- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Committeepeople make a difference: it’s not too soon to start thinking about 2010
Submitted by kbojar on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 10:57am.
Committeepeople make a difference. Here’s just one example: the 9th ward recommended “No” on retaining Judge Deni and just about every committee person had a letter urging this.
The results in my division for Deni:
Yes: 75 votes, 28.6%
No 187 votes, 71.3%
Undervotes (that is those who voted but skipped this race): 79
These results were very different from the vote city wide:
1st Judicial District (Philadelphia County)
Candidate Votes Percent
DAHER, GEORGANNE V. "Yes" 78,132 68.2%
"No" 36,353 31.8%
DENI, TERESA CARR "Yes" 76,046 65.9%
"No" 39,271 34.1%
GRIFFIN, DEBORAH "Yes" 82,158 71.1%
"No" 33,323 28.9%
MERRIWEATHER, RONALD B. "Yes" 89,781 77.1%
"No" 26,697 22.9%
PEW, WENDY "Yes" 84,913 76.0%
"No" 26,828 24.0%
PRESENZA, LOUIS J. "Yes" 84,120 75.1%
"No" 27,846 24.9%County Breakdown for 1st Judicial District (Philadelphia County)
Judicial Retention
From http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?Functio...
I could have done an even better job in bringing out the NO on DENI vote if I had been able to do the kind of work (knocking on doors, talking to voters) I usually do.
The gap between the vote in my division and the vote city-wide can in part be explained by fact that the voters are educated and likely to have read the newspaper reports, but it doesn’t completely explain the disparity. People lead very pressured lives these days and don't have a whole lot of time for doing research on judicial candidates. Many voters thanked me for the information about Deni; they had missed the newspaper articles.
An aside: I would love to see an analysis of the number of undervotes in judicial races. Just how many voters opt out of these races?
Bottom line: this kind of foot soldier work makes a difference. Problem is, as Ray has noted, there aren’t enough of us.
I hope young progressives are thinking of running for committeeperson slots in 2010 and that some of you are thinking strategically—-focusing on wards where you can elect enough committeepersons to elect a ward leader. A lot of us older committeepersons will retire and many incumbents are ineffective and can be easily defeated.
Although you don’t have to be a committeeperson to be effective at the polls, there are advantages. The ward treasury funds your letter, your official position gives you a little more clout, visibility and ( at least in 9th ward) you get to vote on what goes on the ward ballot.
A new generation is going to take over the Democratic party—-the only question is whether it will be the children of current ward leaders/party insiders (think of soon to be ex-Councilman Savage), or will it be a group of newcomers (think Tony Payton).
It’s not too soon to start thinking about 2010.
Of course we all know there is no unified progressive movement; we’re divided in terms of our priorities, alliances etc. But as Dan put it:
Do I think there is a progressive movement? I think there are increasing numbers of progressive minded people interested in City politics.
I agree with that. There are a lot of opportunities here for real change, but as the Jesse Brown race made clear, the way to elect progressives in this town is in the Democratic primary.
I questioned the use of resources to try to elect Jesse Brown when there are some real opportunities for victories in state legislative races coming up. If we want to keep people engaged, we need to involve them in campaigns with some potential for success—-not in guaranteed lost causes.
And although there may be no progressive movement (in then sense that "progressive" is a code word for the left), there is a liberal reform moment and it is increasingly a racially/ethnically diverse movement. The Nutter campaign inspired a lot of young, reform-minded people who are working together across racial /ethnic lines (think Damon Roberts campaign.)
The broad coalition that elected Michael Nutter is (I hope) the beginning of real change in the local Democratic Party. The week before the primary I went to the Nutter campaign office to pick up a bunch of lawn signs; the people there were a microcosm of Philly—-every racial, ethnic, and age group represented.
We had a multiracial liberal reform movement in Philly in the 1970’s—the Rizzo recall movement—and I think we might be building one again.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Jesse Brown's campaign also energized folks
I couldn't agree more with Karen that we need to begin thinking now about electing committeepeople in 2010. But running people then means rehearsing and training them now. That's part of what Neighborhood Networks was able to do by putting its whole self into Jesse Brown's campaign -- get people involved and energized within their divisions about working for a candidate representing change. Those of us who got involved don't feel like we wasted our time, nor did our effort take anything away from work that needs to be done in the Spring primary; indeed, many of the folks involved in Jesse's campaign are very likely to also be involved in some of the important state legislative races coming up. And to be more effective in doing so because of the work we did for Jesse.
