Failing up

by | Jan 13, 2017 | Editor's Blog, Politics, Redistricting | 29 comments

According to Politico yesterday, “Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday officially launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, billing it in a speech to the Center for American Progress Action Fund as the center of Democratic rebuilding in the era of President-elect Donald Trump and as Democrats’ main hope to roll back Republican gains in state legislatures and prepare for redistricting in 2020.”

I should feel excited, but I feel dismayed. Instead of launching the initiative in a state like North Carolina, where we’ve been in the redistricting fight for years, Holder launched it in Washington, where redistricting is theoretical, not reality. Instead of hiring someone from the states who have been engaged in this battle for years, they hired the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the organization that’s overseen the loss of the Democratic majority in Congress over the past eight years. The president and vice president are from the Democratic Governor’s Association and Majority PAC, the SuperPAC affiliated with the DCCC.

I felt the same sense of dread when the Washington Post ran an article a few weeks ago titled, “Priorities USA positions itself as center of gravity for the left in the Trump era.”  The same people and organizations who have controlled the Democratic political machinery for the past eight years are continuing to control it today.  Under their leadership, we’ve seen the largest collapse of a major party since 1932.

Despite the obvious failures, Democrats keep turning to the same people for answers. The party has a Washington-centric mentality that’s left it out of touch with the rest of the country. At a time when they should be decentralizing operations and reaching out to states where Democrats have had some success, the DC Democrats continue to talk among themselves and reward failure.

They would do well to get out a bit. Specifically, they should look at North Carolina. Down here, Democrats are a few years ahead of the nation as a whole. We had devastating losses in 2010 and 2012 that gave the GOP control of both houses of the legislature and the Governor’s Mansion. Since then, Democrats have battled back with at least some success.

In 2014, the GOP rode a wave that gave them control of the US Senate and helped them increase their majority in Congress. While national Democrats were running against the Koch brothers, in North Carolina, US Senator Kay Hagan almost survived that wave by making her race about public schools. At the legislative level, Democrats picked up three house seats, making North Carolina one of the only states in the nation where Democrats made gains.

In 2016, while the national Democrats were running against Donald Trump, the governor’s race in North Carolina came down to toll roads in Charlotte and the infamous House Bill 2. Despite Trump’s victory in the state Roy Cooper defeated incumbent Republican Pat McCrory by a handful of votes. Democrats also picked up another legislative seat and kept the attorney general’s office in Democratic hands.

Democrats in North Carolina have seen their limited but significant success because they’ve localized their races. The issues that defined the campaigns have direct impact on voters’ lives. They’ve built an infrastructure that effectively challenges Republicans even in the toughest years. While they’ve certainly fallen short in places and still have plenty of work to do, their record over the past two cycles is far better than the Democrats’ record nationally.

I don’t have any confidence that the Democrats running the political machinery in Washington can lead the party out of its hole. They don’t seem to learn from their mistakes and apparently lack the inclination to broaden their perspectives. They’ve created a revolving door of politics where the same people cycle through the consulting firms, party organizations, progressive advocacy groups, and think tanks and then recycle the same failed political strategies.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Holder, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Priorities USA and other groups will use their access to money to fund groups in the states. Maybe they’ll drop their top-down approach and realize that they are the ones who need more accountability, not the people in the trenches fighting Republicans. I hope so, but I doubt it.

29 Comments

  1. RandY Hersom

    Thomas – Pleased and surprised. Lee – Aggressive Gerrymandering results in a majority of districts in which your party has a thin edge and a minority which you totally cede to the other party. It is therefore subject to a populist uprising.

  2. A. D. Reed

    Local is good, redistricting is important, getting money out of politics is essential.

    But what we have to recognize, now and forever, is that there is one political party in this country that absolutely LOATHES democracy. They have proven it again and again throughout the past century and before. The GOP is the party of business, period. Generation after generation, from the 1870s to the 2010s, it has been controlled by monopolists, “titans of industry,” industrialists, corporate fat cats, oligarchs, autocrats — a lot of names for the same people. It is in their interest to operate in secret, for their own benefit, and to keep the mass of people — not “citizens” but subjects — dependent on them for their livelihoods, well-being, opportunities, and even medical care.

