There has been a great deal of discussion lately on the state of the Democratic party. Should those of us who are progressive defect and start our own party? Should we work to change the Democratic party? Can we change the Democratic party? What are we going to do to get our country back?
Let me clue you in on something many of you already know: I am an outsider. I came into politics because I felt I had to do what I could to get George Bush and his cronies out of office and someplace where theycould no longer do damage to my country and the Constitution it is founded on. Even though I hold many of the same beliefs that are in the Green Party’s core statement of values, I side with the Democrats out of pragmatism: They are the one organization big enough and rich enough to take on the Bushistas.
Or so I thought. Some days — like yesterday — it sure doesn’t seem like it. But, like Booman, I happen to believe that a third party will not do anything but split votes that should be going to defeat the Republicans. If there’s going to be a third party in this country, let them pull votes from the Republicans.
And then I had a flash of out-of-the-box thinking. I came up with a way that we progressives can eat our cake, and have it too. Follow me past the break to see my plan, and let me know what you think.
Before I lay out my plan, let me tell you how the plan would be implemented.
One weekend this summer, Howard Dean would call an emergency Democratic National Convention. Party committee members, elected officials and high-level operatives would be invited to the convention, with mandatory attendance — but it would be a closed session. No one not invited would be allowed to attend. Media members would be held incommunicado until the very end of the convention, when Dean would make his blockbuster announcement:
The Democratic Party has been dissolved. As of the end of the convention, it would no longer field candidates, and would no longer have any legal status except as a caretaker shell charged with disposing of the assets of the party.
In its place, Dr. Dean would institute a new party. Let’s called it the Progressive Party, even though there have been several other Progressive Parties and there may currently be one in existence. It’s just a name, and this is just a proposal.
All national assets of the Democratic Party would be transferred to the Progressive Party. In addition, all state Democratic organizations would now operative under the Progressive banner.
The Progressive Party would unveil a set of core principles it would expect Progressive candidates to support as members of the party. Individual elected officials would be free to accept or reject these principles as they saw fit, and those who chose to not accept them would be wished well in their future endeavors elsewhere.
And then, we Progressives would get to work.
Now at this point you may be wondering if Omir has cracked under the strain. Why would you obliterate the Democratic Party in one breath only to restart it in the next?
The answer is fairly complex, but it comes down to this: The Republicans have spent 40 years demonizing Liberals and Democrats in this country, to the point where it is taken as an article of faith that Democrats don’t stand for anything, are weak and spineless, are soft on national defense, and are borderline traitors only because they aren’t organized enough to find the border. With this simple stroke we take all of that away. From that point on the Republicans would have to start trying to demonize the Progressives by saying they don’t stand for anything . . .
Ah, but wait. Remember the part about the core set of principles? I stole that idea from the Green Party, and I think it’s a great idea. It tells you up front what the Greens stand for. This way, when a Republican says the Democrats are soft on terrorists, our talking head can say, “Wait a minute, you’re talking about a party that no longer exists. You may not have noticed, but the Progressive Party stands for a strong national defense. It says so right here in our Core Principles. That stands in sharp contrast to the Republicans, who have actually made America’s defenses weaker by . . . ” and then launch into the laundry list of the ways Republicans have harmed this country’s ability to defend itself.
I don’t mind stealing ideas. In fact I stole the main idea for this diary from a favorite business tactic: reinventing the business. Just as an example, about the time the Surgeon General’s report on tobacco came out, tobacco companies started finding themselves vilified by Certain Outside Parties. Kraft Foods, for instance, suffered by its association with tobacco giant Philip Morris. The solution? Relaunch! Philip Morris was effectively reborn as Altria Corporation. Philip Morris USA is still a division of Altria, but now only one among several. Problem solved!