Winning is important; making statements that you are not going to go down quietly in the face of completely discredited leadership is also important. That's what those of us involved in Jesse's campaign did. And the whole progressive movement in Northwest Philadelphia will be the stronger because of it.
Great post, Karen
This, I think, is particularly important:
I think some of this has to do with Nutter and the other new liberal reform candidates (ranging from Roberts and Haile Johnston to Maria Quninones Sanchez to Vern Anastasio and Matt McClure, plus all of the at-large challengers) -- their background, their neighborhoods, the issues with the candidates they challenged).
But also, the natural constituency for liberal reformers may be much wider than for any of the various progressive movements. The issues are often simpler (even if the solutions aren't); there are fewer ideological arguments or litmus tests; and the organizational issues are less complicated.
--Tim
Difficulties we face today
will make creating a multi-racial progressive reform movement very difficult. The problem is that many of the African Americans who were on the outside in the 1970s are on the inside today. And while it is a good thing that people like Dwight Evans and Chaka Fattah are in office today, they have built up political machines that too often act like the political machines they replaced. That is to say they focus a great deal on securing contracts and patronage and taking it from other factions and electing more of their own to office. They are part of the machine now and not likely to be part of a movement to reform it.
Michael Nutter won despite not having his own faction...although you might say the business and legal community support he got was the equivalent. But precisely because he is not as bound to the ward and council system, I have some hope that Nutter will challenge it and the role it plays in undermining good government in Philadelphia. If he keeps reaching over the ward system and provides everyone with government services, instead of just those who are connected, Michael can in eight years transform politics in this city. But for the rason I just mentioned and others, it isn't going to be easy to do.
Machines matter much less in
Machines matter much less in Mayoral elections, and that is why Nutter won. He had a good message, he raised a lot of money, and his media strategy was brilliant. He was, however, very beholden to the ward system as a Councilman. He was also known very much to defer to his Ward Leaders a lot more than most council people. So I sort of disagree with your characterization of him jumping over the Ward system. He has worked for and with it closely his entire career. He just didn’t need it to win this election.
Beholden?
As a former constituent in the 4th District, I always thought Nutter's primary allegiance was to civic and community groups. Not saying that he didn't loop his ward leaders into the process, but I wouldn't characterize Nutter as deferring to ward leaders more than other Councilpeople. You see, the same qualities and characteristics that propelled Nutter to a victory in the Mayor's race were appreciated by his 4th District constituents for many years. Good government is good politics, and Nutter had been delivering that to his consituents for years. He didn't need a ward system to ensure electoral victory in his Council races, he had the voters already.
Joining the local committee
How would one go about joining the local Democratic committee?
-Z
Volunteer To The Current Committeeman or Wardleader
The best way to join a ward committee is to volunteer to the existing committeeperson or ward leader.
Every four years, there is a public election of committee people in each election division. Many posts remain vacant for lack of candidates. Ten valid signatures of party members are needed to get on the ballot.
People should run for committee person slots if they see a clear difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and wish to advance the political party of their choice.
For those who do not see a clear difference, and who view their annual ideal election choices as a mixture of Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates, membership in a party committee will be a very frustrating and conflict-heavy experience as party rules require backing of party candidates in general elections.
Contacting my ward leader
I know my ward leader (22nd ward) is Vernon Price. Any idea what would be the best way to contact him?
-Z
If You Know Who Your Committeeman Is, Contact Him or Her First
If you know who your committeeman is, contact him or her first, and have the committeeperson set up the meeting.
If you do not know who the committeeperson is, call Price yourself and tell him why you want to be a committeeperson and give him other information about why you will do a good job. A good committeeperson is one who regularly contacts voters and helps them with constituent service problems: solving them or referring them to the wardleader or relevant elected officials.
If the response you get is noncommittal, write him a letter about why you want to be a committeeperson and what you will do in that capacity.
I am sorry Mark, but this is
I am sorry Mark, but this is a little too much.
Zorro, Vernon Price is your ward leader. He is also Donna Miller's staffer. He also personally threatened a (female) member of my dad's campaign staff on election day. He is really just great.
The idea of writing Vernon Price a letter asking to pretty please get involved is really bizarre. If you want to be a committeeperson, get on the ballot (it takes like ten signatures), and knock on every door in the blocks around your house that is your division. You will probably win.