    The GOP operates on the principles of feudalism, whereby the masters tell the serfs what they are, and are not, entitled to; where dissent is punishable by the loss of your job, your home, your freedom; where “getting ahead” means buying into their rules and abiding by them, throwing under the bus your own parents, siblings, childhood friends, colleagues at work; where a thriving, independent, strong middle class is anathema to their rule. Note, for example, what is happening in DC to the Office of Government Ethics who DARED to challenge the most unethical incoming administration — and congress — since the years of Teapot Dome.

    In the 1870s to 1890s, the Republican corporatists controlled most of America, until a series of calamities including a major depression in the 1890s and the overreach of the trusts, and the consequences like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, became too much. Within 20 years they had grasped power again, after Wilson made “the world safe for democracy”; and by 1929 they had brought us to the brink once more. Roosevelt saved us, and his legacy lasted 50 years, until the sons and grandsons of the same powers brought us Reagan, Bush, and the GOP calamities of the 2000s.

    Now after 8 years of rebuilding the country from Republican ashes FOR THE THIRD TIME, we have allowed them absolute, unfettered control of our nation.

    Why don ‘t we ever learn?

    The Democratic Party, to succeed, must once again become the party of the middle class; to do that, there has to BE a middle class for us to serve, support, and lead. And to that end, we have to push policies that help everyone thrive, and show them — sorry to be an elitist myself, but it’s true: show the rubes — who is on their side. They won’t believe it until the other side proves how loathesome they are, which they will do quickly enough given the power they now have. But we must be there, every day, voting only for policies that benefit ALL Americans. And any self-styled Democrat who votes with the Republicans on crucial issues MUST be thrown out of the party. Period.

    If not us, whom? If not now, when?

    • Troy

      Excellent piece A.D. Spot on.

    • RandY Hersom

      Strongly disagree. An elected representative’s first responsibility is to represent his district. If a party would throw a member out for representing the wishes of their district, then the people need to throw that party out. Your next to last paragraph insists on obedience to entrenched party leaders. That is EXACTLY what got us where we are right now. Listen to the people. Create a better product. Win in 2018 and 2020 by being an obviously better product, not by taking your orders from anybody but your voters.

      • A.D. Reed

        Perhaps I was not clear, and perhaps you misunderstood me, Mr. Hersom.

        I’m not calling for “obedience to entrenched party leaders.” I have no idea how you interpreted my words to call for such a thing.

        What I said, and what I’m saying, is that, just as in 2012 and ’13, when a group of right-wing “Democrats” voted with the Republicans to override Gov. Beverly Perdue’s vetoes, and then demanded that the state Democratic Party support their re-election bids, we have to say HELL NO. We the people who make up the Democratic Party are the ones who must throw non-Democrats and DINOs out of the party, by not voting for them, not supporting them, and not allowing our money to be used to undermine our policies.

        WE must be the party, and we must create that better product, which must be policies that help all citizens live a better life. Those policies must be consistent, constant, and in the forefront, whether or not we’re able to enact them in the short term. We must NOT go along to get along, or find easy compromises that sell us out.

        “Listen to the people,” you write. What I wrote is that wee ARE the people, and we are the ones who must give the orders to those who would represent us.

        If you don’t get that that’s what I said in my entire post, you didn’t read it.

        • Randy Hersom

          I am saying that a party that ejects members BECAUSE THEY VOTE WITH REPUBLICANS has overstepped its bounds and no longer has the ethical high ground. The representative is an employee of the people, not of the party. The voters are tired of parties that are too busy fighting each other to listen to the people. Freedom of speech is one of the key freedoms we are trying to maintain. If the vote is consistent with the wishes of the people represented, then no party should attack it.
          Party unity is not an entitlement. Party unity must be earned by good acts. When leadership does not reflect the will of the people new leadership is needed.