Many businesses have risen from the ashes by reinventing themselves, sometimes with new names. Movie stars carefully put their images together. Whoever heard of Melvin Kaminsky before he changed his name to Mel Brooks? Would anybody think Marshal Mathers wasn’t Jerry’s brother if he hadn’t changed his name to Eminem? So why can’t a political party do the same? This would give the new party a fresh new start. “Democrats? No, that was a different party. We’re Progressives. We do things differently!” It would give progressives a chance to choose new colors, a new icon, and most importantly, a new direction by articulating the core principles mentioned above and sticking to them. By making sure these core principles are inclusive items Americans have shown they want and need — health care, education, opportunity, community, a strong economy, a strong defense — the party would give Americans a reason to vote Progressive that’s better than “We aren’t Republicans!”. It would also jettison the baggage the Democrats have been saddled with for the past 40 years and more. No more a party of atheist surrender monkeys, no more a party of traitors and sellouts, the Progressive Party would work toward those goals the Democrats should be working toward, but are prevented from now because they’ve been cowed into submission by the Republicans.
Howard Dean could continue to do what he’s working toward now with the Democratic party — rebuild it from the grass roots up. Only now everything wuold be rebuilt on the bones of the old structure. We wouldn’t have to start from scratch to create a national party like we would if we were to form a new party out of whole cloth and elbow grease.
And as an added bonus, no longer would Republicans be able to use “Democrat” as an adjective, as in “the liberal Democrat agenda.”
There would be officeholders who would be unwilling or unable to go along with the change. That’s fine, but they would then be on their own. They could remain Democrats if they liked, but the term would cease to have any real meaning with no money or party structure behind it. Some would probably feel more comfortable as Republicans, which actually would be a good thing in my humble opinion. Some of the more centrist Democrats defecting to the Republican side might help bring the GOP back from the brink it teeters on now. Some former Democrats might prefer to be independent rather than sign on to the set of Progressive core values. That’s fine too, but I’m willing to guess that the vast majority would sign on with the program and that the local Progressive parties would be able to field replacements for them. To paraphrase George Patton, when you’ve got them by their wallets, their hearts and minds will follow.
I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons why this is too good an idea to ever take hold, not the least of which would be the inevitable disruption that would come of making such a radical change. But tell me this: Would it not be better to have a bit of disruption than to continue with things the way they are? Is the possibility of a strong, coherent alternative to one-party rule that could be competitive not in 40 years, not in 8 years but most likely in 2 years or even right now not better than the disorganized mess that has been the state of Democrats since the days when Will Rogers declared that he was not a member of any organized political party?
Think about it.
Think about the ideas I’ve presented above and please, tear them apart. Rip them limb from limb. Come up with reasons why it won’t work. Please, don’t just say “It will never work” — tell me why it won’t work. Then everyone else, please tear those reasons apart, or come up with alternatives.
I’m not sure this idea would ever take hold. I wrote the diary in a white flash of inspiration. But I do know that there’s a saying by Albert Einstein that goes something like “We can never solve our problems by using the same sort of thinking that got us into those problems in the first place.” I’m trying to think “outside the box” with ideas for breaking the Republican stranglehold on American life, culture and especially politics. Please help me.
Party committee members, elected officials and high-level operatives would be invited to the convention, with mandatory attendance — but it would be a closed session.
But, some of the party members and elected officials ignore our concerns or use the carrot and stick approach, so, it seems to me that, inviting them could possibly defeat the purpose.
Also, since the ideas/platforms of 3rd parties have taken on such and influence, why exclude 3rd parties and their supporters?
Said earlier, historically 3rd parties have dissolved due to the fact that another party adopted their platforms–will use the same example–Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.
And, who’s to say that a platform of a 3rd party wouldn’t be “adopted” and not implemented, as has happenned in the past?
Good idea, but it doesn’t sound realistic, IMO.
No, I doubt that it’s realistic, but IMHO it’s more realistic than trying to build a new party from the ground up.
As for not inviting the third parties, the entire reason for this would be to remake the Democratic Party into something that’s basically the same, but better. Others would be allowed to join in after the fact, and in fact might do so, but this would have to start out to be an entirely Democratic affair.
I understand your concern about people who ignore our concerns — well, let’s make “responsiveness to the people we represent” part of the Core Principles that anyone who stays on with the new party has to sign on to. Hold performance reviews (sometimes they’re called “elections”) to make sure they actually do listen to their constituents rather than just paying lip service and going back to business as usual. Again, anyone who doesn’t want to do this would be free to seek their fortune somewhere else.
