Nice Y Nice (4.00 / 5)

Many progressives--perhaps the majority--continue to wish that someone will give us power. If we elect Obama, he'll give us power. If we support Dean, he'll give us power.

Many of us have a hard time, I think, understanding that that's now how power works. You aren't given power. You take power. It's the act of taking that's proves and provides the power.

It's like we only believe in positive reinforcement, and consensual mutuality and respectful discourse. All of which are wonderful, but they're not a path to power in our current political system. Sometimes I feel that we're stuck teaching abstinence because we think that's how things should be, instead of facing facts.

Howard Dean isn't gonna institutionalize progressive power. Barack Obama damn sure isn't going to institutionalize progressive power. Russ Feingold and Donna Edwards and Ned Lamont aren't going to institutionalize progressive power. If it happens, it'll happen because we some pretty ugly and effective shit.

That's what's so good about a place like OpenLeft.  

---

by: Joel @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:54:49 PM UTC

sort of (4.00 / 2)

It's not so much that someone gives you power, it's that you elect someone and then they return the favor by institutionalizing something that helps you.  Most of our elites have been chosen based on concerns other than building up our own networks, for good reasons.  Obama had to beat McCain, but not because he would help our networks.  It was always clear he disdained our networks, but it was still worth it to elect him.  That's true with a lot of the elites we've picked.

What is disconcerting is the lack of awareness of the deals we're cutting.  They aren't bad deals, but the elites we've picked so far aren't going to listen to us when in power.  That's not what we asked for.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:59:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, but I think that's still (4.00 / 1)

the 'positive reinforcement.'

I do you a favor, then you return the favor. Fine, but what if you don't? My point is we don't have a mechanism for punishment. As you say, this was all completely clear: Obama had to beat McCain, and he always disdained our networks. We had to help, despite knowing that we'd have no reasonable expectation of receiving help in return. Or not 'expectation'--knowing that we couldn't demand help in return.

I guess I don't even think we need to cut deals ahead of time so much as find a way to make politicians pay when they screw with us. But as I said, this gets ugly. Copying from my own comment earlier:

What I think you'd want to do is pick a fight with, I don't know, Valerie Jarrett (just by way of example), if she's ever up for anything. Someone like that. Someone perfectly unobjectionable in every way. Someone we even like. And try with a singleminded focus to scuttle something for her. And even if we fail, to give her--and Obama--a huge headache.

Because that's power. You fuck us on FISA, we fuck you on Jarrett. Even though we like her!

Trying to screw over Lieberman or undermine Vilsack's nomination doesn't send that message. They say, 'we object on the merits'. Which we do. But that's not the most important message we can send right now.

Who wants to be the jerk to annoy Valerie Jarrett, of all people, when she's qualified and progressive and whatever?

Nobody. But until we empower our own jerks, we're gonna be a long time in the wilderness.

---

by: Joel @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:09:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but.. (0.00 / 0)

I completely agree with Joel, and don't know where Matt's coming from:  " Most of our elites have been chosen based on concerns other than building up our own networks, for good reasons." Democrats were a complete failure pre-Dean, at the of hands of Rahm and Schumer and their red state fearmongering.  Dean rose to power because we had "good reasons" to dump most of them, not elect more.
"It was always clear he [Obama] disdained our networks,".  Oh really? He reached out and touched every Deaniac and member of the Left who opposed the war, on substantive grounds, avoided the DLC wing like the plague, took his campaign to communities who would likely not be Clinton -supporters. Come on Matt, he was speaking directly to us.

Was.

Time now though, for Joels' strategy.  Obama, with the choice of Rick Warren, has sealed his fate and probably doomed the the Democratic party.  He's shunned Dean, the Progressives, the hard Left, and now the GLBT community.  Who hasn't he shunned?  The Clinton machine and their  supporters, the pro-war supporters, the hard-liners, the DLC wing, the anti-Democratic party of Joe Lieberman,  the Right, and now the hard Right religious extremists.

Wow. We now have an Obama-empowered group of incestual and embedded stale, self serving Democrats ready and willing to follow the power and money of anyone who kisses their asses and are perfectly willing to crawl and kiss back.

We, in two elections now, had this silly idea that with the election of MORE Dems Harry and Steny could WIN a few more battles.
Instead, they just whined more and LOST more battles. The lack of oversight alone, has been stunning.

That is not a party I can be proud of, as Marcos once hoped.  In fact every time I see Harry or Joe or Steny -I want a hot shower.
Joel, I will NEVER vote for a Democrat again until those three are gone.
It's a total waste of time, money and hope to do otherwise.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 17:55:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem is .. (4.00 / 2)

we don't have the mechanisms to "pay them back" when they don't listen to us while in power .. meaning .. the Republicans have things like CfG which can raises oodles of money to primary incumbents .. or right-wing radio .. which forces Republicans to fall in line .. the question becomes .. what are we going to do to chumps like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu is EFCA doesn't pass?  How are they going to pay if one of Obama's central campaign promises fails?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:13:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look at the power the gang of 14 had. (0.00 / 0)

If we all resolve to not vote for more Dems, but for only other more progressive leaning Independent or Green party members- with substantive Democratic goals, they'll need to come to us for a change to get anything passed.