          • A.D. Reed

            A party that imposes consequences on elected officials who do not continue to represent it has hardly “overstepped its bounds” or given up “the ethical high ground.” That’s just baloney.

            A party is legally and realistically a private club that anyone can join — by the simple act of voter registration — and which does not require dues or pledges or oaths or even adherence to its principles from its members. However, those individuals who run for office within the party, from precinct committee to the chairmanship, and those who run for public office under its aegis, DO pledge adherence to its principles, if not to every single platform position.

            A good, strong party, made up of a wide range of people with overlapping interests, has lots of room for dissent and disagreement within the scope of its overall platform and principles. A party under siege demands a higher level of loyalty lest it be undermined from within as well as without. If the party is undermined, if it falters, if it dies, then the people whose interests it claimed to represent must find a new collective voice.

            For the moment, the Democratic Party is the closest group of NC individuals to my own philosophy, and therefore I remain a member. As such, I have the right to expect others who benefit by its apparatus and structure and money should also stay close to its principles.

            You’re right, of course, that representatives must represent the wishes of the people represented. That’s why there’s room for “conservadems” and “lefties” and Bernibots and Hillaryheads and everything in between. There is not a lot of room in the Democratic Party for Trumpistas or McCroryites.

            Candidates who run as Democrats tell the people what they stand for, and those citizens vote based on the candidate’s words and promises. Sometimes they vote because the particular candidate said what they wanted to hear, sometimes because the candidate aligns with a party they support. So when the candidate of one party gets elected based on that candidate’s and that party’s platform, and then votes against it, the officeholder is breaking his word. I have no problem with his or her choice to run again, and the onus of explaining to his constituents why he voted a certain way; if those constituents still trust his words and broken promises, or swallow new promises because of party affiliation, that’s their choice. If, in short, that official’s vote is in line with their desires, he’ll win reelection; if not, not.

            However, while you’re also right that “party unity is not an entitlement,” nor is party money. If I and millions of other Democrats give our money to our party to support candidates who support our party’s platform — by extension our philosophical alignment — then we can, and will, and do demand that that party not use that money to support candidates who OPPOSE that platform. And if enough of my fellow party members agree, then we should withhold all support from such candidates.

            That’s how private clubs work. We can’t kick the SOB out of the party in a technical sense, but we can certainly bar him from caucus meetings, and from using party-developed mailing lists, and from spending party money (members’ money) on campaigns.

            Because of the bad actions of bad actors in 2011 and 2012, and the lack of consequences, I have not given the NCDP a dime for the past four years. I give only to candidates themselves. If the NCDP wants to regain the trust of those who support it, it will have to give its support only to those who carry out the platform they were elected to support. If it wants to engage in party-building by calling on its loyal members to increase its numbers of voters and elected officials, then it must equally call on those elected officials to stand up for its principles. Otherwise, the exercise will be a meaningless failure.

            By the way, you suffer from a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech belongs to American citizens; it has nothing to do with the votes that elected officials cast. Free speech also carries consequences, and there is nothing in the Constitution that protects elected officials from the political consequences of their official actions. They’re protected from legal consequences, but not political ones.

        • RandY Hersom

          Quote “We the people who make up the Democratic Party are the ones who must throw non-Democrats and DINOs out of the party.” This type of thinking was used to subvert Bernie Sanders candidacy. There are a large number of us that believe that status quo is unacceptable and the Democratic Party must change to win the people back. Some of us have been the subject of actions intended to crush dissent. These actions are not in the best interests of the American people. Yes we agree on a lot, but crushing dissent is the wrong way and listening to the people is the right way. I disapprove of Cory Booker’s vote on insurance, but do not support his forcible removal from the Democratic Party. Make it happen in the polls instead of appointing yourself the official arbiter of right and wrong.

          • A.D. Reed

            Just love the way you quote 1/2 of my sentence, Randy, instead of what I actually wrote, so as to try to twist my remarks. To wit, what I wrote was:

            “We the people who make up the Democratic Party are the ones who must throw non-Democrats and DINOs out of the party BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM, NOT SUPPORTING THEM, AND NOT ALLOWING OUR MONEY TO BE USED TO UNDERMINE OUR POLICIES.”

