There are always transitions in life. Some of them are formal. A ceremony of some sort is performed, or a test completed. Sometimes transitions are forced upon us, by circumstance or by crisis.
This isn’t true just for individuals, but for societies, for organizations and for political parties. We are in a period of deep crisis now, with hard-right reactionaries in full control of most of the major institutions of our society. Institutions that SHOULD be helping to oppose the right, including the Democratic Party leadership and the leaders of the labor movement, too often seem to be trapped in self-defeating patterns and wedded to tradition and existing perks. They hold tight to the small pebble of hope for change, refusing to hold their hand open, refusing to let new leadership, new ideas, to help that pebble to change hands, to form the beginning of a brighter future.
After months of struggle and negotiation, several important unions split from the AFL-CIO to form Unite to Win. Perhaps this move can be a model for a newly energized left on more than just labor issues. If the pebble won’t be offered, perhaps it must be pried loose.
Perhaps it is time for us to leave.
Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, wrote in an op-ed in the LA Times:
But unions, overall, continue to decline. And the AFL-CIO — the national labor federation for the last half-century — has failed to make the hard decisions and take the necessary steps to make the union movement grow again. For months, a group of major unions has been talking to the AFL-CIO leadership on how to reorder priorities and modernize the federation’s strategy and structure. But to no avail.
That’s why we at the SEIU and three other major unions declared over the weekend that we would not participate in the AFL-CIO national convention in Chicago this week. And on Monday our union — with 1.8 million members — along with the 1.4-million-member Teamsters announced we would withdraw from the federation, effective immediately.
The Teamsters and the SEIU have joined with five other unions — Unite Here, the Food and Commercial Workers, the laborers, the carpenters and the farm workers — to form the Change To Win Coalition, representing nearly 6 million workers. This is a dramatic step that we hope will open up opportunities similar to the surge in worker unity and organization when the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was created in the 1930s because the American Federation of Labor (AFL) failed to adapt to the changing economy of that era.
This decision is momentous, and more than a little frightening. Labor has been shrinking, but is still a powerful part of efforts to elect Democrats to office. As is true whenever a major chance is taken, the possibilities of disaster are not insubstantial. The problem is, the possiblities of disaster without major change are assured. A true crossroads has been reached, and not just by labor.
As was made clear in the DLC meeting in Ohio, the leadership of the Democratic Party is not any more open to real change than the labor federation’s leadership is. Top down, toe the line … the self-same problems are evident in both organizations.
Citizens and activists on the left have been left adrift by the Democratic Party for many years. The party relentlessly portrayed by the Republicans and a compliant media as “liberal” has been anything but. Under the leadership of the DLC and allied organizations, as well so-called “centrist” politicians like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and others, the party has championed, often alongside the Republicans: a shredding of the social safety net; an expansion of so-called free trade (free for corporations to exploit more markets, and more workers); an expansion of the prison/industrial complex; a disasterous war of choice in Iraq; shrinking availability of free and available women’s health care. Not a proud or remotely “liberal” record.
This recent history has left true liberals, workers, the poor, the GBLT community and peace activists with no voice in the political dialogue. The lack of balance in the debate has left us in our current precarious state, with decades of growing deficits, deteriorating public works, an inefficient and inequitable healthcare system and an educational system that is a pale shadow of the one that used to be among the world’s finest.
It is time for the left to begin the hard work of building an independent bloc of voters within the party. It’s tempting to advocate leaving the party completely, but that is a daunting project, and not really necessary. There IS no Democratic Party. There is the ossified skeleton of the oldest political party in the world, a party that once could claim to be the champion of the poor, of the middle and working class, the party that fought for civil rights and women’s rights.
It’s important to remember, however, that the party had to be FORCED to become those things. It was the activity of writers, activists, voters, students … citizens of principle, confronting hardship or injustice, put pressure on the party to change, to grow, to FIGHT. It’s been done before, and it can be done again.
Strong liberals and progressives within the party must be strongly supported, but support should come through activist groups and directly to the campaigns of elected officials and candidates who support a progressive agenda. NO money or support to the DSCC and DCCC if they insist on pushing candidates that aren’t consistent with progressive political values. If you can, work hard to get local progressives into office in your local party, as delegates at state conventions and then delegates to the next Democratic Convention. If at all possible, a fight has to be led at the convention to insert influence on the party platform.
