"The
lesson for Dems from 2016 is NOT to change our message, it's to deliver and
defend it with more conviction and fearlessness.”
“Others argue that the party needs to think
about how to frame its message. Greater sharpness in this regard, they say,
could matter more than shifting that message to the left or the center.”
And right there is the
problem, in two respects – messages
separated from deeds are not
helpful. And, more framed messages from Washington are not
what we need. Oh, by the Way, just what is that “message” – does anyone
know?
So,
with your indulgence, allow me to present some thoughts that are perhaps not
often heard, essentially stressing a “back
to the basics” approach with new twists added. (please excuse the underlining; it is tracking format that can't be removed - sorry for the inconvenience).
1) The Democratic Party has got to return to the
concept that politics begin at the local
level. Top-down messaging is not being heard nor
heeded; nor is it always useful. The
Democratic Party lost something when it lost the ward boss and
the back-room guys who knew who voters were and what they needed;
who got messages out themselves and who got the votes
out when needed. Eschewing the
corruption, bad methods and tactics of that model,
we
must organize at the local level like never before,
around
new concepts.
a) Coalitions – the official
local Democratic Committees could be
the focus of coalition-building centered around voter issues
rather than being mainly elected
committees touting the Party line, often
out-of-touch with a majority of the
local residents, and often unheard on
local issues. There are many unofficial
entities out there in local communities
looking to offer hope and change and progressive ideas for implementation. There are even some unacknowledged and
undiscovered people who should be running for office.
Let’s
start using the local Democratic Committees as innovators rather than as
flunkies of the State Democratic Committees and
the national DNC. It is past
time for the Democratic Committees to spearhead a return to the basic principle
of being in touch with constituents in person-to-person relationships that
can be achieved if enough people are recruited as part of a core group of
activists
brought together in common cause. On-going phone banks, canvassing, talk shows,
newsletters, forums, discussion groups, demonstrations on issues, etc. must be
used continuously to educate, activate and inform our members and the general public
on issues and accomplishments.
b) Leadership – new
local Democratic Coalitions must begin to operate on a new concept of
leadership – leadership that is shared and leadership that is dependent on the
views, opinions and ideas of a Core group and its
wider constituency. In
other words, we must grow Team leadership not
from the top-down (that
gives orders about metrics, strategies, and tactics). Instead, we must
involve and develop new leadership from
the bottom-up and that means training local
people to be leaders, organizers and
facilitators in order to fully participate in sharing leadership
functions. There are many ways to share leadership, and
some professional guidance and consultation is needed on this. But one thing is clear, the present structure
of most local Democratic Committees is not built
around this concept. Let me flesh this
out a bit:
Shared
leadership involves training people for
carrying out leadership functions such as offering
encouragement to others, giving positive feedback when someone offers an
opinion or strategy or
comment; building on concepts offered by
others; developing an ability to summarize where the group stands in
its progress at any single moment. A core group such as I am suggesting must be
trained in these group concepts. But
shared leadership goes beyond group dynamics. It recognizes that every person within a
group or organization can make a meaningful contribution to the cause. It also recognizes that there does not have
to be just one leader and a bunch of subordinates.
Leadership functions at
another level can also be shared. For instance, one person good at organizing,
writing and conducting meetings might act as lead facilitator to
carry out those functions. Another
person good at person-to-person contact, taking minutes and training
others on issues might undertake that role. A third person, adept
at computers, collecting and distributing data, training others to
input data, using social media and
organizing communications with media might carry out those roles. These three leaders
together might serve as associate leaders, and might comprise a leadership task
force to plan, debate and make suggestions to the wider Core group while
always soliciting the input of the
broader membership group.
This may sound
like
the way organizations are currently divided into officers
and committees, but the difference is in the attitude toward the
role of leadership. It is not confined
to elected or appointed leaders.
Leadership is seen to emerge in all participants in some way, and
leadership is not confined to strict guidelines or job descriptions or someone
else’s
idea of what leadership constitutes. In
fact, the shared concept is strong
enough to encourage members to act in a leadership role on
their own -- such as emailing a notice to all members
that follows and enhances the Team’s
mission and functioning. Checking with others is only necessary if the
sender feels it to be necessary.
