2 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session (in Montpelier this Saturday, from 1-3 – I’ll post and email a map later today) among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.
Moving on to a look at the next agenda item. It’s the biggie:
IV. Getting the left to stop fighting itself (at least long enough to get elected).
This, of course, is the Dem-Prog conundrum. The think that everyone seems to think this meeting is 100% focused on, and will likely take up the lion’s share.
With the size differential, the Legislative part of this problem is less widespread, and as such may be easier to brainstorm solutions and systems to implement those solutions. There will be challenges, though. How to approach conflicts in Burlington as compared to the rest of the state? If we are heading towards a paradigm that says Primaries are good things, is it possible to create localized primaries?
Statewide is obviously a different story – but what is the story? Is it about Democrats working with Progressives, or Democrats dealing with Anthony Pollina specifically? Is the solution a partisan merger – either encouraged or enforced from the grassroots? Is the solution to create – or simulate – a primary, either through IRV, opening up party primary ballots to allow candidates to appear on more than one? A regular runoff? Maybe just good ol’ fashioned organized grassroots and constituency group pressure on one or both parties?
Wherever the discussion goes, there’s no question that it will be informed by tonight’s Democratic/Progressive forum in Burlington, sponsored by 7 Days. A forum which everyone I’ve spoken to is expecting to become a food fight.
Of the four panelists, I suspect Dem Rep. Joey Donovan and Prog City Councilor Jane Knodell will be amenable to an exchange. Where I don’t know City Dem Chair Jake Perkinson, he would seem to be the partisan warrior sort, and Rep. David Zuckerman, I fear, has been looking for a fight.
Clearly I’m a partisan Democrat myself, and as a partisan Democrat, my perspective is not neutral. My concern, though, is that everyone will end up looking very bad. The Dems’ inclination will be to be dismissive and the Progs’ inclination will be to be holier-than-thou, and around we go.
As a Dem, a real test of whether or not there will be a real conversation from the Progressive side will be whether or not Rep. Zuckerman goes into what has been a favored question of his of late. It’s a question he asked multiple times when we were on the radio, and repeated on another blog as well as this one. Although I responded to it in the comments, he has repeated it on the Prog Blog since in his prelude to tonight’s event, so I think he’s committed to it, or chose to disregard the response on this site. It seems like a harmless enough question. Here it is from this site:
What are the key fundamental principles that Democrats (this means elected and serving) fundamentally believe in? By this, I mean more than the platform.
The fact is, this question is a rhetorical trap. One designed to quickly define you as the right-wingers in a room full of leftists in an unfair – and inaccurate – way. It represents exactly the argument that we have to leave on the table if we can expect not to needlessly come into conflict (and therefore empower the right) in this state.
It is, in my eyes, akin in rhetorical quality to Sean Hannity’s frequent attempt to corner Democrats by asking them flat out if they want to be victorious in Iraq. It’s a question designed to put your opponent in a corner because its a question on your terms, that they can’t answer on those terms – and yet it sounds so simple. My hope – and request – is that Zuckerman choose not to go there. If he does, I would hope that Joey and Jake recognize it for the trap that it is.
Here are the problems:
First: its an explicit demand that Democrats justify themselves to Zuckerman before he will deign to continue the conversation. It is a precondition to negotiations that is, frankly, a little demeaning. If Dems could justify themselves in this way to Zuckerman’s satisfaction after all, he and other Progressives would likely be Dems. Any real discussion should stipulate that conversions are not happening.
Second: It preemptively rejects the answer to the question. The Platform is the Democrats statement of values. By rejecting it outright, he is not only demanding Dems justify themselves to him – he’s demanding they do so on his terms – and its unclear what those terms even are.
Third and biggest: The question compares apples and oranges – to the apple’s advantage (or is that the orange’s?). The Progressives are simply a different organization that the Democrats. The Dems are one lobe of the two-party system – the “left” party. The dynamics of the two party system (which I believe are clearly hardwired) are such that the “left” and the “right” party are in constant flux. That, in a sense, they become institutional battlegrounds for what it means to be a “leftist” or a “rightist” in the country and the state. The question of “what are our values” is the perennial struggle within the party that theoretically finds expression through the platform and ripples out to the political dynamic and culture at large. Structurally, its not a question that you can answer in a soundbite, as its the process of asking that question that defines the party (and another reason why we could really use Progs’ help inside the party, but I digress…)
The Progressives, on the other hand, are both small, and not a part of the two-party system. They can structure themselves with a more traditional nonprofit style hierarchy and can define themselves with nonprofit style mission statements – which the Progressives do and even attempt to enforce among membership under their bylaws (something Democrats could – and would – never do). Now if Progs ever do supplant the Dems, they will find themselves in exactly the same position as the Dems and rapidly become the exact same party, just under a different name. But for now, they have the luxury of playing by a different set of rules entirely.
In other words, Zuckerman’s question could be answered by a soundbite from the Progs, but to be precise, the Dems have to answer more philosophically. Short of that, the answer is the Platform, or at least its abstract, which reads:
The Vermont Democratic Party believes the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, to organize, and to speak freely are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable. When any Vermonter lacks or is denied any of these basic essentials, the fabric of our community is torn and all of us are harmed.
We believe that all citizens have a responsibility to be informed, engaged participants in our democracy. As engaged citizens, we will work toward the establishment of economically and environmentally sustainable communities that regain and maintain the ecological health of our state and contribute to the health of our country and the planet.
We expect elected officials, their staffs and their appointees to govern compassionately, competently, and with fiscal integrity and transparency. We demand that all elected officials fully adhere to their oaths of office and defend the Constitutions of Vermont and of the United States at all times, using all lawful means available to them through their office. Based on the principles of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth or sterilization, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.
We judge the success of a democratic society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, in everything we do — every policy, law, and regulation — we must consider the effects of our actions on the lives and futures of our children and succeeding generations.
…and if he’s preemptively throwing that truthful response out, its simply not a fair or honest question.
So Dave, I’m asking you: don’t go there.
Jake and Joey: If he goes there, its just a rhetorical sucker punch designed to kick your ass. Don’t follow.
But if you must, the quick answer is therefore – “The Platform, and if that’s not good enough for you, well we’re just not going to meet with each others’ personal approval and we have to accept that if we’re going to move on.”
The more precise (but abstract) answer is: “What do we stand for? We are the party of the left in the political system, and we beat the hell out of each other every year to define what the “left” means for our state and for the country – and we could use all the progressive help we can get.”
And everybody – everybody – please remember that simply saying “now I’m not trying to suggest my opponent is a moron” and then going on to suggest your opponent is a moron does not inoculate you. There are no verbal inoculations, and whoever among you decides to try to go that route will come off looking like a grumpy child.
I’m not sure if there’s an opportunity for any good to come of this tonight, given the timing and the circumstances. I’d like to think there is. I just hope it doesn’t make things worse.