            When you find the intellectual honesty to disagree with what I actually wrote instead of the straw man you make up, this page will be the better for it.

            If you, too, are one of the people who make up the Democratic Party, then you choose whom to vote for, how to support candidates, and what you want your money to be used for. You want to give it to NCDP, fine; I don’t. I make those choices for myself, you for yourself, and the majority rules. Don’t pretend that my decision to oppose those individuals is some sort of “action to crush dissent.” It’s simply to say to candidates, you want my support, then you support what I want; and conversely, you support what I want, you get my support.

            “This type of thinking” was what led to Bernie’s loss at the polls: Democrats voted against him and for Hillary. We did exactly what you demand: we DID “make it happen in the polls” instead of appointing ourselves the official arbiter of right and wrong. We voted. You were outvoted. That’s how it works, and that’s how it worked.

            As for Cory Booker, it’s up to New Jersey voters to decide whether to support him or not in the future, but it’s up to ME to decide whether I will support him, indirectly or directly, with my financial or other support channeled through the party as a whole.

            I will not give money to a party that supports candidates who oppose the party platform that it claims to propose.

            You are welcome to do so. You’re welcome to give money to the national Democratic Party that supported Hillary, and complain that it didn’t support Bernie. You’re also welcome to withhold money from them, for that very reason.

            Is that really so difficult a concept for you to grasp?

          • Randy Hersom

            Your original post ended:

            And any self-styled Democrat who votes with the Republicans on crucial issues MUST be thrown out of the party. Period.

            The second post was somewhat more tolerant of dissent.

            I’m fairly unfamiliar with the events of 2011-2012, but the actions of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Jessica Lange, and the subsequent statement by Nancy Pelosi that The Democratic Party does not need to change do have me currently adopting a policy similar to yours. I currently will not donate directly to DNC. I was impressed by the openness of the Democratic Party State Convention in 2016 and actually feel much better about my state party than the national leadership. NC Democratic leadership looked ten times better than Nevada Democratic leadership in terms of inclusion and support for progressive ideals.

            I do agree that a vote by a representative is not “Free Speech” but a constitutional duty.

            I am glad to know that you aren’t including Berniecrats in your target population for expulsion. Others are targeting us.

            We need every vote we can get to turn the disaster of 2016 around. I believe tolerance and outreach is needed. I believe fundamental change is needed. I believe five million new democrats under the age of 30 are needed. Lets not scare any of them away with intolerance.

      • Troy

        Pray, tell me, what if the district supported bigotry? Slavery? Fascism? Communism? What then? Would this representative of the ‘people’ be bound to convey those wishes and potentially binding all citizens to them…if that majority popular?

        Are there times that the majority is wrong? If so, what then? Unfortunately, representing the people is a not a singular concept. There is no way to divide votes to truly represent the wishes and whims of all the people.

        So, what now? What is to be done? Does the representative do what is expedient or what is right? Since there are times and issues when right is not in step with expedient and popular.

        • RandY Hersom

          These are excellent and difficult questions, and one that a candidate must ask themselves before entering a life of public service. One guide is that if you cannot do your job, you should leave your job. It is a good thing for leaders to lead. What could be better than to create a win-win situation that the voters didn’t even know they were in favor of, but have come to support. On the flip side if the voters ask you to abuse and divide and you can’t lead them out of it, then you probably have to let someone else try.

          • Troy

            That is very true. It is good for leaders to lead. But are elected representatives leaders, as that term is defined and used, or merely representatives of the the people? I’m sure arguments supporting both positions can be proffered as well as arguments to the contrary.

            It is likewise true that if you can’t do your job, you should leave that job. Regardless however, even as an elected representative of the people, that representative takes an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and to abide by and support the laws of this nation.

            The wishes of the people are not always in line with those two tenets of office and that does put one in an ethical conundrum. In my eyes the choice is simple; no matter how you came to that office, it is incumbent to you to live by the tenets of the oath you took. Some would not agree and that’s okay. It’s not they who took that oath. Are there times when laws are wrong? Indeed there are.

