Platform Progress

The Democratic Party is beginning to take its platform seriously. That development may help us rebuild the Party into an activist organization that fights for its platform year-round.

When I discuss that possibility with my taxi passengers, they respond enthusiastically.

Last night, Bernie Sanders, in his address to more than 200,000 supporters, said:

I look forward, in the coming weeks, to continue discussions between the two campaigns to make certain that your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda. I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors (emphases added).

This year’s drafting process is a step in the direction of full, deliberate participation. A series of public hearings are being held to elicit testimony and Democrats have been invited to submit written testimony, as did I with "To the Drafting Committee: Build a Strong Party."

In an unprecedented move, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) invited the losing candidate, Sanders, to place a significant number of members on the platform drafting committee. In addition, the DNC itself placed on that committee other Democrats who have strong progressive credentials.

On June 15, concerning the drafting process, the New Republic concluded:

The platform is only as powerful as those willing to use it, and last week’s events suggest great interest in making it a foundational document rather than an afterthought. In the short term, the platform can build a peace between Sanders and Clinton. In the long term, it’s how lasting change gets forged (emphases added).

Bernie's commitment to help transform the Democratic Party into an organization that fights for its platform reinforces that possibility.

No doubt, as the New Republic detailed in “The Split,” the Party faces “a series of deep and growing fissures among Democrats, along a wide range of complex fault lines—from age and race to gender and ideology.” But as Hillary has said, those differences largely concern means, not ends.

Bernie’s simple soundbites worked well for his campaign. But as Mark Schmitt argued in a New York Times op-ed, the issues are complicated. Formulating agreement on policy positions will require sophistication and flexibility. Hopefully, Bernie and his supporters will demonstrate those skills, which does not preclude some votes at the convention.

By reminding one another of how rank-and-file Democrats agree on basic long-term goals and values, hopefully we can keep our differences in context, and compromise concerning short-term methods. Then, over the course of the next four years, we can study the issues, follow developments, and engage in the drafting of the next platform.

Those who fail this year can push their position during the next cycle and perhaps prevail then. Regardless, without anyone violating any of their core principles, hopefully most Democrats will be largely supportive of the platform that emerges, without discounting the value of angry gadflies and other approaches.

Then, with a resolve not to forget about the platform after the convention, Democrats can experiment with ways to fight for that platform.

Here, here, and here, I’ve argued for developing precinct-based clubs that would enable neighbors to work together to build the Party. That effort could nurture face-to-face community, which could help fill a void that is growing in modern society. By addressing that and other local needs, the Party could help expand its base of active members, who could learn from one another how to become more effective activists. They could, for example, study and discuss the platform throughout the year so they could better discuss it with others.

A few weeks ago I proposed to Democratic clubs in San Francisco that they engage in year-round precinct organizing and “encourage the entire Democratic Party to do the same.” Two days ago, the District Five Democratic Club, which covers my neighborhood, told me that they “would be interested in working together on this effort” and invited me to attend their next meeting and “discuss your goals and plans.”

That response is encouraging. Hopefully the club will ask the San Francisco Democratic Party to undertake ongoing precinct organizing. If potential participants know that the project is a city-wide effort to establish a model that could spread nationwide, they might be more likely to participate.

One thoughtful friend has advised that we focus on defeating Trump and “when that's done, get back to movement-building.” He said he does not see “a long-term call increasing get-out-the-vote efforts between now and November.”

I disagree. I believe a positive, longer-term vision could inspire many currently inactive people to participate more than a narrow, negative, short-term focus on defeating Trump. That is especially true if Trump continues to self-destruct. (His chances of winning on Predictwise, which is highly reliable, has fallen from 40% to 25%.)

It’s not either/or. Self-organizing precinct clubs need not require major funding or take away from other efforts. Rather, by attracting inactive people with an inspiring vision, it could increase available person-hours. Moreover, with crowdfunding appeals for financial contributions to specifically support year-round precinct organizing, people who relate to this particular idea might provide the minimal required funding.

