Last night I explained why I think Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried’s Globe op-ed is way down the wrong track in saying that David Barron should be confirmed for the federal bench without worrying about the al-Awlaki memo. But there is no rest for the weary: today, Tom Keane has written an op-ed regarding Mark Fisher, in the form of a droll “letter” from “MassDems” to Fisher, that cries out for a good old-fashioned fisking. So, here goes.
Dear Mark,
A small confession: When I heard some guy named Mark Fisher was going to try to take on Charlie Baker, my first thought was, “Marisa DeFranco.” You may remember the 2012 Democratic Senate primary, when we thought we had cleared the field for Elizabeth Warren. Then up popped DeFranco, who refused to get the message and, with every media outlet singing her praises, actually started to believe she had some traction. No way. Convention day arrived and — boom! — the poor woman never saw it coming.
You know, wise guys like Keane have always loved to imagine a secret back-room conspiracy in which party pooh-bahs like John Walsh somehow transformed what would otherwise have been a glorious convention for Marisa DeFranco into an ignominious defeat. They don’t seem to pay any attention to the fact that DeFranco simply didn’t do the work of getting delegates to commit to her at the caucuses. And they seem to forget the grassroots groundswell of support for Elizabeth Warren that was like nothing anyone has seen in this state in many years. Or maybe they know all that, and yet they keep telling the same tired old fairy tales. *sigh*
We took a huge hit for it, though, with Republicans and others hammering us for strong-arming the race and being undemocratic.
Yeah, gosh, the “huge hit” we took when DeFranco didn’t make the ballot sure did hamstring us in November, when we lost … oh wait, we won all the races. But it sure did make it hard for Warren to raise money – I mean, she only raised … oh wait, she raised more than any Senate candidate in the country. Never mind. (Yes, a few media pundits were unhappy that DeFranco didn’t make it. See above.)
[W]e here at MassDems were pulling for you. Imagine if he got on, we thought. Rather than attacking us for the next six months, Charlie would be defending his flanks.
Ridiculous. As I’ve been saying for months, a primary from the right is the best thing that could happen to Charlie Baker. Baker doesn’t have to “defend his flanks” from Fisher. Baker is going to win this primary running away, and he will do so while simultaneously showing how reasonable and moderate he is, in comparison to the tea-partying Fisher. If Fisher gets on the ballot, it’s a huge boon for Baker, and potential trouble for Democrats.
And we need him to be distracted. After all, we have our own ridiculous primary. Sure, it’ll be easy enough for us to apply our DeFranco playbook to Joe Avellone, Don Berwick, and Juliette Kayyem, but Steve Grossman has enough juice that he’ll probably get on the ballot. Seriously, Mark, why can’t these people just fall in line and take their turns?
Is Keane seriously trying to argue that the party would like to “clear the field” for Martha Coakley? That might be the silliest theory I’ve heard in weeks. There is zero doubt that Grossman as well as Coakley will be on the ballot, and I think it’s virtually certain that at least one additional candidate, and maybe more than one, will be on as well. Keane, of course, supplies no reason to think otherwise, other than his fantasy that the party will deploy the dreaded “DeFranco playbook” to “clear the field.” I just wish someone could explain how that playbook actually works.
[H]ere are a few suggestions for other things you might want to push in Charlie’s face. First of all, hammer him on the Big Dig. I know, all he did was help figure out the financing for what was, in truth, a Democratic project. But people only seem to get mad at the guy who hands them the bill — and that was Baker. Second, when Charlie ran last time around, he tried to go right-wing on us, growling angrily about spending, welfare, and immigrants. Now he’s just playing Mr. Nice Guy. Push him on this, Mark! Show voters his true-red stripes. And finally, keep talking about this Tea Party thing. Remind everyone that this is what today’s Republican Party is all about. Don’t let Baker get away with this big-tent, middle-of-the-road nonsense.
It’s hard to tell whether Keane actually thinks this is what Fisher will or should do, or what. But taking them in order: first, obviously, anyone running against Baker, from the left, right, or center, will bring up the Big Dig – after all, he was heavily involved. This is especially true because last time, Baker completely screwed up the issue and alienated people with widely-read platforms who were otherwise inclined to like him. It would be political malpractice not to bring up the Big Dig when running against someone like Baker. Second, Baker is a smart guy, and has almost certainly learned from his awful 2010 campaign. He knows that he can’t win in a general election here by “go[ing] right-wing on us.” That’s exactly why it’s so great for Baker to have a primary against Fisher. Fisher will argue in favor of that stuff; Baker will say why he doesn’t support it. Third, and similarly, Fisher can try all he wants to force Baker into a tea-party agenda. Baker almost certainly will reject it, thereby increasing his appeal to moderates and unenrolled voters.
