Random comment from the Nebraska Democratic Party Blog 3

At 12/21/2004 02:17:10 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

I generally think the labeling of other Democrats as "Republican-lite" or "Democrat in Name Only" is a poor subsitute for thinking that completely disregards the role of the individual in any functioning democracy and any responsive political body. Still, there's a lot to be said for the related thinking that what our candidates really need is some fight in them.

Grit is the thing we lack most. We might have principles, but we don't show a whole lot of willingness to stake our careers on them. No more mincing words. If a candidate with a D by his or her name can't "Say it loud and say it proud" they have very little place leading us, no matter their position on an individual issue.

Candidates shouldn't move in any one direction to be something they're not, but they should be honest and forthright with voters about where exactly they do stand. That means being able to let go of the nuance sometimes and deliver a one sentence answer straight from the gut (or heart, if you prefer).

While railing against the government in the early 90s and dismantling its most sacred institutions ever since, the Republican party has been the one with "balls". We've had a couple of voices in the wilderness types, but they've been unable to form a concerted bloc that could make people stand up and take notice. So, we remain the "tax and spend" party in the eyes of the common (red-state?) voter, while being convictionless opportunists to boot. That's not a recipe for success.

Maybe a nation-wide "watch-party" of HIGH NOON with Gary Cooper is in order. Lord knows, we've got to do something - draw a line in the sand, plant our boots, and mark a couple of territories as our own.

If "red state mania" exists, it's only as a byproduct of the recent politicization of religion. I remain unconvinced. Until we've got a message with a chance of resonating with "values voters" (or whatever you want to call them), we won't have any clue just what kind of damage has been done by this trend. Right now, we're too all over the place to have any perspective whatsoever.

As for Mr. Powers' New Hampshire concerns, they're certainly legitimate, though I'm far more troubled by any state's receiving such priority than I am with their individual histories of electing Dems to the Senate. What's to stop New Hamshire from countering with John Kerry's victory there this year to shut our complaints up mighty fast? I'd prefer a more principled stance that calls for a rotating (mixed-region) schedule in the name of fairness and equality rather than an all-out assault on a "cherished" institution of questionable value that is nevertheless well-engrained in the American political scene.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Future of the Democratic Party, Part II

State Dems as Watchdog

At 12/16/2004 02:31:34 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

The problem is that our officially non-partisan legislature and the spirit on which it supposedly operates rob us of the only readily accessible platform to stage the hearings Heath suggests. If we, as the party, are doing it ourselves, without the legitimacy of elected office, (A) there's little guarantee of SUBSTANTIVE media coverage and (B) people will be inherently distrustful of our motivations.

We can research to our hearts content, but the power of the press release is limited. At least if we were to pay for independent studies of DEQ and the like or ultimately even file lawsuits against them on the public's behalf, there would be the seeming promise of some final,impartial judgment to vindicate our efforts. Without that, we've got nothing.

It's a shame we can't just organize community discussions/information sessions across the state. They would likely be the easiest and most successful route if only people would attend.

I guess you don't know unless you try (humor me for a second)...

As for a shadow state government, it's too gimmicky for my tastes. Maybe we could have a single appointed government watch dog whose job it would be to take complaints and conduct selective investigations (an alternative Attorney General or Democratic Party-provided People's Ombudsman). Taking it farther than that, though, would seem pretty tacky.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: The Much Needed Watchdog

Random Comment on the new DNC chair (from Nebraska Democrats blog) #2

At 12/15/2004 08:16:11 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Frankly, I think geography is a poor basis on which to choose the next DNC chair. East, west, north, south, or right dab in the middle - doesn't much matter to me. All that really matters is what HE (as seems likely to be the case) is going to do to redefine, restructure, and reinvigorate the party nationwide.

Of course, no one here is going to disagree with that. I just think it's rather misguided to search for a DNC chair who makes a point to reach pick-up driving Southerners with Confederate flags and shotgun racks in their rear windows. Sure, it would be nice if those people were on our side (probably), but that's ultimately the job of our actual candidates to accomplish. The best a DNC chair can really do is to ensure that state and local parties are able to remain competitive in every race and region in the country.

Blame McAuliffe all you want for the backseat Nebraska took in the recent election, but ultimately he was acting on behalf of the John Kerry campaign to best serve that candidate's interests and improve his chances of victory. That's what he did, even if 2004 proved the foolish limitations of strategizing too heavily around the electoral college, for which McAuliffe is not to blame. A nationwide office deserves a nationwide campaign, and I'm actually glad that was reasserted this year if nothing else.