Like I said, I’m just trying to think outside the box. Nobody seems to be happy with the way things are now, so maybe it’s time to shake it up a little. Or a lot.
the entire reason for this would be to remake the Democratic Party into something that’s basically the same, but better. Others would be allowed to join in after the fact, and in fact might do so, but this would have to start out to be an entirely Democratic affair.
Don’t follow your reasoning…
Which part? The part about it starting out as an all-Democratic effort, or the part about being the same, but better?
Like I say below, two things would be changing. First, the name. Second, the focus. As in, with the core principles, the “new” party would have a focus. Right now there is none. Howard Dean would be running the PNC. Dwight Pelz would be the Washington state Progressive chairman. Presumably John Kerry and Edward Kennedy would still be Progressive senators from Massachusetts.
The difference would be, the new party would have a focus and direction. It would have the core principles as a defining document. Anyone who thought the core principles are a good idea would be welcome. On the other hand, there will be people who don’t agree with the idea of “universal health care” or “people before profits” (assuming those are core principles, which I think they should be). Those people would either have to get on board with the principles, or move to a different party. Or stay Democrats, just without the backing of what used to be the Democratic party structure.
As far as being an all-Democratic effort, well, that’s my concept of a place to start. Others would be welcome to join in, but since the former Democrats would be the ones starting the new party, they would get to do the fundamental organization.
I will admit that I could be wrong about any or all of this. I’m not married to the details. The only parts of this proposal I think are necessary are:
And if the truth be told, the only one of these I’m really married to is the third one. If someone else can come up with a better plan for revitalizing the 50%+ of this country that wants to keep it from turning into a kleptocratic dictatorship, by all means, put the idea forward and let’s hash ’em out. But I’ll tell you, I haven’t heard one yet, which is why I’m trying to think outside the box.
The idea that the old ways aren’t working, and it’s time to think of some new ideas that will work
Guess we just don’t agree re: 3rd parties!
Perhaps not. But like I said, convince me. This proposal is all about the rebuilding of this particular party. If a third party joins in with it, they become part of the new party. If they just follow along, they’re still a third party with no mass and no chance of making a dent in the rigged system in this country.
In the scheme I proposed I’m all in favor of stealing ideas from third parties. I stole the idea of a set of core principles wholesale from the Greens. And why not? It’s a good one, and it’s worked, although in unwritten form, for the Republicans. Everyone knows what the Republican are supposed to stand for.
This diary looks like it’s pretty well played out, but I may do another version and put it up on Big Orange in a day or two, if only to kick the beehive a little with a headline like “It’s Time To Disband The Democratic Party.” That should get some attention. <grin>
We’re going in circles here…read some history.
Perhaps we are, but I’m afraid an admonition to “read some history” isn’t going to break us out of it (though it’s good advice in any case).
Am a history nut, in addition to being interested in politics, and I like to read–so, of course I love the blogs and the net!
(Also have been digging into Medicare D and a single payer system/info.)
link to it when you post on dkos, i’ll recommend. aslo we just disagree re: 3rd parties, as i said earlier.
Thanks. I will. And re: disagreement: Fair enough. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and in fact I don’t even know what most of the questions are. If anyone comes up with better ideas for some variation of this, I think that’d be great. I’m a firm believer in the adage that you can get an amazing amount of work done when nobody cares who gets the credit for it.
I’m glad you are thinking outside the box.
This is a purely legal response, but after all I am a corporate lawyer.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to simply change the name and adopt a set of principles? Then you don’t have to do all the asset transfers, figure out who can approve a dissolution/merger/consolidation (whatever), apply for new 501 status, figure out if all the bylaws of state organizations need to be changed, figure out where the charter of the DNC requires its assets to go if its dissolves, get all the leases assigned to the new entity, ….. Sorry, like I said, I’m a corporate lawyer.
In the end, wouldn’t it be easier to just change the name, adopt a set of principles and then do some BRANDING WORK on the new name.
Although I suspect that the Republicans would always refer to it as “the party formerly known as the Democrats”.
But there are good ideas too. You are trying to work with what we have – which really practical. That’s what we need to do — work with what we have to achieve revolution.
I’m not a lawyer. I’ve never even played one on TV. So if something like what you propose would work better, that’s fine. I started out thinking along the lines of a place you can point to and say “This is where we made a complete break with the past.” But I’m not married to that particular idea.