Thanks to you, Mark, I think it’s a lock for us this November….
With much gratitude,
Your friends at MassDems
Wrong again. I confess that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the Mass. GOP fall flat on its face trying to keep Fisher off the ballot – it’s been truly hilarious. But fun time is over now. Fisher’s candidacy is a gift to Baker, not to the Mass. Dems. Assuming the Secretary of State allows Fisher on the ballot, the Democrats’ job just got much, much harder.
why are so many columnists A-holes? There are the VSP’s like Tom Friedman, (God rest his soul) David Broder, and David Brooks, but then there are the A-hole’s like Maureen Dowd and Tom Keane who churn smugness and smarminess into 500-1000 words. Was it Kevin Cullen who drove to Ludlow to ask people about Tom Petrolati when the probation scandal broke? Pure douchery! These people are in the same circle of hell as the owners of professional sports teams.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Keane has a bit of a point. He is probably recalling this Joan Vennochi column in which otherwise intelligent people happily chirp against the notion of having a Democratic primary,
that fit the narrative. For all we know, the people quoted said other things that didn’t make the column. There would have been thousands of people at the 2012 convention ready to say that DeFranco would have been entitled to a primary had she been supported by over 15% of delegates, but she wasn’t, end of story.
But let’s give Joan some credit here. She talked to some serious old hands.
I agree, from everything I’ve heard, that DiFranco’s loss was organic, not engineered by anyone. But the party elite were happy about it, and some of them said some flat-out dumb things in the process. And now years later, we get conspiracy theories and false equivalence spun out of it.
Marsh’s comments are the only ones cited that strike me as bizarre, and frankly that happens often when I read Marsh’s comments.
Goldberg pretty much said nothing at all.
Sally Rizzo said she didn’t think a Democratic primary would help the Democrats. Nothing shocking there. Tom Keane writes, in the very column we’re discussing, that he doesn’t think a Republican primary will help the Republicans. David thinks a Republican primary will help Baker. People are allowed to express views on that.
These quotes offer nothing more than reasons, in addition to the respective merits of the candidates, why those delegates supported Elizabeth Warren. Nothing, other than the word “dictatorship” from Ms. Marsh, even to suggest that the “insiders” played dirty inside power politics to screw Marisa. Keane’s not deterred. If I’ve figured anything out, it’s that some people in the media will create false equivalence no matter what material they’re given. It’s what they do. Spinners gonna spin.
What would be dumb about the party of the little guy, the party of the people, the party of the helping hand hoping we have fewer choices of who to vote for?
Now Democratic delegates, heading into an election against a then-popular and well-funded incumbent U.S. Senator, can’t say that they think having a primary would be counterproductive?
Warren clearly sparked more grassroots interest than DeFranco, and for good reason I’d say. What’s wrong with people saying, after the convention vote has taken place, that they’re relieved Warren wouldn’t be losing three months on a primary she’d win 80-20 or more, instead of focusing right away on beating Scott Brown?
LIke I said, if it hadn’t been the convention vote it would have been something else. They accused Democrats of “clearing the field” for Ed Markey when John Kerry and Vicki Kennedy endorsed him at a time when no other Democrats even had declared. Sometimes people endorse the best candidate.
Shouldn’t, in my constitutionally protected opinion.
And frankly they should — not have to, should — firmly believe that more candidates and more choices for voters = more democracy. No one should believe that fewer candidates are helpful, in my opinion.
What this comes down to is the obsession with money. None of those people believed DiFranco would win. But the precious coin of the realm would have to be spent, and that gave them the vapors.
you meant “shouldn’t” rather than “can’t” in a legally binding sense. But I don’t agree with the shouldn’t. Your principle sounds good but it could go on forever.
People shouldn’t say they’re happy to avoid a primary. Why stop there? People should vote for DeFranco at the convention just because having more choices is inherently good. Why stop there? Scrap the 15% rule. Why stop there? Lower the number of signatures needed to reach the ballot. Lower it again. Eventually you’ll have 100 candidates – more choice – and someone wins with 2% of the vote. I’m not saying you actually want this straw man scenario to occur- I’m just saying that there has to be a limiting principle to the idea that more candidates = more democracy = good. I think we’ve seen plenty of multiple-candidate primaries where, with the vote split several ways, a mediocre candidate with a low vote total emerged.
And of course it’s about money. Unfortunately, money is a perfectly relevant consideration for people who actually take part in electoral campaigns, if they actually want to win. And I want to win. In 2012 we were talking about six full years of Elizabeth Warren vs. six more years of Scott Brown. Imagine not having Elizabeth Warren in DC saying the things she’s saying. Imagine the Republicans being one seat closer to a Senate majority this fall. So, yes, I’m going to be relieved when there’s not another hurdle in Elizabeth Warren’s path just so we can indulge Marisa DeFranco’s ego and pretend democracy is being furthered by a lopsided primary vote with 10% turnout. In the end, I think I value policy more than process, in large part because these national Republicans are insane and must be stopped.