            In a time far removed from this one, I’d agree. Rationed and reasoned citizens of average intelligence, upon presentation of rational argument and listening well, would understand the reasons presented by their representative about why their will was not pleaded in the body politic of their chosen representative. But today, in the digital age, there is such a lack of context, such misunderstanding, such a contagion of words and mixed meanings, that even in the best of circumstances, a well intentioned and well meaning representative of the people can be disparaged to the point of castigation for trying to do what was right; right by law, right by intent, and right by will.

            Is there any other reason why we see and may probably know someone who make an exceptional elected official, but recuse themselves from consideration simply because they don’t want to be viewed constantly with that kind of scrutiny and perpetual criticism. Yes, the job comes with the necessity of a thick skin. But even the toughest of people can be worn down over time.

            But I’ve digressed wildly from the topic at hand. If you run under the banner and take the money of the party, then you are beholden to them. You accept their tenets and policies as yours and that you will support those things going forward to represent the people. As such, the people know this about you and either elected you or chose not to. But since we’re talking about this, you were elected.

            Is there common ground where bi-partisanship can be supported by both sides of an issue? Certainly there are. But if you reach a point where you simply can’t support the policies of those who elected you and who helped you get elected, then yes, it’s time you did something else, somewhere else.

          • Randell Hersom

            Much to like about your post. My only cavil is that is illegal and unethical to vote based on who gave you money. This applies just as much when the money comes from the Democratic Party as it does when the money comes from the Koch Brothers or George Soros. The difficulty of enforcing this has lead to rampant disregard for the law and elaborate mating dances intended to remove all risk of tangible evidence. This has become the prime driving force of politics.

    • TY Thompson

      This nation was not founded to be a democracy,but rather, a representative republic. The Reps defend that concept, hence you perceive that they “loathe” democracy. The nation’s founders, being far better educated than Americans of today, were well aware that pure democracy is inherently unstable and rapidly leads to the rise of tyrants, as it did so often in Athenian Greece. We’ve already made advances to democracy such as the enactment of the 17th Amendment. I submit that it’s still debatable that changing the Constitution that way has advanced liberty in this nation.

      • A.D. Reed

        TY Thompson:

        Clearly pure democracy can and does lead to the rise of tyrants and would-be tyrants, as it has done this past November, and once or twice before in our history. Education has always been the key to a successful democracy, as well as to a representative republic — we are actually a representative “democratic republic,” by the way — and that is one of the reasons the Republican Party and its funders have worked so diligently for more than 50 years to undermine public education, eliminating classes in Civics and Government as “frills” unworthy of the same resources given to math and science, beginning in the Reagan administration. The “stealth movement” to infiltrate public school boards began then, too, under the tutelage of Lee Atwater and Ralph Reed and the money of the Koch Brothers and Rutherford Institutue.

        Awareness of the need for, and support for, a well-educated electorate, dating back to Thomas Jefferson, has been a hallmark of progressive movements for two centuries; opposition to it has been the work of the powerful, entrenched corporatocracy for generations, and continues today under Betsy DeVos and others.

        Surely you know that “the nation’s founders, being far better educated than Americans of today,” were for the most part the nation’s elite; like all elite groups, they were far better educated than the Americans of THEIR day. “The Americans of today” also know more about more subjects–at least different ones–than many of the founders dreamed of, though less of history, philosophy, and public affairs. But today’s leaders are also far better educated than Americans of today. Some of them–almost all Democrats–want to IMPROVE the education of the Americans of today; others–almost all Republicans–do not. Why? Because, as Donald Trump asserted, “I love the uneducated,” who returned the love by voting for him in droves, against their own best interests, as the uneducated have done numerous times before, most recently for Nixon, Reagan, and G.W.Bush.

