Defund The Democratic Party

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 18:30


In a comment in his own diary on the Democratic Party, How the Democratic Party Works, and Doesn't Work, John Emerson wrote:

We must route our own donations

If you're not a centrist machine Democrat, never give money to any national or state Democratic organization. I really think that this should be an absolute principle. If at some point we're in a position where the Dems need us and come asking, then we can deal. But not while they're treating us with contempt.

I've long believed that such an attitude was just a matter of common sense.  If you give money, it should be bundled, to help send a message.  And nothing says "Kick me, I'm stupid" like sending the message, "Anything the party bosses want is fine by me."

If there's any silver lining to the long list of abuses heaped on the Democratic base since Obama took office--a sampling of which I cataloged earlier today in "Versailles Dems Ongoing War Against Dem Base "--then that silver lining is this: the foolishness of just giving money to the Democratic Party, no strings attached, has become starkly apparent.

As John went on to elaborate:

We do have this weird situation where the parties are rich, and the single-issue groups are rich, and they work independently. But the groups which want to change the party so that it will do things differently are poor.

I was in a single issue Central American peace group around 1980 which was moderately effective, but to all intents and purposes we were asking the Republicans and many Democrats to abandon one of their central foreign policy commitments. Major issues can't be dealt with that way; they're not details that you're asking to be changed. In order to win a big issue you have to take over the party AND win an election.  

I had intended to write a more elaborate diary this weekend about extra-party institution building, but there's a certain power in just keeping things simple--and nothing could be more simple than pooling our money and refusing to support the Democrats without getting real power in return.  That's how the corporate special interests play the game, and we're simply chumps if we continue making ourselves utterly irrelevant by giving them money no matter what.

It's time to pit a stop to that. Now!  If we start building independent campaign funds now, they will only have a greater and greater impact, the closer we get to the midterms in November 2010.

Paul Rosenberg :: Defund The Democratic Party

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Defund The Democratic Party | 43 comments
YES! (4.00 / 6)
Great diary!,  I fully agree.  I did "Democracy Bonds" while Dean headed up the DNC; but, as soon as he was deposed, I shut those off with a penny taped to my renewal form (with a message).  No more $ until this party starts moving progressive agendas.
I agree too, (0.00 / 0)
and have been doing this for years.  It gives me much pleasure to send the DNC and the DCCC little "notes" in their stamped, self-addressed envelopes.
[ Parent ]
But, but -- (0.00 / 0)
"I had intended to write a more elaborate diary this weekend about extra-party institution building..."

-- You should! I'd love to read that. Dovetailing a bit with your focus on hegemony, it'd be interesting to see how your thoughts on extra-party institutions interact with a concept like Dual Power.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

Time For That In The Future (4.00 / 2)
I wanted something more immediate just now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
You set it up, I'll give to it.  Cannot agree more, great post.
A model from NYC? (0.00 / 0)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
Yes, But (4.00 / 1)
The Working Families Party depends on fusion being legal in a state.  In most states it is not. So this sort of approach can't be used nationwide.  But where it can be used, it definitely should be considered.

One thing in particular:  It's pretty clear by now that labor can't count on the Dems for much of anything when the chips are really down.  Having another source of leverage makes a lot of sense for them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Happen to Know...? (0.00 / 0)
Do you happen to know the legacy of fusion voting in NY?  Did it exist for a long time or come into being fairly recently?
[ Parent ]
A very long time. (0.00 / 0)
Before the Working People's Party was the Liberal party which once was Left of the Democrats but later became right of them.  And there was also a Conservative party that pulled the Republicans right.  William F. Buckley ran on that ticket for Mayor of New York City in 1969 and his brother James was actually ELECTED to the US Senate on that line.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Bundled, and Defferable (4.00 / 3)
I can't help feeling that part of our problem is that our money is too scattershot and immediate to have any lasting leverage.

So Jane puts out an Ad with the "or we will find someone who will" threat. That is fine and should be taken seriously. Now if FDL had a list of 10,000 $100 pledges to back it up that increases the threat level. If however there were 10,000 bank accounts with $100 already deposited that raises the threat level to the maximum. As long as that money was poised to be allocated it remains a threat. This is even truer if the money is definitely going to be released to some primary challenger(s) somewhere.

Using impulse accumulation and reasoned distribution we can maximize at least some portions of our monies.  

Don't PCCC and PDA serve this role? (4.00 / 1)
I thought the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) was set up explicitly to fund progressives who'll challenge ConservaDems and Republicans. And  Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has a similar function.
[ Parent ]
They're A Good Foundation (4.00 / 1)
But they haven't declared themselves as complete, year-round, 24/7 replacements for party contributions.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Big Issue (I think) (4.00 / 2)
There's a big difference between my state party organization (and I would imagine others as well) and the PCCC, PDA, or DFA (although less so with the latter):

These organizations are strictly professional affairs.  They are not led on the local level by people, and there's not democracy internal to them where members have at least pro forma determination over program and/or leadership.

