Does Something As Amorphous As "The Democratic Party" Stand For Something?

"Conservative Democrats" are careerist politicians, not actual grassroots voters

I guess that depends on how you define it. Who is the Democratic Party? I would say anyone who has registered as a Democrat. Fair enough? Who is not the Democratic Party? The elected party officials, who try to define it by looking in the mirror. Their positions are transitory and their careerism is the most deadly weapon wielded against the party and what it is supposed to stand for. I would define the modern Democratic Party as part of the vision espoused by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. If he was still alive, Roosevelt would still be president of the United States. Bill Clinton made a concerted and somewhat successful effort to turn the Democratic Party away from its working family roots and towards the interests of his own corporate donors. It's been a lot of bad news for the party since then. A little reminder:

• 1932- FDR- 57.4% (472 electoral votes)
• 1936- FDR- 60.8% (523 electoral votes)
• 1940- FDR- 54.7% (449 electoral votes)
• 1944- FDR- 53.4% (432 electoral votes)

• 1992- Clinton- 43.0% (370 electoral votes)
• 1996- Clinton- 49.2% (379 electoral votes)

You can have capitalism or you can have a planet-- but you can't have both. Or... depending on the definition of "unfettered," you can have unfettered capitalism or you can have a planet-- but you can't have both.

Friday, Richard Rodriguez, a board member of Our Revolution from Illinois, wrote an essay for The Hill, DCCC is out of step with Democratic values. "The latest shakeup over a lack of diversity in senior leadership at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee," he wrote, "shows that House Democrats’ campaign arm remains out of touch with the values of its grassroots Democratic voters." Not just out of touch-- antithetical to the values of the grassroots of the party. Illinois Blue Dog and ultimate careerist Cheri Bustos, the new DCCC chair, is a perfect symbol of what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party. 

This first became evident in March when DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos announced a “blacklist” policy, which sought to stifle the people-powered democratic process by requiring political consultants to sign a loyalty pledge to incumbent Democrats. Recent comments from black and Latino lawmakers about a lack of diversity in senior leadership, as well as complaints about a tone-deaf approach to issues relating to race, show that the DCCC continues to refuse to evolve and change. Instead, there seems to be an implicit policy of silencing new voices and sidelining historically marginalized communities in order to protect the power of the status quo.

At a time when President Trump is openly voicing racist rhetoric and seeking to divide us, the Democratic Party has to be a model of the America we are proud to be-- an America that welcomes new voices, embraces diversity and opens the doors of power wide.

This spring, Our Revolution met with Rep. Bustos after holding rallies outside her office and delivering more than 30,000 petitions opposing the blacklist policy. After promising to follow up with us, Rep. Bustos has remained silent-- and the blacklist policy has remained in place. The recent staff shakeup is another symptom of the same problem.

  Our nation is a diverse melting pot of hard-working Americans. Sadly, not all politicians are doing their best to serve all their constituents. Not all Democrats are created equally, and some are not aligned to the principles and morals of their congressional district.

Congressman Daniel William Lipinski of Illinois’ third congressional district is one of the Democratic Party’s more conservative members. Lipinski voted against the landmark Affordable Care Act in 2010 and is anti-abortion. In 2018, he survived a close primary against author and small businesswoman Marie Newman. On April 16, Newman officially announced that she will challenge Lipinski in a rematch for the spring 2020 primary.

Even though the party doesn’t need to fear losing a seat in this solidly Democratic area, the DCCC is trying to handpick its preferred candidate, rather than let Chicago-area voters decide which candidate is best for them without outside interference.

Democrats are a diverse coalition of voters seeking real change and a return to the ideals of shared prosperity with racial, gender, climate, social and economic equality for all. Democratic congressional candidates in Mississippi and California may not agree on everything, but voters deserve the right to choose an alternative if the current representative is not reflecting their values and morals or fulfilling their needs.

No congressional district is the same, and a one-size-fits-all candidate is not good for the Democratic Party. Banning vendors and consultants who help Democratic primary challengers is wrong. The blacklist policy deters all future leaders looking to make a difference.

At Our Revolution, we are committed to fighting for the political change that is so desperately needed in American politics. We need an economy that works for everyone. We need health care for all. We need a political system that works for the people, not the deep-pocketed special interests. In 2020 and beyond, we need candidates on the ballot who make these issues their top concerns. We need candidates who are responsive to the people, who have said over and over again that the issues that they care about are affordable health care, fighting climate change, high-quality public education and so much more.

Rodriguez is talking more about the manifestations of the problem with the party-- the take over by the careerist congressional wing-- than about the underlying problems. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not the heads of the party-- not by any stretch of the imagination. She leads the House Democrats-- poorly-- and he leads the Senate Democrats-- even more poorly. The interests of their two caucuses are often at odds with the interests of the working class/the party grassroots. Primaries of shitbags like Joe Crowley-- who Pelosi and her team had already picked as her successor-- are extremely important and absolutely necessary for many reasons, including as a wake-up call that these people do not own their transitory positions.

Strong challenges to incumbents remind the members of Congress who they work for, who is the boss. Defeating incumbents and replacing them with progressives is as important as replacing Republicans at a time when the Democratic majority is growing in the House-- not because of the inept DCCC, but because of the inept Donald Trump. This cycle, targeting reactionary, out-of-touch incumbents like Lipinski-- as well as Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA), Bill Foster (New Dem-IL), Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY) and David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)-- is the way to keep the congressional wing of the party on its toes. Hopefully there will be many more serious challenges this cycle. It's a shame the challenges to Pelosi, Hoyer and Bustos are well-meaning but scattered, unfocused and weak. (Click on that Blue America 2020 primaries thermometer above and give what you can to the candidates who can actually win some of these races.)

Last month, Pelosi-- using GOP talking points-- told the DCCC that Bernie is unpopular in the suburbs and that if he wins the nomination it could be a threat to the Democratic House majority. She's lost her mind. Members of Congress have told me that she has threatened them with repercussions if they endorse Bernie. That should tell you a lot about who she works for and how she's changed... and what she deserves.