This article is just as enlightening to me as the other post Sara did at Next Hurrah right after the election last year. I have it below after this recent article by her.
The Next Hurrah on the structure of the Democratic Party.In fact one should always keep in mind that there is really no such thing as a National Democratic Party -- there are 50 plus state and territorial parties that have the franchise for their state, and in turn the DNC, Democratic National Committee is a representative body elected by the State Parties. People came to understand this in 2005 when Howard Dean was elected Chair of the DNC on the platform of strengthening the State Parties by investing in assets and skilled staff, something those who have problems with State Parties having influence have had a bit of difficulty with over the past couple of years.
Last year we all witnessed Rahm Emanual calling out Dean for not sending his DCCC committee more funds, while Dean kept putting assets and staff into states. Understanding such power jousts is just one element in seeing the picture of our party as it currently exists. Dean solved the problem by borrowing money that he shared with Rahm, but the assets Dean put at the State Level ended up electing more Congresspersons than Rahm's committee did. For now, Dean 1, Rahm 0. But one thing is sure, there will be another tournament, for power centers are always contested.
The real "smoke-filled" rooms.
Back in the bad old days before 1972, Party Bosses played a much more powerful role in Democratic Parties than they do today. The elections for the ongoing officers in the party were closed systems -- old Mayor Daley would sit down with his best buddies and decide endorsements for office, state and national committee people, state and local party officers, and it would all be put on one slate, and offered as a package, with little opposition. The McGovern-Fraser reforms ended all that, State Parties must have elections for these positions, and the process must be open to opposition, and in any sort of delegate selection, awards must be based on rules of proportionality, gender balance and affirmative action with respect to racial, religious and ethnic groups.
It was a huge change -- and one result of it was that the old Powers-that-Were actually let a number of State Parties go into Bankruptcy rather than conform to the new Rules. A number of State Parties in the South took this route rather than allow Black elected Party Officers control the parties. They declared bankruptcy, local courts took them into receivership, and the same good-ole boys continued to control things. When Dean was elected one of the first things he had to do was pull the parties out of receivership, in many cases discovering that assets in warehouses were little more than 1970's typewriters and mimeo machines.
This part stood out for me in the light of recent events in
two states. Some parts of the land like their politics one-party flavored, thus narrowing the range of who can contest for power. Many insider fights are about such.
More from the post:
I hope that at least the State Chairs and the DNC members extract promises for keeping the Dean Reforms of the Party as the price of their endorsements. It is one area where I have Clinton Doubts -- her Husband was not a party builder, and he did not recommend DNC chairs who cared about the State Parties. Hillary sided with Rahm Emanual in that little joust last year over party money, and she did not support party ownership of all the new technology Dean has distributed to the state parties. Put clearly, I want strong state parties so we can win the battle of reapportionment in 2011, and the only way to do that is to control State Legislatures and Governorships. And I have my doubts about Obama too, what with all the talk about bi-partisan approaches. In one sense he is of the remains of the old Chicago Machine, and while much of it is dead, some parts still live.
I share her doubts about both candidates and whoever they might want for the DNC. The DNC members are the ones who decide. Traditionally they would vote for the pick of the nominee.
Sara wrote last year at Next Hurrah about the things the DNC under Howard Dean had to do to empower the states instead of leaving the power with the DC insiders.
Dean had to get 12 state parties out of bankruptcy, pay unpaid debt, get padlocks off doors.I had discovered how pathetic many of our state parties actually were. Many were literally bankrupt, the office supplies and machines (typewriters) had been taken for unpaid debt, and padlocks were on the door. The State Committees that had the franchise were held in one or another lawyer's file cabinet, (In Georgia it had been Bert Lance's for about 20 years), and the reason for this condition was frankly racism. The Southern States would not allow the release of the franchise to a newly elected Central Committee or Board, because it would be Black. They could do this because the parties were in bankruptcy, and whatever lawyer had the letterhead in his files was also the court appointed trustee.
....."When Dean took over the DNC -- this was the condition of about twelve of our State Parties. He actually had to find lawyers to go into court and get the parties out of this kind of "Trusteeship" before he could even begin to reorganize. In fact, one of the reasons some of the Field Organizers Dean appointed are on the staff of the DNC rather than state parties is because it avoids dealing with old trustees and old court judgments."
This paragraph really stuck with me from her last post after the November 2006 elections. She had been discussing the Carville attacks on Howard Dean, and he really was in no position to make such statements...that he should be replaced. The battle seems much bigger and that statement of hers took on new importance in the light of what else she said.
According to reporting on KO, Hillary Clinton's office is saying they did not "sign off" on the Carville attack on Dean. As Keith said, that is a bit nuanced, and it needs follow up. The language of "sign off" bothers.Indeed the ultimate question is whether local party organizations can select their own representatives or whether that power will be taken away from the state parties by the DSCC and the DCCC who substitute themselves (as elected officials) for the party organization or the DNC and what creates it. That is what is at stake."
Things are going to happen come November, maybe before. There will be change again.
I hope that since Dean's strategy has given some power back to the states, they will stand up for someone else to chair who will follow that plan. However the recent actions of Florida and Michigan in preventing the voters from choosing the nominee do not bode well in my mind. I did not realize how fully the people had been removed from actual party policy making for many years. Perhaps I was feeling a little empowered, a little more a part of the party here. That was struck down when they organized with the GOP to move the primary ahead. It showed me that they neither want nor need the voices of the people. What was done in those two states reverted back to the old way...the way of the "party bosses" mentioned by Sara in her latest post at Next Hurrah.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
