| I admit that I don't really understand why Kucinich is running for President. He's certainly not banking on winning.
Dennis Kucinich may be traveling around the country campaigning for president, but the six-term congressman is planning for his re-election at home.
Kucinich, who was in Iowa Tuesday for an NPR-sponsored debate among Democratic presidential candidates, has already told the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party that he will seek another term and wants its endorsement, says party boss Jimmy Dimora.
Kucinich faces several primary opponents, though it's unlikely he'll lose. What I'm interested in is how Kucinich, through his Presidential run and his work in Congress, builds or does not build progressive power.
The dirty secret of Democratic politics is that loyalty is rewarded unless you are a progressive. New Democrats give to future New Democrats, and Blue Dogs give to future Blue Dogs. Yet, with a few small exceptions, progressive caucus members don't give to future progressive caucus members. Often, they give to front-line conservatives, or party institutions, but there are extremely limited channels for ideological money within Congress itself to go to liberals.
This is the case with Kucinich as much as anyone; I went through his FEC reports, and in 2006, he gave $125K to the DCCC and zero to any other candidates. For someone who calls Democratic leadership a 'total fraud', he's certainly willing to help party leaders build up their power while doing nothing to build up any alternative centers of progressive power within the caucus to challenge them.
And in his Presidential race, I don't see him building institutions of power to challenge a party leadership; in fact he came out for the Presidential debate on Fox News and called the rest of the Democrats cowards for fighting against a Republican organ of power, which shows how distant he really is from our movement. Perhaps I'm missing something, and I'm honestly trying to understand his strategy. He voted against SCHIP because it didn't go far enough, though he voted for the veto override. And he was a hold-out on the supplemental because it was insufficient. These were both cases where he tried to exert leverage. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't use these positions as a way of framing a position and then trying to get others elected who share your values.
I admit, I think he shouldn't be on stage in the Presidential race. He is more a distraction than a serious participant, even if what he says is often correct. It's time to figure out how to distinguish between those with sterling voting records, like Kucinich, and those insiders willing to do the hard fundraising and political work necessary to build a functioning political machine.
Any ideas how to identify them? |