Trust me, if anyone were to think this would be a way to go, there would be enough lawyers to go around to make it happen. ๐
As for what the Republicans would say: Screw ’em. They’ll say stuff like that no matter what. The Republican response to this is at the very bottom of the list of things to worry about, somewhere right below what colot to paint the office walls and what newspaper to buy to line the bird cages.
True, lawyers could make it happen if everyone wanted it to. But it sounded like you were going for speed and a surprise. And these things take months. In corporations its possible to force people to keep quiet about these things by contract (or because of SEC rules). Those public announcements that the board just announced something — its been in the works for months. The formal action by the board is the LAST step.
There’s no way that the Dems could keep quiet about it for more than — a few minutes? And once everyone starts arguing about it in public — momentum is gone. Just sayin it would be best to keep it simple.
Okay I’m not the most politically sharpest branch on the tree… er whatever… but this has hope and truth in it that the Democrats have yanked from me these past 6 years.
My wee brain must absorb this all and respond when I have something worthy ๐
Thanks Janet, I hope there’s an idea in this diary that we can use, if only “We need to come up with a new set of ideas.”
up a mess is is to toss everything into one big pile and sort it out at once. So let’s lock them in the room (like Reid did to the Senate!) and go for it.
I think this is a great idea…so how do we get Howard Dean on board?
Invite him over to the Cafe. One of those Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters they serve in there and he’ll be most agreeable. ๐
I don’t know what the best way to get this moving would be. I’m just the idea guy. Maybe we can get someone on the staff to convince him it was his idea all along (hi, Tim, if you’re reading).
Omir: Sometime ago, I wondered aloud here if the Dems could/should have a mid term year convention to get their collective acts together before the campaign season. I like that part of your idea. I have doubts about the effectiveness of the name change thing. My initial reaction is that everyone will see it as a transparent attempt to change our image. I think our image will change when we actually band together, define our core values, and stick to them. Once it becomes difficult to say, “the Dems don’t stand for anything, they stand for everything”, we become electable. IMO
I remember the part about the yearly convention; I don’t remember it was you.
As fpr whether changing the name of the party would be effective, of course it would be transparent. No one with an IQ above ambient temperature would be fooled into thinking it was a brand new, a priori party. But the idea is to be able to let the Republicans define the Democrats, because the Democrats would no longer exist. The two ideas of the rebranding of the party and the adoption of a core set of values would have to go hand in hand. Then party spokesmen would be able to say both “Let the Republicans talk about Democrats all they like. That’s all in the past.” and “Progressives stand for (fill in the blank) — see, it says so right here in our Core Values.”
This also goes to the idea, which I tend to ridicule, of a corporate mission statement. Some corporations have buzzword mission statements that even the people who wrote them don’t understand. Microsoft’s is, or was (I haven’t checked to see if it still is) very simple: “A computer in every home and on every desktop, running Microsoft software.” A mission statement like that lets a manager or worker say, “What have you done today to help put a computer in every home and on every office, and have it run Microsoft software?”
Likewise, the Core Principles would speak to the same idea. “Senator, does what you’re doing right now advance the idea of universal education for every American under the age of 20? If not, why not?”
And lastly, don’t underestimate the power of a name change. Hasbro long ago figured out that boys don’t play with dolls. Dolls are sissy. But give them action figures . . . yeah! Yes, of course G I Joe is a doll. I spent a couple hundred dollars on dolls like that for my boys when they were that age. But if we had called them dolls, we probably never would have spent a dime.
It could work, as long as you keep in mind that the Democrats are not intended to oppose US policies, but to frame them more attractively, and suggest more efficient modalities for implementing them. which as far as I can tell, you have done.
You have not suggested that the re-formed and re-framed Democrats oppose the crusades, torture, kidnapping, or any of the other laundry list of crimes against humanity that define America for the rest of the world.
Nor have you suggested that medical treatment not be a commercial product, another fundamental American value, nor have you mentioned a Living Wage, judicial reform, equal protection under the law, women’s right to own their own bodies as an inalienable right that cannot be abridged by any court, none of those issues that could make your new Democrats vulnerable to charges of being “leftist,” or “anti-business.”
And it sounds spectacular and grand gestural enough so that at least some of those who have felt let down by some of their admired Democratic politicians just might get those checkbooks back out!