The first priority has to be to rebuild the party from the bottom up. ONLY progressive candidates in the Presidential primary should get our work, and we should work hard and communicate to find a consensus candidate to head off the DLC/Corporate candidate if possible. If the party “leadership” insists on offering us only weak choices like Sen. Clinton, Sen. Kerry or Sen. Bayh, the left should concentrate its efforts on local races, on taking as many Governors mansions, state legislatures and House and Senate seats as we can. Rebuilding this party and saving this party, may take many years. Much more damage will be done, even if a Republican-in-Dems clothing like Senator Clinton should take the White House.
We’ll be told we have to be “pragmatic.” That battles must be picked, and that the long-term goals must be secondary to the short-term means. That is not the kind of party, or the kind of country, that any of us want to be a part of. We want to live in a solidly humanist country, a modern country, a country not held hostage to greed and superstition. As M. N. Roy put it:
One of the most outstanding characteristics of humanist practice is that its political ideal is not of the kind to be achieved at some particular point of time in an incalculable future. For humanists, means and ends are not so differentiated. The means are also part of the end. We are not setting up a perfectionist ideal to be achieved perhaps two hundred years hence. We say that a good and rational society will be a society which is composed of good and rational human beings. And we say that every human being is potentially good, that is, moral.
Small groups of good and rational men will be the concrete beginning for the creation of good and rational human society, which is the object of all humanist politics. Such a beginning is bound to spread, and the process will accelerate as its results become known.
We can be part of that beginning, and in order to do it we need to follow the example set by the SEIU, the Teamsters and the other unions in their new coalition. We must break free of old, broken structures and find new, 21st Century ways of political activism, a new way of bringing a government of enlightened humanist values to power in the United States. This will be a struggle that will take many years, as the current leadership will fight, scream and sabotage much of what we are trying to do. They will threaten, cajole and demonize, but that is nothing new … they do that already.
Time for us to leave the old ways of doing things, and the current party structure has proved they don’t deserve our support, money or hard work.
Time to leave them behind.
“Kung Fu” screen grabs from fusionanomaly dot net
cartoons of Jonik from mindfully dot org
Crossroads graphic from EXTRA, a newsletter from UPMC
I would add to this that if the local version of the DLC completely freezes you out, support a third party. Work with independents and third parties to bring a progressive POV back into the political coversation.
Easier said than done, but playing ball again like we did in ’04 is now beyond the question.
I absolutely agree with your diary – everywhere I look, here in TEXAS! of all places, there are progressive candidates and even some excellent state legislators who need our support. Going to a fundraiser for one of them tomorrow. And this is what keeps me going – that there is something I can do, however small, however local, that can make a difference.
As BooMan once pointed our, we often forget how big an impact state legislators have on people’s lives. Right now, our state lege is in its second special session trying to come up with a funding plan for our schools. We’re under court order to fix the appalling disparities between the quality of education offered to rich vs. poor children. They have been wrestling with this for over 20 years. So far, all they have accomplished this summer is to raise the salaries of judges, which, what a coincidence! is the basis on which their own legislator pensions are calculated. Getting progressives elected to the lege could make a huge difference.
And of course, the US Congress. Forget the presidency for now. We can chip away at the House, one congressional district at a time. Don’t forget, it’s the House where spending bills originate – and which has the power to impeach.
But I don’t understand your reference to the “local DLC.” The DLC is not the Democratic Party, although too many big-name national Democratic elected officials align themselves with it (bleh, ugh, tear hair). The party folks I’ve met around here have no more use for the DLC than I do – they’re big Dean supporters and getting to work on his 50-state strategy. I was at a Latinos for Texas meeting last week where one of the party field workers was explaining the recruiting for more field workers and encouraging folks at the meeting to consider applying for one of the positions. The goal is local activists (not people sent in from DC to tell us how to work on Texas politics).
For those of us who are Democrats (and I am) the alternative to the DLC is not a third party – it’s getting involved in your local Democratic party and making it progressive, not DLC. Your precinct, your county party. Be the progressive Democrats you want your party to be. We started with DFT (our DFA) and there are progressive groups all over the place here. Keep Austin Blue. Latinos for Texas. Austin Moving Forward. Many of us are already working for progressive ’06 candidates. Third party yourself if you must, but I think there is more to be gained by taking over our local Democratic parties.
by “local DLC” I meant entrenched local party officals who try to keep out new voices, give sweetheart deals to business interests over the people’s needs… many communities have them. Couldn’t think of another name for them.
entrenched fascist democratic leaders, asswipe party bosses……
this is what they tell us; shut up, sit down, gimme your money, show up, knock on doors, pass out this lit, gimme more mopney, pull the straight dem ticket, and my favorite…..”fall in love, then fall in line” – bill clinton to the deaniacs.