First, I acknowledge the practical reality of everything you’re saying.
But, this is (one reason) why people hate politics. They see us as gatekeepers. And it galls me that seasoned political people have no problem with that.
It should be about what we stand for, not about winning. (Though, obviously, we have to win.)
Most of the people I’ve heard talking about “insiders” don’t even bother to vote and then cast their civic apathy as virtue. I don’t buy it. Some people would call me a “gatekeeper,” I guess, since I’m a delegate for a couple of years running now. But all I did was volunteer for some campaigns and then show up at the caucus and put myself out there. The caucus is open to any registered Democrat. It’s not that hard.
It’s hard for some people.
We’re lifers.
Though I’ve followed the issues throughout, the DLC takeover of the Democratic Party in the 90s pushed me mostly out of electoral politics as an active participant for many years. I helped out a bit when Deval ran in 2006, though I was living out of state then. I volunteered a bunch for Obama in 2008 but only 2 or 3 times in 2010.
2012 really brought me back in because I was so pissed about 2010. I volunteered regularly and stuck with it when Markey ran last year, also got involved in local stuff and issue-based stuff. I think I’ll be a lifer going forward, but I really had no connection with the Democratic Party from 1994 to 2008. I showed up, did some work, and now I’m an “insider.” If I can do it, others can do it.
hate politics is that it takes effort. It takes effort to be informed. It takes effort to disagree with people. It takes effort to accept their disagreement. It takes effort to realize when you’re wrong. It takes effort to accept responsibility for our government.
I live in a small town. It’s easy to run for office, participate in town meeting, and vote. Yet people complain about town politics and being locked out.
…that we never hear carping about getting 10,000 signatures, but having to get a few hundred delegates is some onerous and undemocratic burden?
So, jimc, one might read your comment as saying that it’s important to put up an appealing image of democracy to the apolitical so they’ll feel more comfy-cozy.
Faced with more than three choices, the apolitical are likely to zone out anyway. Faced with ten choices and they’d swear they have no opinion about all “those people” arguing with one another.
These things should play out organically, is my point.
You guys are making a lot of assumptions about voters. But if you think about how you wandered into politics — family, in my case — and then think about something you don’t dabble in — community sports, say, like youth baseball — you might see the barriers there are. The time first and foremost, then tendency of the work to expand, etc. etc.
It is ultimately the failure of the two ruling parties that we don’t have as much participation in politics, by voters or activists or candidates. I don’t know how to fix this problem … but I do know that it is a problem, and acting like not having a primary is good news doesn’t help.
…because I’m simply not interested. I don’t think there are institutional barriers to my participating if I were interested in doing so. I am interested in politics so I sought ways to participate. My parents vote pretty faithfully but are otherwise apolitical. I understand that not everyone is going to be an activist, but the other key difference between politics and community sports is that in politics there is not a legitimate role for mere spectators. Everyone who is eligible should educate themselves and vote, preferably without whining, especially if they choose not to vote.
The losses and victories of community sports teams have almost no impact on my quality of life — or even of the quality of life of the community.
Elections are somewhat different.
Even if politics aren’t your hobby, decisions on stuff like whether to bomb Iran, fund schools, take down or put up wind farms, fix bridges, or make Social Security more or less generous has an impact even on the bored and uninterested.
Yes, politics are more important than sports.
But there are people for whom sports, chess, chemical engineering, or dozens of other pursuits are more important, more time-consuming, and more fulfilling.
So we can reach out to such people, try to convince them to get involved … or we can cheer when they don’t because they can’t handle multiple choices.
I generally refer to this class of people as low-information voters. They’re generally busier with other things — in some cases their lives need a lot of attention. I try not to use the term pejoratively. Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter makes an excellent case that a fully rational person trying to figure how best to spend his or her time might devote almost none of that time to politics. One’s chance of being the decisive vote in any given election is effectively nil.
This class of voters is well-studied, if I’m not mistaken, because they’re part of what swings our elections. My understanding is that they don’t really pay much attention to process, they hate disagreement, and they tend to fall back on judging “character”. They probably don’t worry about the 15% rule because they don’t understand it. They don’t understand it because they don’t even know it exists. They’re too busy watching cricket, studying the Ruy Lopez, or worrying about the velocity of reactions in their chemical reactors. Abolishing it is unlikely to have much effect on their use of time.
I told a friend, a 38-year-old with Masters degrees from Harvard and Columbia, that I’m going to be a delegate. She asked, “Oh wow, is that like a Congressman?” This is a generally intelligent person who not only doesn’t know what a delegate is, she has no clue where her polling place is, who her reps are, that there are separate state and federal legislatures, or why.