  3. Lee Mortimer

    Just today, my wife said to me, “If the Democrats didn’t fix the districts when they were in power, does it mean that now that Republicans have power, the Democrats can’t get back in power?” My reply was: “That’s a very good question.” I’ve been advocating for redistricting reform since the early 1990s. Democrats are now paying the price for their gross negligence on redistricting during all the years they had to the power to do something about it. One of the most short-sighted and shameful episodes I remember happened sometime in the 1990s when Sen. Marc Basnight pressured Sen. Ellie Kinnaird to withdraw from co-sponsoring a redistricting reform proposal with GOP Sen. Hamilton Horton. The best hope for change may be some of the legal cases making their way through the courts. Beyond that, Democrats might need to consider launching a public campaign to shame and delegitimize the GOP’s illegitimate hold on power in Congress and state legislatures.

    • ebrun

      SCOTUS just put temporary stay on the latest federal court holding that NC must redraw state legislative districts and have new elections this year. While a final decision on the state’s appeal has not been made, it’s very likely that there won’t be new legislative elections held this year and its only 50/50 that the that the appeals court ruling to redistrict will be upheld.

      • Lee mortimer

        What you said “just” happened is actually 3-day-old news. You make some breathtakingly bold predictions without any basis for doing so. All the SCOTUS action represents, as you yourself say, is “a temporary stay” for the justices to look over the state’s appeal before they meet together on Jan. 19. If they decline to take the appeal, the Republicans have to get on with drawing new districts and setting up for elections this fall. But even if there’s no special election this year, the signs are unmistakable that new district will have to be drawn for 2018 elections.

        • Ebrun

          Kind of like last year when the federal courts required NC’s Congressional Districts to be redrawn in the middle of primary election campaigns. And what was the final outcome after years of costly and disruptive court battles ? The same number of Democrat and Republican representatives and no NC Congressional district switched parties.

          If the current districts, that were approved by the Obama Administration’s Justice Department pursuant to Title V of the VRA, are redrawn, it is unlikely that the partisan make-up of the NCGA will change very much.

          And while it may have been “3-day-old news, it had not been mentioned on this blog until my post.

          • Lee Mortimer

            The Justice Dept often gives preliminary approval to new districts that are subsequently thrown out when challenged in court. So nothing new there. The congressional map consisted of 13 districts. It will be much harder for the GOP to maintain their illegitimate and undeserved control when 170 state legislative districts have to be redrawn. Democrats only need to flip 3 state House seats and/or 4 state Senate seats to break the Republicans’ veto-proof control. That will change the whole dynamic between Gov. Cooper and the legislature.

          • Ebrun

            You assume SCOTUS will uphold the lower court’s opinion. But if there is a 4-4 split, the Court could defer until a 9th Justice is confirmed, increasing the odds that the redistricting order would be reversed and the state’s appeal upheld.

          • lee mortimer

            “If there is a 4-4 split,” then the lower court ruling stands and the redistricting order will proceed.

          • Ebrun

            The Court can choose to defer a final ruling until a 9th justice is seated.

          • Lee Mortimer

            Why do you have to hide your identity behind an anonymous screen name?

  4. J.W. Williamson

    Local, local local! Only way to go. Only way to be.

  5. Glenn C. Koenig

    When you said, “Maybe I’m wrong,” my thought was, ok, perhaps. But overall, I agree that both major parties are in trouble. And for good reason. They are too big and trying to cater to too many people with too many disparate opinions about the way forward.
    The future belongs to those working on the state and local level, as you’ve so aptly pointed out. Washington, like it or not, is eventually fading into the sunset. With over 325 million people in the USA by now, there’s no way that one central government can handle more than a fraction of what they’ve taken on. Decentralization and diversity are where progress is being made by now. We are already changing the food system, the medical system, sustainable energy, land husbandry, and so on, at the state and local level because we can’t wait for Washington to act anymore.

  6. Vincent Kopp

    Perhaps Tom Ross’s redistricting work can be used as a draw into NC for Holder’s efforts.

  7. Adam

    Political parties’ main functions are no longer to win elections, but to generate and distribute political patronage. This is true for both parties. Didn’t you know that?

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!