By focusing heavily on the next election, Democrats have neglected building a real Party that can help them win future elections. As with businesses and personal lives, this short-term focus on immediate gratification ultimately undermines growth.

Though it can be improved, the Democratic Party structure is already remarkably democratic. If like-minded people forge enough unity and assert themselves within that structure, we can transform the Party into an activist organization that fights for its platform and serves local needs year-round.

The 2016 platform may be a tool to enhance that transformation.

After California

To be effective, we must overcome our fragmentation and build a national, multi-issue organization with muscle that can quickly mobilize supporters in a timely manner.

Fortunately, Bernie has built a network that can help form that powerful, bottom-up, grassroots coalition focused on national policy. He’s already won. What’s most important is building that organization. After California, Bernie should declare victory and help us build that organization.

Recently, here, here, here, and here, I’ve presented some ideas about how we could proceed to advance political revolution. Most respondents have said those ideas are sensible.

But Bernie may stick with his top-down, ideology-driven approach.

When Tavis Smiley asked him if has learned from mistakes made during the campaign, the only specific he shared was that he should have “reached out” more, as he was doing by appearing on that show. He needs to go deeper.

To become more effective, we need to learn from the weaknesses in Bernie’s campaign. Those weaknesses are reflected in much of our activism.

Bernie’s single-issue focus on economic justice is limiting. Even now, after months of criticism, for example, he and his supporters rarely use the words “racism” and “sexism,” much less talk about the need to examine our own conditioning and monitor our own behavior.

Economic populism is not enough. We also, as Hillary has, need to affirm intersectional politics and the importance of becoming more compassionate in our personal lives.

Bernie has exposed the myth that Big Money controls the system. He will not fail to get the nomination because the system is rigged or because “the Establishment” undercut him. He has come up short because there were problems with both the message and the messenger.

Big Money is a big problem. But Big Money is not in control. We the people have the power. But rather than uniting, individuals and individual organizations focus on their own self-interest. We thereby relinquish power to those who administer our social system.

Another problem with Bernie and many other progressives is the heavy reliance on ideas. The goal is to persuade others to do what we want them to do.

Instead, we need to build organizations that inspire collaboration and enable people to work together as co-equals to create new ideas.

In my taxi, when I ask, “Are you following the Presidential campaigns,” I am repeatedly impressed with how informed, concerned, and astute my passengers are. We need to develop new inspiring opportunities for those people to collaborate.

How to structure our organizations needs attention. Instead, activists focus on policies.

My passengers, most of whom support Bernie, have told me that neither they nor anyone they know will fail to vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. That’s a relief. It seems the “Bernie or Bust” caucus, though loud on social media, is small.

A number of people I respect who’ve voted for Bernie or have been planning to vote for him in California have told me their enthusiasm is declining. Their reasons merit attention. The problem is not Bernie's politics. They still support his principles. The issue is Bernie’s style.

They complain about his “rant,” find him too “self-righteous,” don’t care for his ad hominem attacks on Hillary, and/or worry that he will fight too hard too long, thereby hurting the Democratic Party and Hillary’s chances in November.

One of my passengers, Judy Reuter, later emailed me:

I think Sanders has become less focused on his ideas and more focused on simply trying to win the Democratic nomination via character assassination.  I'm not sure why he has taken this turn, but I believe this makes it less likely that he will change any moderate minds.  Instead of persuading people to recognize the value of his progressive ideas, his tactics have a polarizing effect, with the result that now he is preaching only to the choir.  Anyone who doesn't agree with his negative view of Clinton will simply stop taking Sanders seriously on any subject, and will have less interest in supporting any progressive ideas that might make their way into the party platform.