If the party “leadership” insists on offering us only weak choices like Sen. Clinton, Sen. Kerry or Sen. Bayh, the left should concentrate its efforts on local races,
I am always an outsider looking in (I am an indpendent), and I will no longer support any efforts to get any DLC candidate elected in any way, shape, or form.
I am fortunate in that I never have to cut and run from some partisan view… I vote (and support) strictly based on candidates, voting records, and views.
There is absolutely NOTHING that a DLC candidate has to offer me that I can endorse. If there were I would be better off to vote republican, and that ain’t likely to happen in my lifetime at this rate! They are both just TOO FARRR RIGHT to fit my beliefs. lol
Who the Dems choose to run is their business, but they had better realize that it will have it’s consequences. Refusing to acknowledge the real left wing is what has caused the most problems for them, and continued involvement from “DLC approved candidates” will guarentee a continued problem.
I am not trolling here… Just a comment.
Nice Diary/Blog/Post anyways…
Still advocating for the disaffected to check the “decline to state” box. Or “D”on’t “T”ake “S”hit from anyone. WTF, it only takes a minute to fill out a new card before the primaries in ’06.
that is absolutely a principled position to take, and independents should champion the candidates that support their values.
I’ve seen this comment from you several times, but I don’t understand it. In my state, we don’t declare a party. The only way we are identified with a party is if we vote in a primary (if we do, our voter registration card is stamped “Voted in Democratic (or Republican) primary” which prevents us from voting in the other primary the same day. We can only vote in one.
In your state, what is the purpose of “decline to state”? Can you vote in a primary? How does changing your voter registration make your local Democratic party more progressive, less DLC? These are real questions – I’ve never lived in a state where one declares a party affiliation, so I don’t understand how this works.
….Democratic party more progressive, less DLC?
The democratic party as an organization at this point does not reflect my views on too many issues. DTS means I’ll support – and vote for – the best candidate in any race for any position irrespective of party affiliation.
I still don’t get it. Did having “Democrat” on your voter registration card mean you had to vote only for Democrats before you changed it?
If the Democratic party doesn’t represent you, how does changing the designation on your card change that?
well I am not rba but I can answer for myself. I went to “decline to state” after the most recent GE. I simply chose not to be a member of the party any longer. In CA, as a “decline to state” I can vote in either primary, under changes made in 2003…. Previously if I left the Democratic party I could not vote in any primary unless I joined the Republicans and voted in theirs.
‘Decline to state” fits me now. And I personally feel more comfortable. I did it, partly, in reaction to the tendency for ‘loyalty oaths” and various sorts of exhortations on line to “pledges” and so forth. LOL. The tedious gamers cannot fuck with me in quite the same way as if I am NOT a member of the party. Possibly one had to be on line during hte primaries to have experienced the “loyalty oaths” although they still crop up. Not my style.
If “decline to state” it is not appropriate to other people, well that is not my concern.
What does your voter registration card have to do with what some on-line blogger says? I’ve seen the “loyalty oaths” and I just ignored them. I mean, who are these people who demand “loyalty oaths”? They’re not my party – I’ve never seen them around here, in my town, at my precinct meetings. Not running for office, as far as I can tell – if they were I wouldn’t vote for them. They’re just jerks. Why should they determine which candidates I support?
It seems to me that I should support the candidates I believe in. In almost 40 years of voting, that’s usually, but not always, been a Dem. Never an R. I just despise what the Republican party stands for, always have. Sometimes the Dem’s no better – or even worse. Then I vote third party or write-in or leave it blank.
Lately, I’ve been so appalled by what’s happening to the country that I’ve decided to do more than vote – to start looking for progressive candidates that will stand up for me and mine and fight for us – and trying to figure out what I can do to help get them past the ’06 primaries and then elected.
Not being in a place where we have to declare a party, I don’t get how what’s on your voter registration card would affect that.
And our reactions and thus responses and changes sought/decisions made are different. To be very frank I think this inability to grasp that is a rather weak attmpt to berate, in some lame way. This is basic stuff it should not be that hard… LOL.
I made my decisions. I am comfortable.
One third of the electorate is registered Ind or DTS, there will be more.
What marisacat said. And the fact that registering Democrat means they can claim I support them.
Let’s see. Your state party keeps a tally of how many people register Democrat? And if their numbers decline, then they’re supposed to get the message that their support is falling? But how will they know why you don’t support them? Maybe they’ll think it’s because they’re not “centrist” enough.
