system and work it (i.e., recruit registered Dems to turn out and vote for you at a caucus).
<
p>I’m not defending “the machine” with this comment, but trying to make a distinction between the kind of political work that advances another candidate and the kind that advances your own interests as a candidate for a convention seat.
<
p>For the state nominating convention three (?) years ago, Patrick supporters in the Berkshires recognized that the caucuses would be a critical moment for advancing our candidate’s interests. We began work months in advance, helping to reconstitute town committees, recruiting candidates for delegate seats, recruiting caucus participants to vote for our delegate slates.
<
p>As in caucuses throughout the state, Patrick supporters in the Berkshires spanked the opposition, securing a huge number of the elected delegate seats. In Pittsfield, where the old boys were accustomed to having people do their grassroots work for them, we stunned some people who assumed they would “deliver” the City’s caucuses for their Gov candidates. We then held a fundraiser to help pay delegate fees for our first-time convention delegates.
<
p>So it can be done; you can win a caucus with grassroots efforts. But don’t mistake any volunteer activity should earn a free ticket to the state or national convention. In addition to hard work, strategy is essential.
are hideous. They create adversaries within the party and open the door to all that is hated and despised in politics. When the “essential strategy” is to distort your importance and involvement in previous campaigns to gain advantage, that is not only dishonest, it’s a huge disincentive for others to even participate. When the Governor’s name is used to imply that he wants a particular person to be a delegate, that’s an extremely offensive machine. When those who have access to the media use it to promote themselves rather than to promote the process, is that acceptable strategy? When the media mentions only one pair of candidates as if there are no other contenders, is that also part of essential strategy? What is the long term cost of such strategy? When the hard workers are valued so little and their efforts are used by others to promote themselves, what are the long term ramifications?
<
p>I’m quite familiar with all the work you did in the Berkshires for Deval, and it was the hard work of organizing. Imagine someone who did not participate in that extreme effort taking credit for your hard work and efforts to advance their own agenda. Would that too be essential strategy?
People who preached the importance of neutrality before the primary subsequently took credit for all kinds of “grassroots organizing” that was actually partisan political work done by Patrick supporters. We complained and then laughed about it. If we put together another successful progressive grassroots organizing effort for the Gov or another candidate, I’m sure the other group will try to take credit again.
<
p>I don’t want to sound preachy, because I know you have been at this game a long time, but it’s no secret that a lot of politics stinks. There are lies and personal attacks and manipulation and backstabbing. You have to decide what your comfort level is within that context, find allies you respect (or can use), build your list of people who owe you favors, remain dedicated over a long period of time, vary your strategies and try to make a difference as best you can.
<
p>Unfortunately, some of the things you mentioned as negatives are built on the bedrock of our Bill of Rights: political speech, even if it includes lies, is protected. If you can’t/shouldn’t ban it, you have to work to expose it and counter it with a bigger group of people who hear and grasp the truth. Viva la grassroots, viva la bloggers.
hence new machine, meet old machine. But that doesn’t mean we can’t work towards change. What were those words I remember, something like “Together We Can” or some such. Together We Can split up communities of like minded folks and create whole new life long animosities and hard feelings. Was that the gist?
<
p>If that were offered in the BMG Swag Store, I’d buy it.