Sanders was doing a good thing for the country and for the Democratic party when he was getting people to listen and take his ideas seriously.   I believe his turn to negative campaigning has caused him to lose a lot of ground with people whose minds might have been changed but who will react badly to what will be seen as the progressives' attempt to hijack the party machinery with strong-arm tactics.  Democratic voters needed persuasion to become more progressive.   An attempted hostile takeover of the Democratic convention is going to have the opposite effect.

I keep thinking about the anti-LBJ, anti-Humphrey movement in the sixties, in which we all expressed our disdain for "the establishment" and ended up with Richard Nixon for our troubles; or the Ralph Nader supporters whose rejection of the Democratic Party and its nominee helped give us Bush the Second.  This time the possible consequence of Sanders' supporters trashing Clinton's reputation is the unthinkable election of Donald Trump.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

Hillary Clinton is not transparent. She’s guarded, chooses her words carefully, wants to be loved by everyone, including the 1%, and shifts with the wind. It’s impossible to know what she really believes.

That lack of transparency means it’s impossible to declare she’s corrupt. We can’t read her mind. We can’t know if and when she acts dishonestly.

And her flexibility is a strength. With elected officials, the ability to compromise is valuable. If she’s elected and we the people pressure her, she will listen. Non-ideological pragmatism rooted in humanistic values holds more potential than does economic populism.

I no longer fear a Trump victory. He’s proving to be incompetent and the media is beginning to challenge him.

But I am still worried that Bernie and his supporters, rather than merely pushing their positions respectfully, will go into the Democratic convention with an uncompromising fury that will hurt the Party and undermine prospects for transforming it. 

If he wins California, that scenario is more likely. So, though I still believe economic justice should be a major plank in a transformative platform, I voted for Hillary in the California primary.

Some old friends will therefore dismiss me as an “enemy,” which is at the heart of our problem.

To the Drafting Committee: Build a Strong Party

Earlier today I sent the following to the Democratic Party platform drafting committee:

Concerning the platform, I recommend:

1. Make It Binding. Establish in the platform that the Democratic National Committee will only back candidates who support the platform.
2. Keep It Short. Make the platform concise so the general public will more likely read it.
3. Organizing Tool. Commit the Democratic Party to fight for its platform year-round with the following methods:
1. Distribute It Widely. Print, post, and widely distribute the platform throughout the country.
2. Monthly Forums. Encourage Democratic officeholders to hold monthly public meetings with their constituents to dialog about their efforts.
3. Precinct-based Clubs. Encourage local Democratic parties to form self-governing precinct-based clubs committed to nurturing face-to-face community, building the Party, and advancing the platform.

There’s no good reason to forget about the platform after the convention. Americans should know what the Party stands for.

Help build the Democratic Party into a stable, strong, coherent organization with clear goals.

Thank you for your consideration and all that you do.

I will also apply to testify in person at the committee’s Phoenix hearing, where I hope to present these (and perhaps other) ideas.

NOTE: Last week I addressed those issues in the following posts to Wade's Wire:

• “The System” or “The Establishment”?
• Make It Binding?
• Why Forget the Platform?
• Overcoming Despair
• Can We Build a Strong Democratic Party?

Don’t Follow Leaders

By Wade Hudson

Blind loyalty to Trump is scary. But the reluctance of Bernie’s followers to criticize their candidate is cause for concern.

In New York magazine,” Andrew Sullivan writes:

It is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment....  He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.
...What mainly fuels this is precisely what the Founders feared about democratic culture: feeling, emotion, and narcissism, rather than reason, empiricism, and public-spiritedness. Online debates become personal, emotional, and irresolvable almost as soon as they begin.
...The more emotive the candidate, the more supporters he or she will get.
...Sarah Palin emerged as proof that an ardent Republican, branded as an outsider,... could also triumph in this new era.
...In Eric Hoffer’s classic 1951 tract, The True Believer, he sketches the dynamics of a genuine mass movement.… Hoffer’s core insight was to locate the source of all truly mass movements in a collective sense of acute frustration. Not despair, or revolt, or resignation — but frustration simmering with rage.
...These working-class communities, already alienated, hear — how can they not? — the glib and easy dismissals of “white straight men” as the ultimate source of all our woes. They smell the condescension and the broad generalizations about them — all of which would be repellent if directed at racial minorities — and see themselves, in Hoffer’s words, “disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things.”
...Mass movements, Hoffer argues, are distinguished by a “facility for make-believe … credulity, a readiness to attempt the impossible.”
...The most powerful engine for such a movement — the thing that gets it off the ground, shapes and solidifies and entrenches it — is always the evocation of hatred. It is, as Hoffer put it, “the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying elements.”
...What makes Trump uniquely dangerous in the history of American politics — with far broader national appeal than, say, Huey Long or George Wallace — is…the threat of blunt coercion and dominance.
...Trump is an extinction-level event. It’s long past time we started treating him as such.

That analysis struck me as compelling. But Sullivan also included a provocative assertion that caused me to pause and reconsider my thoughts about the election. He declared:

Those still backing the demagogue of the left, Bernie Sanders, might want to reflect that their critique of Clinton’s experience and expertise — and their facile conflation of that with corruption — is only playing into Trump’s hands.

His statement prompted me to post some specific criticisms of Bernie on Facebook and Wade’s Wire (I’m posting 300-word pieces there daily), including:

• The Future of the Democratic Party
• Scapegoating, Violence, and Bernie’s Campaign
• Admitting Mistakes
• Bernie and Racism

Though my criticisms were within the context of overall strong support for Bernie, a number of readers objected. Some replied with non sequiturs that merely praised Bernie and avoided the issue. One said my point was so obvious that stating it was a “jab.” Another insisted Bernie’s record is “impeccable.”

Some of those and other Bernie supporters display a bothersome cult-like loyalty. His campaign has some of the same oppressive characteristics seen in Trump’s, as described by Plato, Hoffer, and Sullivan. All forms of populism are dangerous. On Wade’s Wire, I address some of those dangers.

Who’s elected President is less important than developing an inclusive, bottom-up, national activist organization that can effectively pressure Congress and the White House.

I’m still hoping that Bernie will help build that organization. The door is open.

An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders

Bernie, you’re doing great. Keep pushing.

Win as many delegates as you can and, if the time comes, sit down with Hillary to rebuild the Democratic Party into an activist organization that serves local needs and fights for its platform year-round.

There’s no good reason to ignore the platform after the convention. It should be concise, clear, and powerful and the focus for organizing throughout the year throughout the country.

Get the strongest possible platform.

Make the Party more democratic.

And beat Trump.

Organize small precinct-based clubs that:

• Nurture face-to-face community.
• Work together to make the world a better place.
• And organize their own activities to advance the Democratic Party platform.

Among other options, club members could devote at least a few hours a month to:

• Share a meal.
• Turn off phones.
• Discuss issues.
• Listen to and learn from one another.
• Get involved in the local Democratic Party.
• Meet up to call voters in swing states.
• Go together to volunteer at a soup kitchen.
• Register voters.
• Organize a picnic and invite neighbors.
• Develop friendships.
• Acknowledge mistakes and help one another become more effective.

Maybe Hillary will join you in getting the Party to organize precinct clubs. If not, you and your supporters can organize a Precinct Organizing Caucus within the Party and elect representatives to develop proposals for the 2020 Democratic Party platform.

Your platform is excellent, but it can be improved. You can do more to address racism, for example. Lead with humility.

The Democratic Party is already a remarkably democratic, inclusive, bottom-up coalition with a relatively solid platform.

Let’s transform it into an activist organization that promotes evolutionary political revolution.

With your leadership, we can do it.

Bernie's New Organization: A Democratic Party Caucus?

Comments by Jane Sanders, Bernie’s senior adviser, on the April 28 Rachel Maddow Show led me to a new idea: Bernie could form an organization dedicated to rebuilding the Democratic Party. That group might become an official Party caucus. Regardless, it could retain some independence, while working within the Democratic Party.