The Election for Committeepersons Is In 2010
The election for committeepersons is in 2010.
Anybody who wants to be a committeeperson for the 2008 election has no choice but to get appointed by the wardleaders.
Of course, anyone can work at the polls and canvasss voters and help voters with constituent service without being a committeeperson, either by appointment or by election. Being a committeeperson just gives one official status and a strong claim to legitimacy as a local leader; any hard worker, though, who performs political and civic tasks already has legitimacy.
I don't know what happened in May in the 22nd ward
in the incident Dan refer to, but Vernon Price is a pretty good guy who is a friend of mine and who supported me in the primary. He spends a lot more time resolving conflicts than creating them. I worked very closely with him on a number of projects in Mt. Airy when I was president of West Mt. Airy Neighbors.
Vernon has welcomed young activists into the ward and encouraged them to run for committee person. If you want to get in touch with him, let me know.
That is not to say you need the permission of Vernon Price or anyone else to run for committee person. You don't and I encourage you to run for the position one way or the other. But if you want to get a feel for 22nd ward politics, now, I think you will be welcomed.
PS I recognize that above I said that the ward system is part of the problem and no I'm saying get involved with it and a pretty traditional ward leader. All I can say in reponse is (1) we can transform the ward system by moving into it and (2) sometimes the only way to accomplish something in Philadelphia today is to work with pretty traditional ward ward leader. This is the burden all of us who are trying to improve politics in Philadelphia face. We have to make the best we can of the situation in which we find ourselves.
But you have to admit, Marc
that if your objective is to elect non-machine candidates, particularly for Council in the 8th district, spending a lot of time as part of that machine is not going to be particularly productive. That would be especially true if you were either the only independent minded committeeperson in the ward, or one of a small group. If you're part of a large enough group that can elect a ward leader, or at least influence endorsements, that would be another thing. And there certainly might be times that progressive groups like NN could work with established ward leaders from the outside. The same for progressive candidates. But for an individual to move into a ward committee as an appointee of the ward leader, pledging loyalty as one would have to as an admission ticket, that would be the very definition for me of a series of frustrations getting ready to happen.
We need to see how the system works
I hope activists get involved in the ward structure one way or the other. You don't get cooties from talking to ward leaders. And you don't make any permanent promises by accepting an appointment from them. If activists get to know the ward syatem by becoming an appointed committee person or associate committee person, they might be frustrated enough to try to change it and, in addition, will have spent some time getting to know their constituents, so that they can win election in their oww right.
And we don't necessarily have to take over wards to have an influence. Ward leaders are all very good vote counters. A block of progressive committee people can open up possibilities for progressive activism. For example, we don't control the 5th ward. But the ward leader there left most of the at-large slate open to individual committee people. That's a lot better for progressvies than what used to happen in the 5th.
Of course, I hope all new committee people join NN as well, so that they keep a critical perspective on the ward system.
Agreed, if you're part of a bloc, you can make waves
But if you're alone, the waves come at you. I think going into the ward committee and then NN is exactly the opposite way progressives interested in party politics should start.
The 22nd ward was not always this way
Marc,
You may call Vernon Price “traditional;” I call him undemocratic. He may do some good things in the community, but his leadership of the ward is autocratic.
I know several committeepersons who no longer attend ward meetings because they feel they have no voice (let alone a vote) in ward decisions.
The 22nd ward was not always this way. When Robert Vance was ward leader in the 90’s, the ward was run democratically, reflecting the progressive values of the Mt. Airy community.
If we have a critical mass of liberals/ progressives running for and winning committeeperson posts, these new committeepeople can pressure Price to run a more democratic ward or, failing that, can elect a new ward leader.
Anyway, Zorro, Stan is giving good advice here. Hook up with like-minded persons and don’t approach this as just one individual.
Traditional=undemocratic
at least in this town. I'm not defending it, just describing it. (Traditional is not exactly one of my common terms of praise.) I wholly agree with the strategy you and Stan have laid out.
But Zorro said he wanted to meet Vernon Price. If you have been reading what Z has been writing, I don't see any reason to think he will go over to the dark side if he talks to Vernon. We have a few members of NN who were committee people before they joined, or in my case, co-founded NN.
Jesse Brown vs. Sean McAleer
Sean McAleer came much closer to unseating Brian O'Neill than Jesse Brown did to Donna Reed Miller. Arguably, resources could have been better used in that race to close the money/incumbency gap between the Democrat and the Republican in that district.