And even if they don’t, that’s a very small fringe sector anyway. The re-framed Democrats won’t need them any more than the old ones do.
Thank you for coming in. I thought this diary was headed for oblivion. (Well, it is, but that’s another story.)
Really, I want the core values to be broad enough to not be limiting, but not so broad as to be meaningless. They need to be ideas that the nutjobs who would rail against this new party would look like idiots to oppose. That’s a hard act to pull off. A lot of what you mention above can come under any of various headings such as “individual privacy,” “people before profits,” “a strong defense for America” and the like without coming out and explicitly stating that one of the ways you defend America is by not doing things that make people want to attack you, or that a right to privacy entails allowing a woman to make her own medical choices, with all that that implies.
Somebody smarter than me is going to have to pull off that particular feat.
“people before profits” you lose the corporations, and once you lose the corporations, you are no longer participating in US politics, so you might as well join up with the Liberty Coalition as they copy and tweak the platform of the Peace and Freedom Party!
The problem is, it is not a question of being smart enough, but if you do not specifically say, we will cease aggression and covert activities and use the money to provide health care to our citizens, or some such, all of your traditional Democrats – and their corporate sponsors will interpret “srong defense” to mean “strong quarterly report for Raytheon & ilk” just like they do now!
In other words, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so my advice is to give in to your inner Revolutionary, and let the empire go the way of all dust. ๐
That’s why I think someone smarter than me has to take this on. I’m pretty smart, but when it comes to cause-and-effect in politics sometimes my IQ drops about 50 points.
Then again, take a look at what Howard Dean has done with the Democrats. The big donors are complaining — no, they’re hopping mad — that the DNC is collecting all the money they’re collecting and paying little or no attention to them. I would hope that by building a party that promises to listen to us poor slobs out here working too hard to put food on the table and keep our kids from dying of burst appendices and abcessed teeth, us poor slobs would return the favor by funding the party so they don’t have to turn to the big-dollar donors.
As for the bit about defense, I would also like to think that this new party could bring about a complete reform of the military, turning it from being the world’s policemen and making it more of a defence force capable of effecting some real homeland security rather than going out looking for trouble. Kind of like when my wife plays strategic games with a military component (things like Age of Empires or Alpha Centauri) — she never starts pre-emptive wars on her opponents, but in her words, she wants to make sure that if someone reaches out and hits her, they draw back a bloody stump.
But that also ties into one of my deeply-held beliefs, which is that we Americans really don’t understand what’s going on out in the world and a little bit of cooperation with other countries would go a lot farther than patting them on the head and promising them Kentucky Fried Chicken and five hundred channels of satellite TV when what they really need is electricity, jobs, food, medicine and a prospect of a better life than what they have now — on their terms, not ours.
Yeah, yeah, I know, fantasy librul tree hugger touchy-feely talk. But proving to the Atab in the street that we American can actually do something other than roll into their country and offer them colonialism disguised as democracy would do a great deal to cut the support out from underneath groups like al-Qaeda. Treat the disease, not the symptoms, as it were. I occasionally think it’s a pity that “The Ugly American” was written almost 50 years ago and almost nobody knows about it today. (I’ll bet you’re familiar with the book.)
Hey, as long as I’m living in Fantasyland with my idea of reforming the Democrats I might as well start out asking Santa for all the goodies I want, knowing that if someone besides a few of us thought it was a good diea and started working to make it happen, it would slip into mediocrity soon enough. There’s no sense in starting out compromising, because when you do that you never get more of what you really want.
The wall you keep running into is that rich men want more money, and they don’t really care how their more money-obtaining activities affect you, or Mr. and Mrs. Iraqi or Mr. and Mrs. Haitian, etc.
And no amount of IQ in the world can change that. However, at various times in history, in various places, people have come up with ways to prevent the rich men from getting more money, even though they still might want it.
History can teach us a lot, even relatively recent history, like the reasons US created what many Americans refer to as “Al Qaeda,” although now, “Al Qaeda,” even Washington concedes, has morphed.
What they mean is, it has morphed into anyone who opposes or resists US policies. It might have morphed into you!
Oh, most likely, because as I pointed out last summer, Damn Straight, I’m The Enemy!