On Party Democracy
by Chris Bowers, Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:30:44 PM EST
Tomorrow morning, I will be driving to Harrisburg with three of my friends to take part in our first Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee meeting. On May 16th, all four of us were elected to the state party committee by our fellow Democrats in our districts to be their local party representatives in Harrisburg. I emphasized elected because tomorrow afternoon, Chuck Schumer will be attending a fundraiser held in the same hotel that is hosting the meeting of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee.
This is painful irony. Being elected to serve and represent your neighborhood and your party is a humbling experience. Also, after voting for Bill Clinton as a teenager in 1992, I spent most of the 1990's unaffiliated with any major party. As the decade wore on, I felt that the Democratic Party did not represent my progressive, left-wing values anymore, so I spent much of my time doing one of the following: not voting, supporting a few select Democrats I really liked, or siding with third parties. However, through Howard Dean and the netroots, my mind changed. I realized that the Democratic Party offered internal, democratic means to determine what it stood for and who its leaders are. Thus, I decided that I would re-register as a Democrat, and avail myself of intra-party democracy to help shape that direction. It struck me that progressives such as myself who complained about the direction of the Democratic Party, but were not participating in helping to shape the direction of the party, were less justified in their complaints than people who did participate.
Now, across the country, thousands of grassroots Democrats, including both Anna and myself, have exercised their rights as Americans and as registered Democrats to run for party and public office. Many have won the offices they sought, including over eighty people in Philadelphia alone. Democrats exercising their rights and working within the party, rather than leaving, include incumbents like Al Wynn, Henry Cuellar and Jane Harman. They include many Democrats who are challenging incumbent Democrats for re-nomination, such as Marcy Winograd, Ciro Rodriguez, Donna Edwards and Ned Lamont. As Americans and as Democrats, rather than leaving either politics in general or the Democratic party in particular, we are making our cases to the electorate, and to our fellow members of the Democratic Party.
Intra-party democracy is a requirement to building a broad coalition. Democrats represent many different political philosophies, cultures and demographic groups. We have to maintain a healthy intra-party democracy and respect the majority decision of our coalition in order to stay together. Instead of allowing our coalition to blow apart whenever we disagree on an issue or candidate, we have instituted democratic structures within the Democratic Party that allow us to debate who our leaders will be and what our party will stand for. I supported Chuck Pennacchio in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, but on May 16th Bob Casey won that primary comfortably. Now, as a Democrat, I will stand with the majority decision of my fellow Democrats, and work to help elect Bob Casey as the next Senator from Pennsylvania. In fact, because I respect my fellow Democrats, not only will I vote for Bob Casey, I will work hard to GOTV for the entire Democratic ticket in my neighborhood in November.
Further, I will support whoever wins the Democratic primary in Connecticut, be it Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman. Now, I am not a fan of Senator Lieberman, so along with many Democrats in Connecticut, I am availing myself of democratic, intra-party processes to see that Ned Lamont is nominated instead. However, if it is the decision of the Democratic voters of Connecticut that Joe Lieberman is their man, then I will abide by that decision and support Joe Lieberman for Senate in 2006.
If we reject the majority decision of our own party and instead support a candidate who is not running as a Democrat, then our intra-party democracy is meaningless. If our intra-party democracy is meaningless, then we lose all ability to convince non-Democrats to become Democrats. How can you ever urge new people to get involved in helping the Democratic Party if they are not allowed to have a say in the direction of that party? How can you ever tell progressives that they shouldn't vote for third party candidates instead of Democratic nominees when you refuse to support Democratic nominees yourself? I will not leave the Democratic Party no matter whom the DSCC supports in Connecticut, but I imagine that quite a few people will. If we do not support our nominees, then thousands of activists, tens of thousands of donors, and millions of voters will know that our leaders do not care about democracy. Why should any American join an organization if they have no say in the governance of that organization?
That is not what America is about, and not what American political parties should be about. Self-determination is our right. No one, not George Bush, not Joe Lieberman, not Charles Schumer has the right to take that from us. It does not matter whether someone has a progressive or a conservative voting record. It does not matter whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican. If someone denies us our right to self-determination, then they should have no place in our government or leading our political parties. That is why we founded our nation in the first place, and that is what I plan to tell Chuck Schumer at my first state committee meeting tomorrow.
Tags: Silent revolution, CT-Sen, Democrats (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