At least in my state party org (from county to congressional district to state), we elect leaders and democratically determine things.  These are not only good things in and of themselves, but are also a) GREAT training grounds for emerging leaders who take on further leadership roles and then ideally run for office and b) GREAT ways to build a base for one's own political ambitions (which I think is a positive - at least when we get more progressives doing it).

I've seen it have an impact here.  In my congressional district, I can point to people in multiple counties who came up through party organizations, and didn't just do a one weekend training on running for office, who have developed and are developing as leaders.  Hell, I'm a good example of it myself.  

PCCC, PDA, etc don't have that component.  And it's a big missing factor in building a mass-based progressive party, as opposed to a different (albeit more progressive, ostensibly) elite-based party.

[ Parent ]
In some places (4.00 / 2)
the local Dem party operates Democratically as you suggest, but where I am, in Chicago, every level of the Democratic from local to state is for all practical purposes run as a dictatorship.  That is part of why I started Northside DFA, so that people who live in my part of the city (Chicago's north side) who wanted to be politically active would have an organization to be active in, and where they could participate meaningfully in decision making.

Unlike our local Democratic party anyone can join Northside DFA -- no one can join our local Democratic party because they have no method for people join and have not a membership meeting for over two years.  Northside DFA has monthly meeting where we hear from candidates, and anyone who has attended three meetings and done three volunteer activities in the previous 12 months can vote on our endorsements.  In other words, anyone who is willing to put little time can have a role in deciding who the group endorses.  Contrast this with our local Democratic party organizations in most cases there no community process AT ALL for endorsements -- instead the Committeeman decides on their own who to support, a decision that is often based on what strategic alliance will strengthen their own power.  They then go to a county-wide slating meeting where they vote and candidates with the most votes become "slated."  So in that sense it is "democratic" but there is zero role whatsoever for the ordinary person with one exception -- every four years the Committeemen are elected in a regular election, but I doubt if you asked 1,000 people even one of them would know that the Committeeman is voting on candidates and at times actually making appointments on their behalf. So the idea that they have some kind of "input" is not part of reality. And goes back to the no membership meeting thing -- when the organization doesn't exist there is no way for people to know what it does.

And as I said in another comment on this thread national DFA does NOT endorse against a local group's choice.  They did it once several years ago and Jim Dean said it turned out so awful they would never do it again. Now, of course, you are right that national DFA does not have the accountability of an election -- if they change their mind about this policy the only thing we can do is what Paul has suggested for the Dem party: stop giving them money and support.  But what this means is that the local, on-the-ground group truly does have the power.  I can't say that every group around the country operates in the same democratic fashion that Northside DFA does, but as far as I know they all choose their candidates based on the will of local members which means national DFA does as well.  

I do understand that in many areas the local Democratic party does operate democratically and is worth being involved in and supporting financially.  I think your point there is well taken.  But I do think that in ares where the Dem party is corrupt or machine controlled DFA does offer a real alternative, and did not want it lumped in to other groups that do operate in a more centrally-directed fashion.

[ Parent ]
Of course I would add (4.00 / 3)
DFA to that list. They do a great job of helping and supporting candidates up and down the ballot, and they won't fund or assist a candidate against one of their local, grassroots groups and usually ONLY fund or assist candidates that are actively supported by a local group.  This keeps the whole process extremely accountable and tied to local people's interests.

My local DFA group also raises money for our own list of candidates, chosen by our members. We specifically look for races where our money and volunteer work can make a difference -- which means often we are helping primary challengers and which means often they are candidates that the "establishment" dems won't touch.  Candidates eagerly seek our support, not only for what we can give them but because we are basically the gateway to a national endorsement. And national DFA will endorse all the way down to city Alderman. This is critical if we want to start building a progressive bench.

[ Parent ]
MoveOn (4.00 / 3)
Democrats who had received 6 figure contributions from MoveOn voted to censure them for an ad "attacking" the Republican tool Petraeus that used the troops unflattering nickname.  If they walk out on that kind of money to please the MSM, there is no amount of money that will sway these guys.  They are incorrigible boot-lickers.
[ Parent ]
That's what primaries are for (4.00 / 2)
Kos and MoveOn started off supporting any Democrat, with no strings attached. They've learned.

