Search
New Democratic Majority's statement on Brooklyn greens
There have been postings on various blogs recently to the effect that NDM supports the green party candidate in Brooklyn’s race for borough president.
This is, in fact, inaccurate. We have not taken a position in this race, nor have we acquired the habit of making recommendations to our members from on high, without debate or a vote.
We understand that many Progressives are displeased with the incumbent over his endorsement of the mayor, and other issues besides; but we would point out that endorsing, or voting for, a green is no different than doing the same for a republican, and that blank ballot lines send messages as well.
In addition, we are concerned about efforts by the green party to establish a foothold in Brooklyn. The candidate in question is now running her third race in four years; without exception, she has run against Democrats, as she is doing now. If she does not win this year, we expect to see her attacking yet another Democrat next year. We find this pattern troubling, not least because of conversations we have had with people affiliated with her campaign, in which they were quite open in their enthusiasm for splitting the Progressive vote from the Democratic party and strengthening their own.
On this, we do indeed have an opinion, and it is firmly, without qualification or hesitation, negative. We do not need or want an established green party in Brooklyn. Therefore, we would ask Brooklyn Progressive voters to consider the message of the blank ballot line.
New Democratic Majority
http://www.newdemmajority.org
As someone who has publicized the Mattera campaign...
I have helped publicize the current movement of Brooklyn Progressive Dems to cross-endorse Gloria Mattera in response to Marty Markowitz's endorsement of the Republican Bloomberg. Unlike the author of this diary, I do see a role for third parties and independents in local politics. But I do want to make clear that the role of third parties and independents should NOT be to split the progressive vote. Splitting the progressive vote is one of the main reasons why Bush is now in office and why the Democratic party has drifted rightward. Greens, Working Families Party and Democrats need to more strategically work together under most circumstances.
I do see a role for third parties, however. Most importantly, there are instances where stellar progressives have made it to office only through an independent/third party effort. Examples are Tish James (WFP) in Brooklyn and Bernie Sanders (Ind) in Vermont. In the case of Tish James, a corrupt Democratic candidate had the backing of the local party and Tish James was pushed aside by the party in favor of that corrupt candidate. Her bid to prevent further corruption in Brooklyn succeeded thanks to the Working Families Party. I am thankful to the WFP for giving us Tish James, the most kick ass City Councilmember we have.
The question New Democratic Majority is raising is the issue of whether the Greens in NYC in general, and Mattera's campaign in particular are beneficial or detremental to progressives in Brooklyn. Again, I want to emphasize that progressives, particularly in Brooklyn, MUST HAVE A UNITED FRONT against both a drift to Republicans and corruption in the Dem party. Marty Markowitz has unequivocally HURT progressives in Brooklyn, favoring a rightward drift in Borough politics and this refusing to hold a united front. Gloria Mattera of course holds a united front in terms of favoring progressive stands. But does she and the Brooklyn Greens offer help to progressive Democrats in holding a united front or are they continuing the marginalizing policies of Ralph Nader, who split the progressives in the US to the point of near insignificance? New Democratic Majority feels that Gloria Mattera is furthering a negative trend on the left.
I am a progressive Democrat and I am loyal to the Democratic party almost across the board. But in rare cases I am willing to back a third party, a write-in or an independent over a particularly corrupt or particularly damaging Democrat. Marty Markowitz has harmed Brooklyn Progressives. At that point he loses my loyalty. At that point I will consider a third party candidate.
In an effort to build bridges and to form a more united front, I have offered support to Gloria Mattera, the first Green I have offered such support to since Nader's boneheaded 2000 campaign. New Democratic Majority's objections weigh on my mind. Their points are very important and I take them into account. Nevertheless, I am continuing to offer my support to Gloria Mattera. But I am doing this with the expectation that the Brooklyn Greens will take the cross-endorsement by Progressive Democrats NOT as a sign that they can further split the left but rather as a sign that they need to change their tune as well. They need to no longer follow Nader's lead in splitting the left, but rather to use their status as left-of-Dems far more carefully in the future as more of a unifying rather than dividing force.