The Blue Dogs, Joe Lieberman and other Independent coalitions within Congress won battles by simply demanding their issues be addressed- or else.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 18:09:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Power is taken, as Matt says, but letting go is hard. (0.00 / 0)

Voting rights is, IS, moving power toward the people. Daycare centers move power toward women. Equal pay for equal work moves power toward women. Women have little or no power in most of their lives in any society. Union focused legislation that improves workers rights and desires to join a Union is moving power toward powerless people. Damn good favors.

A 60 vote Senate moves power away from people and is a stain on democracy. A unilateralist presidency is a stain on Democracy and pushes power away from people.

The intertubes are a resource, and a form of the first amendment rights that make democracy possible. One of the main aims of the intertube using progressive community is the spread of its use, the depth of its penetration into everyday discourse, as opposed to for example an agenda of power accumulation or deification of its users.

Co-op housing is moving power toward people. The only options in many peoples eyes are rent to a landlord, ownership of a condo, or social housing run by an ever changing 'distant' unconcerned administration. In co-op housing, the building is owned by the people together, and run by an elected board. There are many ways of putting power in people's hands.

Chris Cillizza's article, most certainly those sections pointed to by Matt, mark him as a lightweight. The question however, of Dean's continued ability to a champion for progressive reform, is a pointed one, and it is a question that has not had any good indicators since the election.

I have pre-read my post several times, a habit I am learning, and it appears I might be thought to be disagreeing with Mr. Stoller. This is not intended that way, but it does widen the discussion. Like Matt I want 'people who do us favors' like Governor Dean, to not rewarded, but trusted with power, and put to use.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:30:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two guesses (0.00 / 0)

I think Dean's most likely to end up as a University President (or annoyingly for alliteratives, as the Dean of some major public policy school).

Alternatively, if Obama wants him a bit out of the way, I could see him with a major Ambassadorship, perhaps to Canada.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:07:52 PM UTC

Dean of the Howard Dean School of Public Policy? (0.00 / 0)

As a graduate student in public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I might consider doing a semester at the Howard Dean School of Public Policy.

I asked Howard Dean to his face last March if he was interested in running for Senate, and he said no.  HHS is taken now, and so is healthcare czar.  What else is there in the cabinet that fits?  Not much.  University president is a good out.

---

by: Peter from WI @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 17:41:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Head of a new Democratic think tank is a great idea! (0.00 / 0)

If c-span airs one more Cato or AEI or Brookings or other Right-wing forum event -I'll scream.

The Democrats were to afraid to even challenge Lamb on his blatant bias in c-span's programming.

If anyone could tackle any issue head-on it's Howard Dean.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 18:15:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's left for Dean? (0.00 / 0)

Before and after Obama won I was hoping Howard Dean would, at least, be offered a Cabinet level position. I think, seeing the trend of appointments, it's delusional to think they are going to find a place for Dean, or any true progressive in this admin. I think Dean should run for the House. The Senate sucks for getting things done (but not for getting in the way of the same). In the House, Dean could be a champion for all the themes of his original campaign. If Dean runs in Vermont, I'm moving there to volunteer full time.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:35:34 PM UTC

You wouldn't have to (0.00 / 0)

As a governor for 11 years, Dean could pretty much walk into any open seat in the state he wanted; opponents from either party would be negligible.

The obstacle to his going somewhere else electorally is two-fold: open seats -- unless Sen. Leahy unexpectedly retires or Dean decides he wants his old job back from our current worse-than-useless Governor -- and the fact that Dean probably prefers VT to DC.

So, with a touch of nostalgia for an icon of the rebirth of the progressive movement, I'd suggest we bid farewell to Howard Dean in the electoral realm.

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 18:15:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why don't you take a look at who (0.00 / 0)

is moving into positions of power in their local and state parties.  The Deaniacs are everywhere.  Remember, taking power back is a long process.

Jim Dean tells a story of a surfer-type former DFAer from southern California who now sits on the state Democratic Party rules committee.  The man has just played a major role in changing rules to give better Democrats a shot at elected office.

What made Howard Dean's campaign so different from Obama's is that he was all about rebuilding the Democratic brand to associate it with progressive values.  I have yet to hear one word from the "change" gurus to show they have any desire to build the party.

---

by: Susan S @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 17:26:56 PM UTC

A DFAer on the DPW Admin Committee (4.00 / 1)

So I'm a DFAer who decided to get involved in Democratic partisanal politics after 2004, largely inspired by Howard Dean.  Less than four years later, I'm on the Administrative Committee of my state's Democratic Party (Wisconsin).  There are lots of us who've gotten involved in this state party, and we are ourselves institutionalizing progressive power.

You don't just have someone hand you power, it's probably easier to grow your own and have them take power with you.  