[ Parent ]
Look at Charlie Melancon in Louisiana (4.00 / 1)
Kos seems to be supporting Melancon, who opposes any healthcare reform against Vitter down there.  If we keep supporting these kinds of right wing Democrats, we are going to keep getting sold out on the issues that matter to us.  
[ Parent ]
Kos is not supportive of Melancon (0.00 / 0)
If you read his posts on the subject, he doesn't support Melancon and I don't think he plans to do anything to help him. He does think it's a good thing that Melancon is in the race, because it will force the Republicans to spend millions of dollars to defend that seat, money which could otherwise go to defend their open seats and pick off vulnerable Dem incumbents, and I agree with him on that.
[ Parent ]
This is what Kos had to say when Melancon announced: (0.00 / 0)
But progressives should still cheer his candidacy, and here's why -- the National Republican Senatorial Committee will be forced to spend millions defending this seat, depriving them of funds to target our vulnerable incumbents and aggressively defend their open seats. Millions shipped to Louisiana mean millions less to hit our vulnerable incumbents like Chris Dodd, millions less to defend open seats such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri, and millions less to defend their vulnerable incumbents like Richard Burr.

Do we want him in the Senate? Some of you will appreciate the odd vote he gets Democrats, votes that Vitter will never deliver. So on that front, he'd be marginally better than the Republican incumbent. But his victory would also empower the worst kind of corporatist Democrat, and if we are to see truly progressive legislation enacted, we'll need to rid our party of this corrosive breed. While in the minority, I was in the former camp, now with bigger majorities, I'm in the latter. Current events are showing us how damaging the bad Democrats have been for our agenda.

Link

[ Parent ]
I have no idea who's on first. (4.00 / 1)
FDL, OL work with Kos?  MoveOn?   DFA?  ABC, etc?    Who are all of these groups, and why in the hell aren't they all working together?????  

My greatest frustration and why I quit giving to all of them is because "more Democrats" turned me off, and I don't have a clue who is on first.  

I can't believe they don't all join forces, build a list, prioritize the list, and then set about doing it.  This shot gun, splintered, and behind the scenes approach is a no starter for me.  

I am quite willing to work and donate, but not until I see a coalition and a strategy.  Until then, it is more like spitting into the wind (more Democrats) than effective opposition.  Why no team work with each other, unions, and even some libertarians and Ron Paul supporters.  Things suck so much, e.g. corruption is politics, that there has to be a ton of common ground on which to join forces and take them down.  

Am I missing it?

[ Parent ]
I don't see centralization as a good thing (0.00 / 0)
Why in the hell aren't they all working together?????

If there was one central clearing house, it would end up playing the same strategic games that the Democrats do -- defunding candidates that seem weak, pouring all the money into key races, etc.

A large number of groups, either locally-defined or politics-defined, would allow people to put their money where it best fits their own thinking, rather than a centralized consensus.

This method only works if people end up contributing more money and time to groups they're more engaged in. The national orgs are so distant that they don't rouse much enthusiasm except from big donors with favors to ask. To the Democrats the rank and file are a nuisance.

 

[ Parent ]
This Is The Sort Of Issue We Need To Focus On Discussing (4.00 / 1)
I agree that centralization carries the dangers you mention. But at the same time, many people are reluctant to go along until they see a credibly large effort (if not institution) to join.  So we need to think this through, and come up with ways to combine the reach of a unified appeal with the responsiveness that comes from intimate organizations.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
Critical mass is everything.  How we get there doesn't matter.   I am not suggesting a centralized system, I am suggesting a unified force.  
[ Parent ]
The Keystone Kos Kops are incapable of learning. (4.00 / 1)
Moulitsass and his sycophants have proven time and again that, like Obama, their only interest is power - and they will be of no help going into 2010 or 2012.  They'll demand party loyalty no matter what, and they will ostracize any who dare suggest withdrawing support from Democrats.  They're the DLC's favorite blog site.


[ Parent ]
The blogosphere is barely five years old as a serious factor (4.00 / 1)
And in 2004 it wasn't much. 2006 was the first election where it made a difference. People are still learning by doing -- a fair number of big  time bloggers were Republicans ten years ago.  
[ Parent ]
You've Got The Wrong Idea Here (4.00 / 3)
on at least three counts, at least as far as I can see:

(1) MoveOn wasn't a credible threat to them.  It had never withheld support before.  You have to threaten them before they can feel threatened.  So the fact that they didn't feel threatened doesn't say much.

(2) Holding onto our own money means that they have to come to us to ask for it--in big lumps.  Right now they don't have to even think about that.  I'm talking about taking that from the realm of the unthinkable to the realm of the taken-for-granted.  If they take for granted that they have to win our support, they will adjust their attitudes accordingly, or else...

(2) I'm much less interested with threatening bootlickers than with replacing them.  Aren't you?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Why not do both? (0.00 / 0)
Might as well use any and all means at our disposal.  Half-assing it just leads to trouble.