Now, McAleer isn't talked about as a progressive, but more as a classic Philadelphia Democrat, albeit one who might fit into the broader sphere of "liberal reform" that Karen's sketched here. Nor do many vocal, high-profile progressives live in the Northeast. Brown, on the other hand, comes out of the fight against the casinos and lives in a (relatively) progressive-heavy district where many, many people have a lot invested in defeating Donna Reed Miller. There the broader electoral momentum, and the momentum of the party, tilts towards McAleer, but the momentum of the progressives within the party tips towards Brown (or even Foster, if he had run).
It's not a decision I would have wanted to make. But it would be great if Neighborhood Networks and other progressive organizations can make more inroads in the 10th district, and work with the party to help get on the ground with a candidate. That is a seat that could change the balance of council in 2011.
--Tim
Neighborhood Networks doesn't have resources to "use"
We're an all volunteer organization whose "resources" are whatever we volunteer to do. Mostly, for philosophical and practical reasons, we work politically where we live. Therefore it wasn't really an option for us to concentrate our work in the Northeast where we have relatively few members. Someday, hopefully soon, we will have more members in the Northeast, however, in which case we will be able to support more progressive candidates there, more effectively. Please refer any Northeast progressives you know to our website at phillynn.org where they can sign up and help get things going in that section of town.
Like the Ewoks in Jedi
The rationale for acting in the districts in which you live makes complete sense. I don't live in the Northeast either, but I will bet that there are more than a few young (and young at heart) Democrats in the 10th who would be interested in what you do.
Since I know he reads this blog sometimes, I'll just say it:
Help us, Dan McQuade! You're our only hope!
--Tim
Northeast and Northwest Goals Are Fundamentally Different
The pre-eminent goal of Neighborhood Networks in Northwest Philadelphia has been, and likely will continue to be, replacing Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller. That involves putting together a coalition of fellow Democrats who, regardless of ideological preferences, would prefer someone else for any reason. Because there is no real conservative base in Northwest Philadelphia, idiosyncratic conservatives that are discovered here and there are welcomed as allies by all sides.
The task of Democrats in Northeast Philadelphia has been to strengthen the Democratic Party so that Democratic seats are out of serious contention for the Republican Party, so that Republican legislators are under considerable pressure to vote with the Democrats in the House, and to convince the voters who vote Republican in such numbers that the one district council seat and the four state house seats are held by Republicans will switch to the Democrats at least when the incumbents retire. The importance of this task is indicated by the narrow 102-101 lead the Democrats hold in the state house, and the uncertain ultimate status and fate of House Speaker Dennis O'Brien, the Democratically allied Republican.
Of these three longstanding tasks for Northeast Philadelphia Democrats, the first two of them have been achieved in this decade, and the third will likely be achieved in part when Rep. George Kenney likely retires and is likely succeeded by Democrat Brendan Boyle in 2008. Because there is a substantial conservative base in Northeast Philadelphia, conservative support will overwhelmingly be on the side of the Republican Party.
These different tasks, generally speaking, appeal to different people, as do any set of different tasks. Tim Kearney, the perennial Perzel opponent with deep roots in Northwest Philadelphia who could win with enough support mobilized behind him in 2008, could be a bridge for Northwest progressives who identify with the goal of a stronger Democratic Party in Northeast Philadelphia and Pennsylvania as a whole. A Kearney victory over Perzel would have enormous statewide effects for many years to come.
Defining NN's goals in this way is highly misleading
We have been working to elect a variety of good progressive candidates in various parts of the city. We endorsed a slate of Council at large candidates, we endorsed candidates in a few district races in the Northwest in 2007. In the past we have endorsed candidates for State Representative in various parts of the city including the Northeast, Northwest and West. We endorsed Tim Kearney in both his races against John Perzel and sent money and supporters to help him. We endorsed candidates for US Senate and Governor. I expect we will endorse candidates for State Representative and Senate in April 2008.
And, of course we have worked on a number of different issue campaigns, starting with ethics reform charter changes, the minimum wage, the Cohen wage tax rebate, inclusionary housing, and health care.
If Sean McAleer had any interest in seeking support from progressives, he certainly knew where to find us. I met him a few times during my council campaign and tried to enlist him in our efforts. He was not especially interested. Nor did he present himself as a progressive reformer. So it is no surprise we did not support him.