To the Greens: many Brooklyn Dems are taking a risk by doing what they think is right by cross-endorsing. We are doing this in hopes of further uniting the progressive movement. But we are NOT doing this with any intention of damaging the Democratic party as a whole. If New Democratic Majority is correct in its assessment of Mattera and the Brooklyn Greens, then the Greens will be missing an opportunity to heal some wounds on the left. If I am right and the rightward lurch of Markowitz is an opportunity for Greens and Democrats to start uniting our progressive front, then I welcome a bridge to the Greens. But I do expect more from the Greens than the same old lines about the Dems being as bad as the Republicans and that Nader was right to split the progressive vote in 2000.
Too generous by far
I have to say that you're being far too generous to the greens, both in your assessment of their motives and by the comparison with the WFP. The strategies and goals of the two are diametrically opposed; for example, NDM is presently working with the WFP to re-elect Vinnie Gentile, and we do so enthusiastically. By contrast, nothing the greens have done indicates to us that they have any interest in cross-endorsements of the kind you hope for. They run their own candidates; have an appeal on their web site for Dems to switch over, but not for repugs; and as opposed to the WFP, treat us as the enemy.
NDM fully expects to see Mattera again next year, bolstered with $200K from this year's campaign, running for a state office and against some imperfect Democrat. This is what she does; I expect your hopes of Progressive unity will only come about on terms set by the greens.
We are not prepared to accept those terms.
Neither am I
I am not prepared to accept too one-sided of a deal. I guess what I am hoping is that a relationship can be established with the Greens that is closer to that with the WFP. Both could benefit from that. This way I have made a first step along with several other loyal Democrats. This way the next move has to be a gesture on the part of the Greens. Are they going to follow Nader's example and alienate potential allies (as you expect them to do) or will they see the benefits of meeting us halfway the way I hope. It may not EVEN be half way since Dems do hold more cards. But I expect a gesture on their part and I know that there are others who do as well. Politics is a game of give and take. The Brooklyn Greens now have an excellent opportunity to show they appreciate what we have done and that they can return the gesture.
Let's revisit this in a year, see what they do. Believe me, if you are right in your expectations, the Greens will have lost any opportunity to work with progressive Dems in Brooklyn for a long time to come because right now I know a lot of Brooklyn Progressive Dems are looking to see what they will do. If I am right in my hopes, maybe we can together host a Yalta Conference of progressive Dems, WFP and Green folk and see if we can come to some shared strategies...?
We shall see...
We shall see, I guess; probably the first test case of your theory will be whether they work, say, to advance the Chris Owens campaign, or instead throw themselves into yet another campaign for one of their own candidates running against yet another flawed Democrat like Marty. I would bet any sum of money that it's the latter rather than the former.
There are plenty of good Progressive Dems on the ballot in this cycle, like Margarita Lopez Torres, Tish James (WFP) or Vinnie Gentile. Then, we had Norman Siegel in the primary; noticeably absent, frankly, was and is any green endorsement of these fine candidates.
shades of Green
I can't speak for all Greens, but as a long time Green activist and campaign committee member for the Gloria Mattera campaign, I'm excited by the idea of working with Chris Owens in 2006, In fact, I could see a scenario where Chris gets the Green and WFP endorsement, and gives the machine Dem primary winner a run for his money.
That being said, Greens will have to run someone for Governor, as NY's draconian ballot access laws require us to get 50,000 votes to get our ballot status back, and I can't see Greens getting behind Spitzer in any big way - especially in Brooklyn, with his support of the Atlantic Yards project.