[ Parent ]
pushing the system to a breaking point (4.00 / 1)
The whole cash-based electoral system is corrupt. Self-preservation is its primary goal, not governance. If we must use money, we should not use it for tempting future members of this system; rather, we should find a way to use it to bring down the system itself.

Elected officials will never vote to cut off their personal gravy trains. Never. Public financing of elections? Never.

The only solution is to push the system to a breaking point and rebuild it from the ground up.

[ Parent ]
Finding someone who will (0.00 / 0)
That's just crazy talk, plain and simple.

You might find someone who says they will, but when elected...

Fool me once, shame on you.

[ Parent ]
Different Take (4.00 / 3)
That's why it's imperative that we invest in building the institutions that will allow and foster our own people to ascend the leadership ladder of electoral politics.  [I'm not saying that this is the only, or even most, important thing; just a very critical thing in this context.]

Instead of electing people we think we can pressure and sway or electing people who say the right things every two, four, or six years, let's work to elect people who come from us - people who are involved in politics because they are looking to advance the progressive agenda, not manipulate it to get elected and re-elected.

[ Parent ]
Exactly. (4.00 / 2)
That's how the crazies took over the Republican Party and then America. They started out running people for school boards.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
A harmless bit of fun (4.00 / 3)
If the DCCC or DSCC sends a solicitation with a postage-paid reply envelope, scrawl a quick note explaining why we're not donating (don't forget to name-check Rahm and tell them who you are giving to), stick it in the envelope, and mail it back at their expense.
That's What (0.00 / 0)
I DO!
[ Parent ]
take it up a notch - A Counting Of Payback Pledges (4.00 / 2)
 A Counting Of Pledges - Private Public Payback

PLEDGE time, PLEDGE money, PLEDGE both, to a primary opponent.

Keep a running tally for time you call / email,

and make sure you let them know how much you're pledging for the latest bullshit, AND

what the tally is!

"Dear Sell Out Senator / Congresscritter ____________,

For Selling Out us working stiffs on bill / law  _  on the date of ___ ,

I ____ pledge __ dollars and | or __ minutes to YOUR primary opponent.

This brings the total I have pledged to your future opponent to ___ dollars and | or ___ minutes.

This brings the total I have pledged to future opponents of the status quo to ___ dollars and | or __ minutes."

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

I think that there are plenty of funds to donate to (4.00 / 1)
More people just need to do it.

The progressive movement is at the place of needing to put  their money and time where their mouths are. To get the attention of Rahm Emmanuel, we need more heft.  

Can't find the organized left. (0.00 / 0)
If somebody can organize and mobilize the left (not splinter left), I'd be happy to contribute to its heft.  
[ Parent ]
WE NEED LOBBYISTS! (4.00 / 1)
Period... if the big boys can have lobbyists, why can't we?  It's the only way to make sure these guys don't keep taking our money and running.  Keep them in line!  

We have enough funds for lobbyists... why someone like ActBlue doesn't hire some, I don't know...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Yes, we need more middlemen. (0.00 / 0)
I love paying retail prices for my representation.
[ Parent ]
call me starry-eyed and naive (0.00 / 0)
But I'm sick and tired of government representation being tied to cash. There's got to be another way.
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
We need to change the whole system.  But we need to hold our own in the existing system in order to do that. And even afterwards, we need to be funding our own independent infrastructure for non-candidate work such as real voter education, independent media, community organizing, etc.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
So who do you propose we give our money to, then? (0.00 / 0)
Obviously it's not enough simply to stay home and not vote for Democrats, or not vote at all.  That, too, plays into the establishment that benefits from us not doing anything substantive to change the system.  Let's face it: the only way the Democrats are really going to take the left seriously is if we build up an organization capable of, if nothing else, costing them elections.  If we can begin doing that, if we can show them that while they may need us, we don't need them, then maybe we can push the Democrats back to the left.

So I propose that the time to build an outside organization is thirty years ago now.  Progressives already have a movement.  It's simply been usurped and co-opted by the right-wing Democrats.  Let's get the hell out now while we can.  Since Obama and the Dems have proven themselves no better than the Republicans, we really do ourselves a disservice by failing to use every means at our disposal to effect change on our own.


monry- politics (0.00 / 0)
Read sometime back that border guards in places on our southern border are assigned to different locations every six months. This is due to the almost irresistable size of drug money bribes offered when they become established too long in one place. No doubt the money used to corrupt in the national political arena is orders of magnatude greater. We can not match that level of funding. This is another place Nancy Brodier's method/system could be effective. Someplace in the sequence of selection we could require signed legally enforcable contracts from our chosen candidates. There are just too few people able to resist that level of temptation for long.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR
Defund The Democratic Party | 43 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox