Turnout for the meeting was actually a little low. I believe we now have thirty-two committee people, but only twenty-one people were at the meeting (since we have three universities in our ward, it is important to keep in mind that finals are upon us, and that the turnover rate on committee people is astronomical). Before the endorsements began, we agreed to put the Senate endorsement last, because of the emotions that debate stirs up. Everyone agreed that it was better to finish all other business and then enter that minefield. Everyone agreed. Were that it was possible that we could have some agreement like that online.
The evening was going along without any real surprises until one of the older members of our committee nominated "no endorsement" for a local election where the Democratic incumbent was running unopposed. An interesting debate quickly ensued. I can't imagine the specifics of the debate would be of interest to the national readership of this blog, but the final vote was indeed interesting. The incumbent was endorsed by a vote of 11-10. Perhaps most interestingly, a couple of new committee persons had been appointed at the start of the meeting to fill vacant committee positions, and they all voted to endorse the incumbent. I voted against, and had the new members not come, that position would have won out.
I am not going to complain about that, however. I am glad those new people came to our committee meeting, and I hope they will continue to be active members of the committee. They were not plants--they were just new people recruited to help out with the upcoming elections by filling vacancies. One of the worst dangers we face as a movement are people more interested in making sure that they maintain their own power, and that their position remains that majority position rather than trying to bring new activists willing to help out the party into the fold. Let that be a lesson to everyone out there wavering on whether to run for committee person or not: you can immediately have a real impact on your local scene if you do decide to participate. Let that also be a lesson to every parliamentarian and local tyrant: let the new people in, even if it will change the majority position of the committee or organization that makes your position possible.
Eventually, we started reaching the big nominations. For Lt. Governor,
Valerie McDonald Roberts won our endorsement by a vote of 19-2. This was the highlight of the evening--a local ward committee voting to endorse a progressive against a conservative incumbent.
As I wrote earlier today, I still believe that this is the most important statewide campaign on the ballot on May 16th. She is certainly the underdog, but she definitely has a chance. I sincerely hope that this endorsement helps her out.
Rendell was endorsed 16-5. He is running unopposed in the primary, and everyone who voted for "no endorsement" pledged to work for him in the general.
Then it was time for the main event. People started talking, and in just a few minutes it spiraled into five or six separate discussions carrying across the room. Before long, we decided that the only way this was going to be done with any civility was for all twenty-one people present to have a minute or two to speak their mind on the subject, and then vote. My speech went something like this:
I am not going to say anything negative about Bob Casey. I will not be voting for him the primary, but my vote is neither a "protest vote" nor an "anti-Casey vote." My vote is a pro-Chuck Pennacchio vote. Up and down the spectrum of issues, Chuck believes in what I believe. He believes in full equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and what Valerie said when she spoke to us, that "we must go way beyond just tolerance." Chuck believes in actually withdrawing from Iraq, not vague promises about withdrawal. Chuck believes that people should have control over their own bodies and their private lives all of the time, not just some of the time. Chuck also believes that campaigns need to be run on the ground, by reaching out to people, not just by money. And on and on and on. I do not worry about what "message" my vote in the primary sends to people, because my vote is what I believe in. I believe that primaries are where you should always and only vote for what you believe in. If I thought my beliefs sent the wrong message to people, I would quit politics right now. Many Americans think that Democrats do not stand for anything. If, in our own primaries, when only Democrats are choosing among potential candidates, we vote not for what we believe in, but rather for what we think will appeal to the most people, then how can we ever combat the belief that Democrats do not stand for anything? I will work for whoever wins the primary, but in the primary I am going to vote for what I believe in. I believe in Chuck Pennacchio.
OK, I wasn't quite that articulate, but that is almost exactly what I said. There were probably a lot more "ums" and "likes," since I made up the speech on the spot. I was happy with it. I think it was the best speech / interview I have given in a couple of months.
At the same time, I was growing nervous. A lot of people who I thought were going to support someone other than Casey were making speeches that seemed to indicate support for Casey. I was not keeping an exact count, but as the speeches drew to a close, I knew the endorsement vote would be close. Also, I knew that Chuck was not going to get the endorsement, because there were a lot more Alan Sandals supporters (Sandals used to live in the ward). In one of the most progressive wards in the state, it looked like it would be either "no endorsement" or "Casey."
When it came time to vote, we decided to endorse a candidate 12-9. At that point, it was obvious that Casey would win, and so a few people switched their votes in the specific endorsement. Casey pulled 15 votes in that poll. And so, at long last, it was finally over. No more arguments in meetings about this issue. Even in Ward 27, which voted 90% for Kerry in 2004, which recently recalled its ward leader, and which boasts the current Meetup host for Philly DFA and a major national blogger, Casey won. And everyone who did not vote for Casey said they would work for him in the general anyway, and pass-out ballots with his name on them in the primary.
How this happened, and how Valerie McDonald Roberts won in a landslide, should be a lesson for progressive netroots activists everywhere. Valerie was able to unite what seemed to me three distinct voting "blocks" at our meeting (if any meeting of only twenty-one people can have three voting blocks), while the Sandals and Pennacchio people only had one of those blocks. Throughout the evening, I noticed fairly distinct voting patterns among the people affiliated with Penn (about five people), the "older African-Americans" (nine people), and the "older white people" (the other seven people, including me). Certainly there were quite a few people at the meeting who fit into two of these categories, as many the older people, both black and white, were either teachers or graduate students at one of the local schools. Of course, there were also exceptions to these voting blocks, but I digress.
Of the nine votes for "no endorsement" in the Senate primary, six came form the "older white progressives." Throughout the evening, it was members of that group who were voting in contrast to the other members of the committee. The Penn students always seemed to emphasize pragmatism: vote for the candidate who can win, don't make the establishment mad. The older African-Americans tended to support existing party leaders, and more for reasons that they believed in those leaders rather than pragmatism (though pragmatism was also an element). The older white progressives, including myself, tended to be the contrarians, and the anti-incumbent, anti-favorite votes always found their most support from this group. However, Valerie had all three groups behind her, and in nearly unanimous fashion. She could speak to pragmatism, to African-Americans, and to white progressives. She is the real deal for progressive change and reform.
It would be nice if we could find a way to clone Valerie McDonald Roberts and watch the revolution unfold with her clone army as our leaders. That, however, is not going to happen. The emerging white progressive consensus is clearly different for the emerging African-American consensus. There also remain quite a few emerging young activists, black and white, who dissent from the emerging netroots consensus, and who are still in favor of a triangulation strategy. These groups are still not doing a very good job of talking to one another. Also, there will be no netroots revolution unless we realize that there remains a gulf between the still generally white netroots and the much more diverse Democratic Party. White voters only make up around 65% of Democratic voters, but the progressive netroots is probably around 85% white. There is a gap, and we need to learn how to address it.
Let me say a few final words about my experience at this meeting, and generally in the Philadelphia progressive activist community. First, this was democracy, pure and simple, local and unblemished. Decisions were made by those who showed up. They were made by my friends and neighbors. This is what democracy looks like, and I will respect the decisions of my local committee in all of my local activism. You really have to find out a way to participate in something like this yourself. It was empowering, and just wonderful.
Second, I was talking with a very articulate activist my age outside of the meeting, with whom I believe I voted almost exactly the same way all night. After both Casey's victory and our failure to "not endorse" the local, unopposed incumbent who will go unnamed (I do not wish to undermine the decision of the committee by naming this person), she asked me "if we can't get progressive candidates endorsed here, then where?" It is certainly a concern I share, since as I said Philadelphia Ward 27 is quite possibly the most progressive ward in the state. The answer, I think, is that we clearly need to do a much better job of listening to, and working with,
demographic groups unlike those that read blogs. I would also add that progressive groups not aligned with the Democratic Party , such as West Philly Neighborhood Networks which comfortably endorsed Chuck Pennacchio by more than a 2-1 margin, need to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves what segment of the progressive base they are really representing. They also need to ask themselves how much influence they are really having over the Democratic Party by remaining separate from it. The most reform heavy, yet still diverse, Democratic ward committee in the state just endorsed both Valerie McDonald Roberts and Bob Casey Jr. When we talk about progressives online, are we really talking about all progressives? And if you can't stomach working for the party because it isn't progressive enough, aren't you really talking about just letting the party become even less progressive than before because you are leaving it?
Discuss.