And a response about an earlier comment - Brooklyn for the most part is not a two party state, but one party, and there is plenty of room for another party, where the Rethugs (aside from RINO's like Bloomberg) to get any traction anywhere other than Souther Bklyn. There's a wide divide between Biblasio and Owens, for instance, and Greens can support real progressives like Chris, Letitia and Norman Siegel. Lots of Greens worked for Siegel, and only our lack of a ballot line, and therefore a formal party structure citywide, kept us from making a more formal endorsement.
Say no to Bruce Ratner and Marty Markowitz - Gloria Mattera for Brooklyhn Boro President: www.electgloria.org
Good!
I welcome collaboration with people like you and Craig Seeman (who I have discussed these issues with before) when we both consider it appropriate. But I do want to note that Brooklyn is in a serious drift rightward. Your comments are more or less correct, but wedge issues are making it more and more open to Republican inroads. I hope we can agree that if Greens, WFP and Dems alike remain aware of the dangers of aiding Republican inroads or aiding the Clarence Norman...er, I mean Vito "my name isn't really Lopez" Lopez machine by splitting the progressive vote, and all are open to working for eachother, we can do better than if we continue to adopt strategies that do little but help marginalize the left overall. I think in Brooklyn the Dem party in particular is not yet something to be proud of and needs considerable reform (hopefully with the aid of Greens and WFP) and I think nationally (don't know about, locally) the Greens have made some serious strategic errors that have hurt their appeal among progressives and have helped marginalize the left further. Progressive Dems are often very loyal Dems, AND very loyal progressives who want to balance both. Hearing from Dems that they have to give up being progressive or from Greens that they have to give up being Dems will not sit well with them. That is something that Greens have to understand. Conversely, Dems have to realize that Greens are a third party, not just a branch of the Dems and will thus have to run candidates against Dems from time to time. My hopes is that more careful selection of when and where Greens run candidates combined with a more open attitued of Dems to support Greens when the Dem is so-so and there is no danger of electing a worse Repub will help form the left into a more effective force.
Who does number 2 work for?
NDM can recommend whomever it wants, but what is troubling about this post is that there are 2 statements within it that are completely antithical to both progressive values and democracy in general. I take them in turn...
1. "a green is no different than doing the same for a republican"
This is just absolutely the biggest load of horse hoohaa! The green party has a long history of upholding progressive values across a variety of issues. There is nothing in the Green party record that would alow one to at all come close to making the judgement that they are the same as republicans. In fact people have long hedged about voting green because they are percieved as "too liberal". The only party in this nation that has ever mirrored GOP policy is the Democratic party, and it does so to this day. One need only look at the behavior of the Hawking John Kerry, the pro-buiness/free trading Clintons and DLC, or the landlord fawning Christina Quinn! The statement is nonsense!
2. "We do not need or want an established green party in Brooklyn."
It is widely viewed by progressive political experts and afficianados that one of the biggest problems with politics in the United States is that voters are under the thumb of the 2 party system, a system which ultimately leaves voters with fewer choices. Neither the GOP or the Democratic party have, nor do I expect they ever will be advocating for run off elections or looser regulations on ballot access. The restrictions in NYState election law that favor 2 party hegemony, as in other states, are an embarrasement to the notion of democracy. One of the many things that has been identified by political observers with progressive leanings that this system needs breaking. The only reason anyone would ever want to maintain the status quo on the two party system is because they are more interested in the power it confers rather than truely progressive values. This is also known as blind party loyalty; such behavior serves no one but those running the party. The author makes his motive clear then - his is not opposition to the greens on policy, it is on fear of losing influence. This is the exact sort of thing that has lead a significant portion of people in this city to support Bloomberg. If this is the direction "New" Democrats are taking then I guess its more of the same old story.