And therein lies the
greatest difference and the greatest asset of the shared leadership
concept: a
shared attitude toward Team functioning
and taking leadership responsibility that
dignifies and enhances everyone’s role,
everyone’s opinion, and everyone’s abilities.
c) Input – the
Democratic Party has got to get back to the personal approach to issues and problem-solving
and meeting constituent concerns. There are ways to do
this, but having Washington leaders and
insiders spouting their own views to their constituents
is not an effective method. Remember, Donald Trump just won an election no
one thought he could win by simply making people feel that he was their voice,
and that his tweets were personal messages directed to them. We can do even better
than that.
We
Democrats have got to go where the people are and gather their input.
I
submit to you that we aren’t listening enough, and we aren’t present enough. Hillary started off her primary campaign talking
with and listening to small groups around
tables. That was effective, but it
faded. It always fades, simply because
we have not recognized nor
given enough attention to the importance of listening, collecting, processing
and putting voter input into workable
plans and policies. We have been overly subjected to Politicians
telling us what the issues are, what the problems are, who needs to be
investigated, what we must do to make government work or not work (and a whole
lot of other directives and instructions).
2) The Democratic Party has got to establish
on-going listening posts and opportunities for on-going voter involvement and
advisory input
The
Democratic Party is failing miserably in the art of listening and in seeking
input on issues, problems and concerns of ordinary people. I have written on this topic before (7/11/2016;
9/5/2015; 11/16 & 28/2014; 7/21/2014) and
am not going to go into finite detail here. What I am saying here is that Democratic
politicians (and the DNC and DCCC) have got to find ways to
give many people, groups and organizations numerous opportunities to speak
their minds to Party officials, office-holders and
candidates. Speaking
at rallies and events, attending meet and greet events, or
participating in staged “debates” (see my 10/12/2016 Blog)
are all designed to sell a product – the candidate. In contrast, here
are a few suggestions for establishing on-going listening posts in various
communities to solicit all-important voter input:
- utilize the local Democratic Coalition groups described above to gather representative voters from the area (town, village, city, county) to discuss certain issues from among issues suggested by that same group. Make sure all relevant input is recorded and perhaps summarized on a screen by meeting’s end; send minutes to participants and to members of the district. Include a plan for what will be done about each suggestion. Set another meeting.
- establish one or more advisory groups that are representative of one’s constituency in various areas of a district, city or county. Make sure that these advisory groups have regular meetings (office-holders should attend at least 2-3 times a year) and report discussions and recommendations to the office-holder. Office-holder should respond within 30 days at most. Use these groups to help evaluate one’s performance and to establish goals for each year of each term (NOTE: membership and function may overlap with Democratic Coalitions)
- sponsor legislation to involve ordinary, non-office-holding citizens in all levels of government (see my Blog of 7/21/2014).
- prepare a local, State and National Party Plan and a Budget that grows out of these grass-roots issues, problems and needs expressed by constituents. Use those Plans as a Platform and offer a Pledge to the voters that the Democratic Party will act to prove it is the Party by, of and for The People. Think Big & Bold; take Bold steps to offer real Hope and real Change as part of a New Deal, based on voter input.
- Big & Bold Example: purchase a TV station or network so that these grass-roots concerns can be presented forcefully. Feature Democrats as guests, along with grass-roots activists and average voters who can speak for and to a broad audience. Feature real people, real issues and real debates and discussions. Above all, do not make it pure entertainment, but make sure it is entertaining and interesting. Use it to voice a national Democratic populist agenda and to counter FOX News. By the way, this is the kind of proposal that, given the existence of advisory groups, would be checked and debated by them for their input.
The
Democratic Party must re-organize itself from top to bottom to accommodate and
to enhance this way of doing business from the bottom up, not
from the top down. Campaigns must also
change to accommodate the input and impact these advisory groups will have.
I
offer these suggestions from the viewpoint of one who has been involved with
putting these concepts into practice for more than 50 years as
the head of at least 25 different
organizations and programs, and the committed participant in several
additional local, state, interstate and national organizations
and groups.
I do
not take lightly my criticism of the DNC and the Democratic Party. I do not disagree with most of
the issues that our Party activates
and promotes. I just disagree with the current way we
strategize and with the mechanisms we use to communicate and to gather
information. We must do
better, and I believe the concepts offered here point in that better direction. I use “point” advisedly because there is much
more involved in these concepts than time allows here for elucidation.
In
conclusion, I again offer this statement that
I posted recently:
It is
a fatal flaw
to believe that politicians are the government or that our participation is
optional. We are the government and politicians (and
their appointees) represent us only with our consent.
We must not let that
power and responsibility be appropriated by forces that want to destroy our
fundamental democratic principles, or by Party officials who can’t see beyond
their titles, their desks and their cell phones.