When asked if Bernie will pursue his commitment to revitalize the Democratic Party if he doesn't get the nomination, Sanders replied:

We want to change the agenda of the Democratic Party. Let's have an open Party. Let's have open primaries and same-day registration…. We need real electoral reform. Bernie has brought millions into the process, but with closed primaries, the Democratic Party is closing the door on them. If the Democratic Party wants to grow, I don't know why you would do that. 

Maddow then asked, “Do you see an organization being formed?” Sanders responded:

Yes. That has always been the intent. Right from the beginning it has been a two-pronged approach: Run for President, and the most important thing is not electing Bernie President. The most important thing is starting a political revolution. That will have to continue..... If he's not the nominee, it becomes even more important. We have to make sure that the agenda moves forward.... There are a lot of things that could be changed pretty easily if people came together and focused on them one at a time.

I find those comments encouraging. As I’ve argued in “Bernie Can Do It” and elsewhere,  I believe Bernie should push to transform the Democratic Party into an activist organization that serves local needs and fights for its platform year-round.  

Toward that end, it needs to be bottom-up, democratic, and inclusive, while providing members the opportunity to shape the organization’s goals. The Democratic Party already meets those criteria to a considerable degree. Bernie and his supporters can make it even more so. They can push to democratize the Democratic Party, help make its platform as strong as possible, actively support that platform, and grow relationships that nurture evolutionary revolution.

Building a democratic, member-controlled national organization is not easy. When Jesse Jackson formed the Rainbow Coalition after his campaign for President, he insisted on appointing the leaders of state chapters, which discouraged participation. After his election in 2008, the Obama campaign decided against either reforming the Democratic Party or encouraging the development of local, self-governing units with considerable latitude to shape their own activities. 

But some unions, activist organizations, and the Democratic Party have established structures that empower members. One option is for rank-and-file members to elect leaders to local bodies, who elect statewide leaders, who elect national leaders. The organization can then establish national policies and authorize local bodies to be self-governing so long as their actions are consistent with national policies. Another option is for the members to elect national leaders directly.

Hoping that Bernie will eventually support their effort, some former Sanders staff members have formed Brand New Congress to support candidates in 2018 Congressional elections. But their approach seems too top-down. Their website is not transparent. It does not describe the organization’s structure, identify who is making decisions, or indicate if the leadership is inclusive and broadly representative. They declare their intent to support candidates in 2018 who back Bernie's 2016 program. But that platform is not the final word. Over time, it will need to be improved. Who will make those decisions? They’ve apparently already decided to back one candidate in every race. Focusing on certain races might be more effective. They will “in general” only back individuals who “have never held or sought public office.” That decision seems questionable. They say they will handle “the logistics of running a campaign [and] let candidates focus on the issues.” That centralized approach could dis-empower local activists. They envision challenging Republican incumbents in Republican primaries. A focus on Democrats seems to hold more potential. They say they will only support incumbents who are “already on board” with Bernie’s platform. But Bernie and his supporters may persuade the Convention to adopt a strong platform that still falls short of everything that Bernie is proposing. It’s not clear if Brand New Congress would support that strengthened platform.

An inside-out strategy requires a delicate balance. We need a powerful, independent force that pushes reform without burning bridges. We cannot insist on getting everything immediately. Persistence, negotiation, and compromise are required. I fear Brand New Congress will not engage in the kind of collaboration that is need to rebuild and reform the Democratic Party.

My hope is that Bernie’s new organization will avoid those pitfalls and adopt a more democratic approach. Shifting from an electoral campaign, which is necessarily top-down, to community organizing, which needs to be participatory, is not easy. But Bernie needs to do it, with humility.

Given the surprises we’ve witnessed this campaign season, trying to predict the future would be foolhardy.