The Nadar bashing has been a convenient excuse by the Democratic party to cover for its faliures over the past few decades. Rather than listen to the message being sent by the Nadar vote and the lack of support even in the face of the most facist federal government in a century and locally speaking corporate domination in city hall, the Democratic party remains GOP lite - capitulating on war, tax breaks for the rich, sweathart deals for NYC landlords (Mr.Miller, Ms.Fields, Ms.Quinn, the majority of city council - mostly dems - that have backed the west side stadium, williamberg rezoning, atlantic yards, you all know who you are), the erosion of labor unions, turning a blind eye to civil rights violations (where is Betsy Gotbaum DEM! on any issue?!), etc, etc, etc. Jesus I could go on but its just become so GOD DAMN BORING pointing out how pathetic and unispired democratic leadership is!
The thing we need more than ever is the establishment of some other parties EVERYWHERE in this country.
Will
onNYTurf.com
(ps - I have no affiliation with the Green party, I am a registered Dem, and I fully back Ferrer, may Bloomberg go back to the hell he came from!)
and another thing
Its not about "sending a message" to the burough president or Dem leadership (as if someone would change their behavior..ha!), its about getting that asshat Markowitz out of office because he is not good for the people. The guy is a carny side show and a patsy and needs to go home. Clearly the democratic party is not going to send him packing.
Horse doo-doo
This is, bluntly, a load of crap.
If you think there are no differences between Dems and repugs, then you haven't watched the news in the last few years. Go to freerepublic.com to check out the differences.
Second, the reason we have a two-party system is that we have a winner take all election system. That's all there's to it.
This is why we lose elections: because people don't understand that building majorities involves making compromises and sacrifices. Temper tantrums are fine, but that's not how you get those magical 51%. Build your third, fourth or fifth party over on the right, if you will - there's plenty of room there.
The right wing is out there destroying America, and this guy worries about how many ballot choices we have. Oh, and Bill Clinton, George Bush, hey, no real difference, huh?
Just breathtaking.
horse doo-doo
Compromises, now where have I heard that before...maybe the DLC?
I said the dem party is GOP lite, I did not say they were the same. Never the less, consider:
John Kerry ran on a pro-war stay the course platform as I recall medal of honor and all.
It was the Clintons that pushed forward NAFTA.
The long path of corporate tax breaks was paved with Democratic as well as Republican hands...may I suggest the highly regarded "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston for your reading pleasure.
Now among people who have used the word Republicans and "same" in a sentence it was you comparing the Green party to republicans, and that is just completely crazy. The Green party has fought tooth and nail for good causes during their entire existance - to equate them with the GOP is obtuse.
"Second, the reason we have a two-party system is that we have a winner take all election system. That's all there's to it."
This is dismissive and uninformative!
The two party system is built on legislation (particularly in NYState) that imposes difficult regulations on candidates seeking to be placed on ballots. It also rewards established parties, i.e. it is easier for them to automatically place candidates on ballots. If the democratic party were interested in election reform they would be seeking to losen the restrictions on getting on the ballot, they would be pushing for a more parlamentarian system that rewards fractional voting and requires coalitions. But they dont. Do they? To wash ones hands and say we have a winner take all election system is too easy. Ironically here, where we have an opportunity to help establish an alterative party, to give us more choice in local elections, to try to break the "winner take all" system, you opt instead to defend the status quo.
I dont need nor do I want to be involved with build majorities that elect people like Miller or Quinn, the cronies in Brooklyn, Markocowitz or a dozen of the other people sitting on the City Council who have been happy enough to vote right along with Bloomberg's property boondoggles and multimillion dollar corporate welfare deals. Nor do I need to be involved in sending ineffective "protest votes" to half wit Dems (Markowitz) who do not represent my interests, who aren't about to listen, and will continue to do more harm.
When I wake up in the morning I usually find most elected officials are working for the wealthy elite who fund their elections, not me.