She says she doesn’t pay attention because she doesn’t like “all that bickering.” Honestly, I call it bad citizenship.
As a selectman (and before that a citizen), I’ve realized that people are starved for information when there’s an issue, but generally speaking, they snack on other things most of the time.
Most recently, my board introduced a proposal for curbside trash pickup that required an override. There was explosive anger and a huge lack of information at first. I have a Facebook Group for town issues (288 members) and handled questions, etc. for 2 weeks. We had an informational hearing, and then town meeting, which passed the initiative. There has been nothing since. The vote is Monday. I try to post something informative and discussion-worthy every week, and handful of people notice. Mine is a small town. I’m known for answering any question put to me, even if it requires research. People just lack the interest. And when they suddenly have interest, they are frustrated that they can effect the change or policy they want.
This isn’t a party problem. This is a voter problem.
Pesky voters.
Not that they serve me.
I would dearly love for them to be more involved (and more knowledgeable). I started a blog and a Facebook Group to improve information. I take a serious amount of crap when people disagree with me, but I don’t give up informing them. I have earned the respect of opponents for doing so. Bottom-line is that they elect me, and in town meeting, they make the final decision. My ethic is that I give all the information and reasoning voters need to decide on an issue. I’m repulsed by the phrase “selling” something to the voters. It suggests limiting their freewill. When they have a decision, they should make the decision they think best, not what I think best.
The fact is, most voters are not that interested. It’s easy to blame the parties, but the parties aren’t causing the problem. My town doesn’t have parties. Anyone can run for office in town. You don’t have to be rich. But none of our school committee seats is even contested, though three are open, and people are really concerned about the direction of our schools.
An open primary isn’t going to change that. The majority of voters don’t even care enough to even belong to a party. That’s not because they don’t feel welcome, it’s because they don’t want to spend the time developing an ideology to speak of. Talk to unenrolled voters, and you’ll see most of them don’t pay much attention to politics or government. That may be true for party-affiliated people too, but at least they support an agenda.
Democracy takes time and attention. Most people don’t want to give it.
I never got why people want our primary to be open or to have very low thresholds for candidates to get elected. That just seems to be inviting more John Silber’s and Ed Kings winning the plurality by appealing to independents and the uninformed while informed progressives split the vote. I think a true reform would be to close the primary, up the signature requirements, and switch to an IRV voting method for our primary. Only if we do those three things would I even consider jettisoning the 15% rule.
If you can’t convince even 3 out of 20 delegates to support just your place on the ballot, you can’t be that convincing of a candidate. It should be hard and candidates should work to earn votes, and the grassroots activists that bother to show up and pay attention, which Mark and others point out is not really even that hard, shouldn’t have their voices overwhelmed by those that aren’t as interested. To me that is not elitist or anti-democratic, that is exactly what citizen oriented activism and grassroots democracy should look like.
I support the 15% rule, and I have not argued against it anywhere in this thread. I brought up the Joan Vennochi column because I strongly suspect her thesis was the seed of Keane’s column. We may consider her conclusion unfair, but the fact remains that some well-known Democrats talked to her, and said things that seemed to confirm her conclusion.
there is a big, big difference between delegates being of the opinion that a Warren/DeFranco primary would have been a bad idea, and the existence of some sort of conspiracy to deny DeFranco a spot on the ballot. Vennochi reported the former, and sort of insinuated the latter; Keane comes right out and asserts the latter, with no basis.
And to me it smacks of the trope, which many national journalists are guilty of and far too many Globe columnists are, of stating “both sides are bad” and “both sides play the same rigged game”, when in reality, by all accounts, Mark Fisher earned his 15% the right way and got denied his rightful spot on a technicality by a really botched convention and central party apparatus. Conversely, DiFranco failed to convince 3 out of every 20 delegates her place on the ballot was worth it. Whether these were delegates who were worried about wasting money on a primary or who simply felt that Elizabeth Warren would be a fantastic Senator, is irrelevant to the basic fact that she failed to convince even a tiny fraction of our party to back her. She was nowhere close to getting that basic threshold of support.
And her tone throughout her campaign, her continued defiance and whining today, does not do her any favors. Hard to argue that John Tierney or Elizabeth Warren are corporate Democrats rigging the system, particularly when Elizabeth Warren is the bete noire of Wall Street and the elite at the top of either party. Only somebody that honest and that good could be giving these creeps a scare, and yet DiFranco and her apparatchiks of convenience at the Globe are crying foul . Keene is inventing a false history to suit his serious simpleton’s false dichotomy.
He is stating things he believes to be true but writing it as if he were a member of the opposing team. What does he believe?
As usual this sort of thing reveals a lot more about the author than anything else.