How will they know that that’s not why you’re no longer supporting them unless you show up at a Democratic meeting and explain it to them? How will they know that a true progressive, a not bought and paid for, a not Republican lite candidate is who you will vote for if there are no candidates like the ones you could support running? And which dedicated, progressive folks can run if there’s no one to work on their campaigns?
You know this appearing really dense. Declining numbers are declining numbers. You think the Dems don’t notice? And my congressional representative’s staffers know me by name…. and they know why I have left.
People explain their decisions, you push back. You don’t like what people are stating (LOL hold on the coming years will be a bumpy ride) and then proceed to reinforce the perception of party obstinance and inability to sense dissafection from the base. People are tired of the national inertia. It is clear over and over they are willing to sacrifice the votes from the base. They expect to glean some migrating middle from the R party… LOL it won’t be happening.
Sorry to be blunt.
Here, if you don’t declare a party affiliation, you don’t get to vote in the primary. I really don’t want progressives to be the ones who are not voting in primaries!
Not specific to this diary (tho it fits), but to the slew of them today wondering if the Democratic Party suits us anymore…
Maybe the problem is us.
Yeah, the party is sick/sad/wrong. Its busy chasing corporate dollars to throw away at the apathetic middle.
I don’t think the party needs money.
I don’t think being conscientious objectors in our own party will make a flipping bit of difference. It’ll just send the idiots at the top scrambling to reach out to yet another muddled middle group– you know the types, the people so busy with their own lives they just (naively) trust the media to be doing its job, and people “smarter than themselves” to boil down these issues to chewable conclusions… even if that’s right wing radio and fox news.
If we want the party to change, we need to bring the one thing that matters most — VOTES
To get credit for these votes, we need to strike out on our own, state a unifying philosophy, and gather new and lapsed voters to it.
With all the talk of unions in the last few days, I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of using collective bargaining to retake our party from the idiots who are driving it into the ground.
Lots of bad lessons are there to be learned from the rise of the Republicans. Some of them you and I can’t counter — like buying the media and using it for party propaganda. But there are some good ones too.
Those who control votes control power.
But our individual votes get lost in the shuffle. If we can put together voting blocs, and influence voters on a major scale…
Its the people, stupid
I’m so disillusioned with the Dems, I don’t blame anyone from washing their hands of it and walking away. Heck, I’ve had days where I wish the party would start from scratch.
I think the labor union move was great. BUt I wouldn’t say it made them “weaker”. There was no real benefit to their alliance anymore. The AFL-CIO funnels money to (dem) politicians instead of taking care of its members by increasing union membership. Those politicians have little power to begin with, and they still manage to screw over the union members. Its a broken model.
The unions that split off get it. It’s the people, not the politics. Get the people, the rest will follow.
Will we?
I thought that this:
was what I was suggesting, only with a lot more words.
š
Yeah, you did indeed.
I guess that’s why I posted to your diary Madman instead of one of the “screw Democrats” diaries I referred to š
See how fast your message sank in?
Good work!
Here we started with DFT. Many of us were disgusted with the party. National party gave us not one cent – even though we had a number of progressive candidates that lost by a hair, and probably would have won if they had had just a little more support (money and organizing expertise).
Other progressive groups popped up all over the place – some new, some just newly visible and active. Then the various progressive groups started reaching out to each other and coordinating. Now the local Democratic party is aligning themselves with us. Partly because they see the energy and enthusiasm – and votes! as you say – of the progressive grassroots and partly because we progressives are inflitrating and taking over the party.
But your last line – “Will we?” Will we what? Follow? Hell, no! Let’s get out in front and lead!
Will we…
follow the example of the unions that split off to pursue people first, not “play politics”?
You’ve already answered — you did so way before the unions got around to it.
Now will the rest of us? š
I’m glad you wrote this out, madman… I think this is exactly the way to go. Well, for me, anyway. I agree that the Democratic Party is the only viable vehicle at the moment, but the one we have now is pretty much useless.
I’m prepared for, and building for, the “the hard work of building an independent bloc of voters within the party.” We have to think long… everywhere we want to be, some group of Republicans is already there (whether it’s the religious right, the anti tax folks, the anti reproductive rights folks, etc,) and have been for years… laying the groundwork locally to help roll back rights nationally.
Bush is bad, bad news… but I think the next one is likely to be worse, because of things put in place (or taken out of place) by the present admin.
great diary, and good info, it will take work, but hey, if it were easy, they would all do it ; )
While I’m still not entirely in agreement with your conclusions (I support what SEIU et al are doing, but I see that as having a different calculus than electoral politics), I can’t deny that you lay out a compelling case.