I will conclude by saying that we dont lose elections because people like me don't support the Democratic party blindly. Democrats dont control either house of congress because a bunch of people voted for Nader. This part of the conversation is too big for tonight. I have to bow out, because to get into the complexities of the United States and discuss all the things that have put the Democratic party out will take too much time. Its not just that the Green party stole a few votes. The Democratic party had the luxery of all the Nadir supporters voting for Kerry in 2004 and he still lost, and the Dem party lost seats in Congress, where there were no Green or other party challengers. This arguement somehow that a more progressive group is a threat to the Democratic party and super majorities just does not hold water. Fealty is not going to save you. Tell me, whats the Democratic Party going to do about Markowitz and his ilk?
and
...do you even remember who ran all the ballot recounting in Ohio?!
So annoying.
I find this statement from the New Democratic Party, and similar statements that have come from Democrats, to be completely annoying and obnoxious. News flash: not all progressives are, or want to be, loyal Democrats. And not all progressives want to blindly uphold the two-party system, settling for Democrats just because they're Democrats just to present some sort of "united front."
I'm a progressive and a leftist. I try to vote for whoever I think will do the best job, whoever is most in line with my politics and values. Often, the best candidate for me is a Democrat, and even if I'm not particularly enthusiastic about them, I'll vote for them because they're better than the other choices.
But when a better choice from a third party - say, Letitia James or Gloria Matterra - is in the running, I'll most definitely vote for them. I'm going to vote for the best person of the job, rather than toeing some party line.
It's not as if the Democrats haven't sold out constituencies to which I belong or care about. It's not as if they're always truly looking out for poor people, people of color, queer and trans folks. The Dems might do better by those people than the Republicans ever would, but just better isn't always good enough.
One of the most infuriating things about mainstream Dems is the notion that third party candidates are trying to split the progressive vote, as if the progressive vote is some sort of monolith. I see third party candidates as offering progressive alternatives to the often not-very-progressive Dems, like Markowitz. The Democrats need to stop taking for granted the votes of progressives of all stripes. Perhaps if they start actually acting, well, progressive, then they'd have our across-the-board loyalty. Until then, folks like me will continue to vote for the candidates that truly represent them, Democrat, Green, Working Families, or whatever. And this year, that means I'm voting for Ferrer for Mayor and Materra for Brooklyn Borough President.
Oh Lord...
Well, as long as we're clear that the pro-green forces are imbued with everything that is good and right, while us loyal Democrats must hang our heads in shame for our lack of tolerance, empathy, vision and sheer humanity, I guess we're fine.
Now pardon me as I go slink over to hang with my right-wing buddies, go club some baby seals, and start a war or two.
Oh, give me a break.
Perhaps you have been hanging around with your "right-wing buddies" a bit too much, because you seem to have a "for us or against us" attitude here. I vote for Democrats often and regularly. But I don't turn a blind eye to other progressive candidates if I feel that their ideas are better, their ideals are more progressive, and that they'll do a better job in general.
Oftentimes, Democrats are the only viable candidates looking out for progressive values, and I appreciate that. But it's thoroughly insulting to be told that voting for a Green is the same thing as voting for a Republican. Perhaps that would be true if the only thing that mattered was preserving some false sense of progressive unity. But some of us would rather recognize that not all progressives are the same, not all Democrats are progressive as we might like, and we'd rather vote for the best candidate for us. It's called voting with one's conscience.
I really hope you'll admit that Democrats are not always on the side of everything that is good and right. Let's take the war we're in right now. Exactly how many Democrats voted against the war? And who, exactly, signed the Defense of Marriage Act that has gotten queers screwed over left and right by states banning gay marriage?
Of course, you could just grumble about us "pro-Greens" who hurt the Democrats soooo much, instead.
I should note...
All of the participants in this discussion are DEFINITELY on the left. None have "right wing buddies" that affect them politically and none can really be called "mainstream Democrats." We are all differing on this issue, and you make some good points, but you are talking to your allies and friends, here, not to people like Markowitz or Ellner.
I also will note that Greens are as much subject to the "if you are not for us you are against us" mentality as anyone.