In this instance, the lessons of 2000's anomalous result were taken too closely to heart and now we show evidence of doing the same all over again. There's a not so thin line between refocusing and over-compensating in this process of redefining ourselves. Complaints about "Republican-lite" Democrats demean us all in an attempt to refashion the party in treasonous Tom Delay-style that is antithetical to our every principle. The world is indeed in a sad state of affairs when "the good guys" have resorted to such lowly name-calling, demagoguery, and self-demonization. Being a proud Democrat should speak to a common vision, but that doesn't mean there's not plenty of room for disagreement.

Say what you will about the Kerry campaign, but anyone who thinks he didn't represent the party well ON THE ISSUES is pretty well detached from any historical context, not to mention reality. Needing a tighter message, better delivery, and a more pro-active agenda is not the call for deep soul-searching and movement on the issues that some would like it to be. We pretty much are who we are. We just need to give people a reason to trust us once again.

We don't need to move left or right. We don't need any of that old time religion. What we've got to do is make our case in terms people understand and relate to, a job that basically falls to our elected representatives and candidates because its beyond the scope of the party organization and hierarchy no matter who's in charge.

If Jesus were a Democrat, he wouldn't do a damn bit of good as party chair. What we need is a better strategy, not a new Messiah.

I'd say give the people what they want, except these aren't THE PEOPLE, at least not as I know them - which would be fine if it weren't for that whole democracy bit.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: The DNC, State Parties and the next Chair

Random Comment on the new DNC chair (from Nebraska Democrats blog) #1

At 12/15/2004 02:06:29 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

I appreciate Howard Dean as a human being and believe him to be a good man, but as head of the DNC I fear he'd be an unmitigated disaster.

In this largely symbolic election, we should remain grounded by a fundamental idea that Dr. Dean himself should be familiar with, "First, do no harm." While the election of Dean to DNC chair would temporarily placate those clamoring for top-to-bottom dismantling and reorganization of the Democratic party structure, it offers little in the way of real solutions and ultimately reeks of desperation.

Of course, desperate we are, but there are candidates available who offer the same promise of reform without the monstrous downside that a Dean chairmanship would entail. Dean's celebrity alone makes him an unsuitable candidate unless a radical re-thinking of the position is at-hand.

As is, this is not a sexy role. The nitty-gritty of party politics, especially when a real shake-up occurs, can get very ugly and demands a level of discretion made impossible (or, at least highly destructive) under the increased media attention that a Dean chairmanship would attract. We will, essentially, be inviting our own destruction (or public execution) by bringing to plain sight what can only be a highly contentious and possibly quite brutal LONG-TERM power struggle, in which case we all lose.

Then again, if the DNC chair is to be more than a titular head and fund-raiser, making an attempted transformation into the appointed "conscience" of the party, maybe a big name like Dean's would function well. However, Dean still would not be the man for the job.

It's important to realize the untold baggage that Dean carries with him in the mind of the average American voter. Say what you will for his history as a moderate, centrist governor, Dean made his name and is etched in people's memory (whether unjustly or not) as a fringe character. To large portions of the American electorate, he appeared unstable and, at times, dangerous. I disagree with such assesments but they are not so very few and far between as to be disrgegarded but at our peril. These are the voices we would hear over and over, and they'd come from unexpected and most unfortunate places.

Although Dean was impressive at firing-up the base (or activating a long dormant one), his appeal to common voters is questionable at best and he may even be a turn-off to the majority of Americans in the vital center - not necessarily independents, we're talking traditional Dems (ie. Catholic voters, married women) whose loss is what has truly crippled this party to such a degree.

An elected Howard Dean makes a needless issue that will not die of the chairmanship of the DNC. It's not moving to the left - it's jumping off the deep end precisely because of the candidate's high-profile. We'd be playing directly into the hands of those who have so effectively marginalized us already, not by making a stand but by foolishly painting the entire party into a corner in which few fit and fewer can win (including Dean himself, on both accounts). The possibility of true reform would be dead on its much-celebrated, long-awaited arrival - probably along with our chances in the next two election cycles.

WHY would we do that to ourselves?

Hopefully, I'm being overly-cautious and pessimistic. Maybe the American peole don't have such preconceived notions of Dean, or maybe they will care just as little about his chairmanship as they have chairs past. But, I think there's a definite risk here that needs to be understood and discussed more than it has been - again, a needless risk.

Personally, in an attempt to be constructive, I lean towards Rosenberg or Ickes, two qualified, distinct choices that will signify a definite choice of direction for the national party (with Rosenberg the "Dean" candidate, minus the lethal baggage). Theirs is the strategist-mold in which I believe the party will be best-served at every level, with their respective experiences and expertise paving a clear way for a Democratic future. Or, so I hope.

Choose well - as well as your gut, conscience, and intellect will allow. That's all any of us can ask.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: The DNC, State Parties and the next Chair