As far as Dean's 50SS and State Partnership Program, it's been a huge asset for state parties and has had direct impacts on how many Democrats get elected.  Huge.  Funding for four staffpeople has meant that we've been able to build up our local party organizations between elections, develop activists, and lay groundwork for campaigns, enabling the flipping of our state legislature from major GOP majorities to Democratic majorities in both houses in two cycles; going from purple state to solid blue in presidential; and taking - and holding - one tough-ass Congressional seat with a positive GOP PVI.  

Losing the SPP funding and staff will hurt.  The DPW maintained authority over the staff (not the DNC) and the funding enabled us to home-grow good Dem staffers.  Before last week's meeting of state party chairs and DNC ExCom, I authored and got passed a resolution of our party's ExCom calling for support of the continuation of the 50SS and extension of the SPP.  If we lose it, I fear for our party.

Now there's talk Obama will be funding organizers on the ground, but they'll be doing Obama's bidding, whether it's helping move his agenda (for better or worse) or getting involved in local politics (for better, or most likely, worse).

Really wish Dean's legacy would live on stronger at the DNC - his leadership has had a strongly positive, concrete impact for state parties and the people we elect.  

---

by: Peter from WI @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 17:48:26 PM UTC

I worry a little about the DNC under Obama (0.00 / 0)

Obama built his own, personal, organization.  It is not a Democratic Party organization per se.  In many areas (including this part of California), that organization did not even see itself as closely connected to the Democrats generally, and many of its leaders were, frankly, unfriendly and uncooperative.

This, I understand, was not an unusual experience this year.  To some extent, the DNC is a competitive, and in the view of many people around Obama, a somewhat redundant organization.

I'm going to hope I'm wrong here.  But if I'm correct, then mostly the leadership of the DNC will be working to keep it out of trouble from Obama's point of view.  Which will make it somewhat useless for any alternative purpose.

We may start wanting some alternative that is more worried about electing Democrats generally than one that is simply about re-electing Obama in 2012.  And we will likely need it well before 2010.

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:14:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John the Baptist (0.00 / 0)

A lot of great people came out of the Dean campaign, and Obama's field campaign built on what they did to change the Democratic party's culture of field organizing. But Howard Dean himself was a disaster as an administrator at the DNC, and it would be a bad idea to put him in charge of a federal bureaucracy. Obama knows this, as he demonstrated when he largely sidelined Dean and the DNC infrastructure during the election, and as Cillizza's article points out he is demonstrating with the transition.

I'd say Dean is great on vision, bad at implementation. He showed the way, but he was the herald. Obama, perhaps because of his experience as an organizer, was able to take the Democratic party as a whole and lead it to the path Dean blazed.

---

by: souvarine @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 19:34:29 PM UTC

How was Dean bad at DNC (0.00 / 0)

I'm not being argumentative; I'm just curious what your reasoning is.

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:01:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree with much of this (0.00 / 0)

The synergy between the netroots and Dean was (and to an extent, still is, but a far lesser extent) far more significant than you suggest. Also, his impact on the Democratic infrastructure and the following electoral successes (which also exist in deep synergy with the rise of the netroots) are far more related than you give him credit for - and no, there will never be enough firm "evidence" one way or the other to prove or disprove that, as the nature of this sort of beast is far too quantum for that level of definitiveness.

Nevertheless, a straight line remains the shortest distance between two points, and coincidences are rarely coincidences. I'm not sure why you'd want to lessen and artificially isolate the Dean factor within that greater progressive algebraic equation, but it strikes me as pretty counterintuitive to do so.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 20:33:22 PM UTC

I think Matt mischaracterizes Dean's job at DNC (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that he was elected to push policy in any way, shape or form.  He was selected to empower the state parties and implement a 50-state strategy.

Unquestionably, we are greatly revitalized across the country.  I'm not sure how much credit Dean should get for this (I'm not close enough to this effort to judge) but somebody was doing one hell of a job.  2006 and 2008 were no fluke.  And I don't think we can chalk up congressional gains this year to Obama either.

I have no reason to believe that state parties are all that thrilled with Obama.  Again, the issue here isn't policy -- it's the fact that the Obama was not about party building (as Dean, in contrast, always was).  Nor do I suspect that Obama will be very good as a party builder going forward.  I don't think Obama gives a damn, frankly.

If that's the case, then I'm curious what folks in the state parties will do, given that an Obama appointment to the DNC (I know it's not formally an appointment, but in practice...) is not likely to set anybody on fire with ecstasy.  

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:08:51 PM UTC

Y'know whats interesting? (0.00 / 0)

I just heard today that people in Vermont were apparently fielding calls from Obama people vetting Howard Dean for Interior Secretary.

Obviously it didn't go anywhere, but I had no idea he was seriously considered for anything in the Obama administration, and Interior actually makes some sense looking at his history and reputation as a Governor. But there was no way the position was gonna go to a New Englander.

Anyway, maybe the new administration is not a closed door for him entirely, at least not over the full life of an Obama Presidency.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:28:11 AM UTC