Otherwise, thank you for your points. Although I overall lean towards the assessment of Greens (the party leaders, not the rank and file) of the diary's author, I also am willing to conisder third party candidates under certain circumstances and am open to collaboration with the Greens. But I also know that the diary's author is one of the most active leaders of the left in NYC right now, so I respect his views even when I don't 100% agree.
Don't get me wrong...
I don't think anyone here is on the right. When I referred to "right wing buddies," I was quoting Boudin's sarcastic response to "pro-Green" posters, in which he joked about going to club seals and start wars with his "right wing buddies."
However, I would not necessarily be so quick to label folks as my allies and friends. As a queer, genderqueer, Latina woman who's quite far to the left, I've learned that just because someone's a Democrat doesn't make them an ally, doesn't make them someone who's really going to have my back or the backs of people about whom I care most. Perhaps it makes someone more likely to be a friend and ally, but it's certainly no guarantee.
And also don't misunderstand me - I'm not a Green. I often don't agree with the Greens. I also have definite problems with the apparent lack of racial diversity within the Green establishment. But, despite the imperfections and my own disagreements, I do think that the Greens often offer viable alternatives for voters whose political values are farther to the left than most Democratic candidates.
You may know the diary's author as one of the most active leaders of "the left" in NYC, but I wonder - what left is that, exactly? I'm not sure it's the left that I feel that I'm part of - the grassroots, activist, community organizing left, the left of organizations led by low-income people of color, by queer and trans folks. The left that often has to struggle to even get the Dems to pay attention.
I don't know if the term "the left" is very useful when used to denote a movement or a group of people because, again, the political left is not a monolith, and people have many different understandings of what the left means to them.
I understand
The left certainly isn't monolithic...in fact it tends to fight over small issues, letting them get in the way of big issues. The tendency of the left to be fragmented is good in some ways, but it also is bad because by and large the right IS monolithic, so they win when we are fragmented. Perpetual problem that I personally try to address with coalition building on the left and middle.
Working with reformers in Brooklyn I am well aware of your criticisms of the DEm party and of leftists of not necessarily addressing your issues. Brooklyn unfortunately has a corrupt, inefficient party machine that is actually racially diverse. It is countered by a more progressive (variably so) reform Dem movement that has traditionally been pretty much white and wealthy and mostly supports white candidates. That is a big problem. PARTS of that reform movement have been getting a clue and have been working closely with candidates like Paul Wooten, Margarita Lopez-Torres, Letitia James, Norm Titus and Chris Owens who are kick ass progressive, reformers and happen to be minorities. That trend is giving me hope that reformers can start reaching out to a wider audience and, more importantly, can become RELEVANT to a wider audience. If it does, then there is a real chance to reform Brooklyn. I assume similar issues apply to the other boroughs.
New Democratic Majorty (which I am not a member of, but I have worked with them) is, in my mind, one of the more cutting edge progressive groups. More thoughtful and more willing to try new ideas than most progressive groups. And, of course, they aren't themselves monolithic either. But don't write them off based on one, anti-Green stand.
What I am trying to do is get more folks like you, who feel that the Dems and traditional progressive groups are unresponsive to your needs, active in some branch of the progressives--DFNYC, a local club, New Dem. Majority, Drinking Liberally...whatever--and getting them running for positions like Democratic COunty Committee. I feel that only those people who are active WITHIN the party will be relevant to the party, and only by being active WITHIN the party will you make the party relevant to you. Getting a bunch of rabble rousers on County Committee would certainly help shake up the machine! So I urge you to make the Dems YOUR party. At least that is what I am trying to do. By working hard for very progressive Dems in primaries (e.g. Paul Wooten, Norm Seigel, etc.), by working hard for more mainstream Dems when I feel it is important enough (e.g. Freddy Ferrer), and by occasionally choosing to work hard for third party candidates when I feel it is appropriate (e.g. Tish James and Gloria Mattera) I hope to shape a progressive movement that is in turn shaping the party. I think leftists HAVE to be open to compromise with moderates and visa versa, and I think leftists have to focus more on common ground than on differences. It's the old "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Or the even more leftist, "The People, United Will Never be Defeated." But the corollary is that the People DISunited will ALWAYS be defeated by big money. That is where we are at right now and need to move towards something that is unified enough and activist enough to stand up to the big money interests.