I have a couple questions and comments though. You described the Democratic Party as:
What era were you thinking of that the party was clearly superiour to what it is today? Surely you wouldn’t go back to the pre-civil rights party of the “solid South”, so you must mean some intervening period, somewhere in the ’60s, ’70s, or ’80s. But in the ’60s, we had the supply side hawk, JFK, certainly more conservative than his brothers; and LBJ, who stood behind a lot of good domestic causes but who is ultimately to blame for the Vietnam War.
In the ’70s, we had a Democratic president who was in power for one term, and–it is often forgotten–was so conservative for his party that he vetoed many bills passed by the Democratic Congress, and inspired Teddy Kennedy’s primary challenge.
In the ’80s, of course, we got slaughtered with Mondale and Dukakis.
We know you aren’t into Clinton.
Maybe you were more meaning the House and Senate in terms of the “golden era” you seemed to allude to. But though there were many fine progressive Democrats in Congress in the ’60s and especially the ’70s, there were also lots of conservative Southern “yellow dog” Dems back then–they didn’t become a much more minor segment of the party until ’94. So I’d be curious to know what era you meant, of if it’s really more of a “greatest hits” of the gauzy past, that might be overlooking the fact that in every era there were many conservative and “Vichy” Dems.
I wanted to comment briefly on the M.N. Roy quote:
I was just talking to someone who considers herself a staunch pessimist/cynic, and between the two of us I am indeed the optimist. But I guess compared to Roy, I’m a cynic–for I find the above to be hopelessly, heartbreakingly naive.
-Alan
I think the party often points to Social Security, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts … other brief moments … to try to assert that the Democratic Party is the “party of the people.” Truthfully, it is generally more as you describe, and those good things happened b/c independent blocs within and parallel to the party put great pressure on it to pass them, often over attempts by Democrats to block them.
I think it was a mistake not to try to solidfy that pressure into solid new voices at the local level. The left needs to do what the Xtian right did … take over from below while still pressuring party leadership.
Roy’s quote IS … a little hopeful, but political impetus is often rooted in such “naive” hopes. It is cynicism that often blocks people from really pushing through … I know, b/c I’m about the most cynical person I know, but I still try to MAKE myself hope for something better.
agreed
the DLC is now merely part of the establishment
frankly the only reason they haveascendancy in the party was Clinton’s unique abilities as a politician
absent that sort of charismatic candidate their policies are not attracting people withinn the party or to the party
I’ve been getting fruborrated about all the debates re party – GOP, this brand of Dem, that brand of Dem. The word fruborrated is a combination of frustrated/bored/irritated. All the buzz with politcal junkies on all the sides has to do with the “game” strategies. It’s like evaluating draft picks and QB assignments for your favorite team. Well, your favorite team goes out to play and you cheer for them, praise them when they win, etc. However, while it seems politics will always involve game playing the outcomes are a bit more serious.
Did any party in any era step up and run on a platform that would make a huge difference for people? Labor laws, civil rights, women’s and reproductive rights, the end of the Vietnam war – all of those came about because of indiviudal people. Many, many people. From writing letters to taking to the streets – many people yelling long and loud about an injustice or a wrong until at least one of the parties decided to respond and take on the cause as their own as well.
Sorry – didn’t mean to rant.
Permit me to laugh gently. I have lived thru close to 2 full years (it started a year after I came to the blogs) of various forms of “get in line”… the reaction is here. If you are tired bored frustrated, prepare to be more of the same. And when I say three years in the political blogs, I had also been a Democrat since birth and voted since ’72. Politics, the ”rough and ready” of it, is not new to me.
The old coalitions, whihc the national party has abandoned/is abandoning (if they wish to abandon voters, LOL that would be their idea of a plan) are in flux and finding each other in new ways that may not involve the party, not in the ways that once existed.
Flux and realignment, it happens. Especially if the head neglects the body that has the blood and sinew, muscle and bone. At some point the so called head, the national party, may wake up or it may not…
Opera glasses and popcorn, as I say….
“Strong liberals and progressives within the party must be strongly supported, but support should come through activist groups and directly to the campaigns of elected officials and candidates who support a progressive agenda. NO money or support to the DSCC and DCCC if they insist on pushing candidates that aren’t consistent with progressive political values.”
will my union brothers and sisters stand with true progressives in pa and refuse to support the casey annointment?
so far the answer is no