Bernie Can Do It

It's not too late. Bernie may still lead a revolution. What he does with his database will indicate his direction and our prospects. 

A revolution needs an organization with a clear mission, a long-term strategy, short-term victories to build momentum, the ability to modify methods as conditions change, and  a structure to involve members in key decision-making. And to sustain itself over time, it can’t be dependent on any one leader.  

By rooting itself in small, self-governing clubs, Bernie’s revolution could enhance its effectiveness by nurturing face-to-face community. By serving local needs -- personal, social, and environmental -- it could build loyalty to the organization. By being member-run, it could enable members to “own” the organization. By authorizing members to define their own activities within the framework of the organization’s goals, it could deepen member involvement, enhance self-empowerment, and provide the opportunity for meaningful engagement. By growing supportive communities, it could aid members in helping one another become more effective. 

Electing Congresspersons who support Bernie’s platform, as some former Sanders staffers are preparing to do, could be beneficial. But it is not sufficient. We also need a broad, inclusive, democratic organization with the muscle to fight for its platform, regardless of who is elected.

After the Convention, Bernie may decide to use top-down methods to continue to push his own agenda. Hopefully, he’ll take a different path, because his “single-issue” platform, with its economic focus, is limited. 

When other non-economic issues are raised, Bernie quickly shifts to his “more serious” issues. In fact, however, non-economic issues are integral to the social system that we must transform. 

Our primary problem is not the concentration of wealth and power. Rather, it is “the system,” which is woven into our entire society -- our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals. The system leads most young people to believe they will be rich some day. The system produces a growing gap between the top 20%, for example, and everyone else (“the 1%” and “billionaire” thresholds are arbitrary). The system instills selfishness, materialism, and a widespread desire to climb the social ladder and lord it over others (who are deemed less worthy). With what we buy, what we think, and what we do, each of us reinforces that system daily. 

Bernie’s approach discounts non-economic issues and pushes away people who are primarily concerned about those other issues. But countless issues are also serious. We can focus on our primary concern without discounting those who choose a different focus. 

Transforming the system will require evolutionary revolution throughout society and within ourselves as individuals. 

By addressing internalized oppression and affirming intersectionality, holistic politics, social transformation, spiritual politics, and spiritual activism, Bernie could avoid the legitimate criticism that he arrogantly treats non-economic issues as a distraction. And he could dampen his bombastic, self-righteous tone that alienates many people, including some who support his program.

The desire to be recognized as superior fuels the system. Transforming that system will require learning how to collaborate as equals. And it will require a new, more humble definition of leadership that involves leaders facilitating collaborative problem-solving rather than merely mobilizing people to do what the leader wants them to do.

Bernie’s “class warfare” reinforces economic determinism, selfishness, and materialism. “The 99% for the 100%,” as proposed by Van Jones, is a more effective frame.

Prospects for a never-ending revolution will be enhanced if Bernie continues to push his principles within the Democratic Party, negotiates compromises with Hillary and her supporters, wholeheartedly supports the platform that emerges, and then urges his supporters to help transform the Party into an activist organization that meets neglected needs and fights for its platform year-round. 

As I have argued in "Bernie's Revolution," "Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party," "Proposed: Year-Round Precinct Organizing," and "Winning Is NOT Everything," I believe precinct-based clubs could cultivate cost-effective, person-to-person, neighbor-to-neighbor relationships that would maximize our effectiveness.
 .
The Democratic Party is already a broad, inclusive, democratic coalition -- probably more so than any new organization that Bernie might initiate. But the Party needs new energy, new ideas, and new leadership.

To motivate participation in an effort to rebuild the Democratic Party, rank-and-file Democrats would need to know that large numbers of other Democrats were involved in that effort. Bernie could inspire many of his supporters to make that commitment and develop that critical mass. 

We could then join with Hillary’s supporters to defeat Donald Trump, who is in fact a serious threat, and eventually transform this nation into a compassionate community.