Folks like me
See, the thing is... I'm not sure that "folks like me" are interested in becoming involved in party politics. I can certainly speak for myself and say that I am not interested in becoming involved in party politics. Change is made through many different paths, and the path I've chosen is the one of community organizing, advocacy and activism. I'm happy working with the organizations that I'm working with already, and couldn't even begin to attempt to squeeze in working on party politics as well.
I/folks like me/people of color/queer and trans folks/immigrants/etc shouldn't have to be active members of the Democratic party in order for the Dems to be relevant to the party. If social justice is truly a value of the Democratic party (which I hope it is), especially more progressive branches, then they should be concerned about us, whether we're engaged in party politics or not.
Unity is a nice concept, but so often when I hear the Left speak of unity, what I seem to be hearing is that certain groups need to sacrifice their own agendas in order to present that nice, uniform united front. I'm not interested in compromise and sacrifice when it means leaving out the issues facing the people who are already at the bottom in our system - and, so often, that is what it means. I'm not interested in focusing on common ground when that means denying differences of power and privilege - and so often, that it what it means.
I have seen visions of unity that I can be down with, but they haven't come from the Democrats or the political Left. They've come from coalitions of member-led, truly grassroots organizations, coalitions like Still We Rise (not the best or most current website.) That's the kind of unity I'm about - unity of the people, by the people, for the people, that doesn't leave the most vulnerable people out and that doesn't ever ask them to wait their turn, but rather, puts them at the fore.
All good groups
All of that is important. They are not mutually exclusive. And I certainly work with or advoate for all the issues you mention. Problem is, it is the parties that get people on the ballot. Period. So the politicians we get depends on who runs for office and who carries the petitions for them and who campaigns for them. Some of that can be done without the party structure...and advocacy group can endorse or campaign for a candidate. But the petition process (generating them and binding them, though anyone can carry them) and many other parts of the process are mostly within a party structure. If more people were out there for the best candidates, the issues you mention would be addressed to a much larger degree. Norm Seigel got on the ballot but not through the primary. Though many of us are writing him in, the fact is that Betsy Gotbaum will win. Had more Democratic clubs had a more progressive membership, more would have thrown their weight behind Norm Seigel and the man who REPRESENTS the Critical Mass folks represented in Still We Ride would be our Public Advocate. Other just as good candidates never even make it to the primary, like Paul Wooten. Not enough activists were behind him. Had a flood of volunteers and several clubs/organizations endorsed him from the start, the man who stands up against hate crimes more than anyone else in Brookyn could be our Public Advocate. But because too many progressives feel alienated from party politics, we get Gotbaums and Hyneses in charge of our rights rather than Seigels and Wootens.
Why should you have to participate for the Dems to pay attention to you? Simple. Although ideology is important for any party, what wins elections are money and volunteers. You need either both or one hell of a lot of one of them to win...or even to get on the ballot. If no one with your views is providing the money or the volunteerism within the party, candidates will have to seek out those who will provide those things. The less volunteerism, the more money dominates within any party. The only way to counter it is to find the good candidates and work like hell for them. But if that is done only on a per-candidate basis, then the party is STILL in charge of who winds up BEING a candidate and they will still go for those who can get the money. This isn't just the Dems. Working Families Party has been going this way as well. So if money dominates, then no one wins by paying attention to people without money. The only way to be relevant is to be active.
You are active outside the party structure. That helps alot. But it still sets you one step outside the process of who winds up on that primary ballot. So you are not participating in the early stages of nurturing and choosing candidates. Again, those who don't have the money to get over the first hurdles and who are often the ones who are in it for the idealism, will never or rarely be seen by you because you aren't there to help them beyond those first hurdles.
Not sure if my arguement is clear. But the bottom line is I have seen too many really stellar progressive candidates, those who see your agenda as their own, pushed into obscurity because no one paid attention to them. The big money interests of ANY party have no real reason to pay attention to those candidates. It takes volunteers and endorsements to get them in the race. Without you at those early steps (which often aren't within the media's view so not within the view of most people) those candidates you most want to see never get anywhere.
Rise, not Ride
For clarification: I was talking about Still We Rise, "a non-partisan coalition representing a group of over 35 organizations led by New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS, New Yorkers who are or have been homeless , New Yorkers struggling with the welfare system and New Yorkers who have experience with the repressive drug laws and the criminal justice system." Not Still We Ride, a very different group of folks with a very different mission.
You speak of progressives like me being alienated by party politics, but then say that we need to be involved with them. I think that folks who put their time and energy into the organizations that I work with do so because that's where they see the change they want and need happening, that's where they feel welcomed, empowered, and able to make a true impact. I do this work because this is what I feel is most important and is really going to make a difference in my community. Yes, politics and politicans and parties affect a helluvalot - and that's why the organizations I work with do lobbying, do advocacy, do voter turnout work and education, speak with the politicians who will listen and yell at or fight against the ones who don't. It's not active involvement in party politics per se, but it's still engagement with the political system, and it's extremely important.
Perhaps folks like me who work with community organizations also do so because the major political parties don't have a great record of listening to us, giving us political power, or really having our backs. If that's the case, then I don't think just saying that we need to get involved anyhow is going to make a difference. If you want "folks like me" to get involved in the Democratic party, perhaps the Democratic party first has to prove that they give a damn about the issues we care about. The Dems need to stand up and truly be the party of social justice, not just the party of those who have the money to push their issues forward. People shouldn't have to earn the attention of Democrats by giving their time and their money. If the Democratic party is the true people's party, they should be about the people, whether the people are giving them money or volunteering for them or not.
I also think that, if these kick-ass progressive candidates and politicians really reach out to community organizations and their members and make clear, unequivocal commitments to social justice, then people will support them and will rally the vote for them. They may be too busy with the important work they're doing to volunteer for their campaigns, and they may not have the dollars to donate, but they will vote. Of course, many of these organizations will not be able to support a specific candidate publicly because of non-profits being legally required to remain non-partisan, but through voter registration drives and voter education on the issues, they will lead to more people voting for the progressive candidates who support them on their issues.
Take Letitia James, my absolute favorite politician. She's been one of the strongest voices supporting the Healthy Homes Act, which means a lot to the members of the NYC AIDS Housing Network, an organization I've worked with in the past. NYCAHN went to a council meeting where another councilwoman (whose name I forget) completely disrespected the NYCAHN members there and actually said "We don't care about you people." Letitia James was the only person up there who spoke up for NYCAHN, saying they had every right to be at the meeting and must be heard. I spoke to some NYCAHN members later, and one of them said that Letitia James will always have his vote - because she made it clear that she has his back, and that she's going to stand up for him and his fellow NYCAHN members and other folks who desparately need a strong supportive voice in NYC politics.
To birdsong and Bouldin
No need for you to agree on this. But I want to say to both of you that I have met both of you and worked a bit with both of you and I want you to keep in mind that you both will agree on 90% of issues and I am hoping will be collaborating in the future on many progressive projects and will be good resources for eachother as progressives in NYC find their footing. So, by all means argue this issue, but keep in mind that you will be allies often in the future if NYC progressives continue to grow their grassroots. There are bigger issues than this one and I am confident you will agree on those bigger issues, by and large.
I totally agree on this point
I complete suspect that we agree on most policy issues. I think it is just a division on strategy here.