We in NN are progressives first and foremost. Most of us are Democrats as well and we would generally prefer Democrats to hold power. But we don't feel compelled to support Democrats when they don't share our ideals.
NN is in pretty much the same position as progressive labor unions like SEIU and DC 47. We focus on our ideals first and see the Democratic Party as usually the best means to attain our ideals. We live in a country with a two-party system, each of is a coalition of various groups, interests, and ideological tendencies. It is pretty hard to say what the Democratic Party as a whole stands for. That's why we define our goals more narrowly and hope to move the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction.
Information Clutter Hampers Ability To Act
"It's pretty hard to say what the Democratic Party as a whole stands for," Marc Stier says above. Each party, he explains in the line above that, "is a coalition of various groups, interests, and ideological tendencies."
Those who are able to figure out what the Democratic Party stands for in the welter of individual positions and positions of various coalition members have an enormous advantage in undertaking political action.
Some of the failure to understand what the Democratic Party stands for is due to information clutter. The average Democrat in my district does not know what Congressman X said last week or how how Senator Y voted on issue XYZ. Dr. Stier, an authority on diverse subjects in political science, is more likely to know that.
But the average Democrat in my district does know that the Democratic Party, while far from perfect by any standard, is far more likely to represent the interests of ordinary citizens than than is the Republican Party on any given economic issue. That understanding enables him or her to take action with his or her vote that those who are mired in the complexity of this or that position on this or that bill may often be too paralyzed to take.
Many years ago, a friend of mine in the House quipped "What we need is a switch that allows us to vote 'maybe.'" We cannot vote "maybe," although we can decline to vote, or decline to participate, using high standards or any other excuse that suits our fancy.
Marc Stier and I agree that Neighborhood Networks is not a partisan organization. I agree with him that members of Neighborhood Networks, (like endless numbers of other citizen organizations in my view, indeed probably the vast majority of citizen organizations), "would generally prefer Democrats to hold power."
I have often felt that it would be great if every first time Democratic candidate was a winner of the Noble Peace Prize and a multimillionaire who had spent the last twenty years of his life giving away money to the poor and organizing businesses on behalf of labor unions and improved working conditions. But in the real world we are going to be stuck in general elections with imperfect candidates who can easily be boycotted for this reason or that reason.
The fundamental question for every organization is whether or not a general preference for Democrats is going to translate into significant efforts for Democrats. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. When it does, I strongly believe from decades of experience that average citizens and labor unions are far better off and the broad public interests are far better served.
Are you saying we should always support Democrats
in general elections?
Or incumbent Democrats in primaries?
Most voters who prefer Democrats do that, simply beause it takes too much time and effort to learn about candidates in detail.
But I don't see why this should be encouraged especially when Democrats sometimes betray progressive ideals and do not support the interests of the working class.
And I have to say that the Democratic Party in Philadelphia, in large part because it has no serious challenger, does not always support the interest of working people. Indeed, much of the time, our city politicians spend much more time focusing on how to take patronage and contracts from other factions than they do on making the city a better place for everyone let alone for working people.
The Democratic label and the inclination of voters to save time and effort by voting Democratic in general elections no matter leads many voters to vote contrary to their interests.
As I have said many times before, the Democratic Party in Phildadelphia looks a lot like the Democratic Party in Georgia in 1955. It is a factionalized, patronage driven, ideology free mess that governs us about as well as the Democratic Party governed Georgia in 1955.
That is why NN and Philly for Change and ADA are needed and why we will put in some effort to elect Democrats when they deserve election and not, when they do not.
The Democratic label is a much better guide to finding candidates who support progressive causes in state and federal elections than in city elections. But even there exceptions are not hard to find. There are a few Democratic State Reps who tend to vote with Republicans more often than they should. And there are more than a few Democratics State Reps who...well, let's put this gently...don't do much more than vote the right way most of the time. That's better than nothing, but not good enough.
So, Mark, I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing for here, but if you are trying to make an argument for working on behalf of Democrats no matter what, I'm not buying it.
There Should Be A Rebuttable Presumption for Democrats
Using legal terminology, I am arguing there should be a rebuttable presumption for Democratic nominees in general elections. That is it should be presumed that we are supporting the Democratic nominee unless he or she is so bad that he or she should be repudiated.
This is the standard of the Democratic Party, and it is a standard that facilitates the election of Democrats against Republicans.
It is a standard that recognizes the Democratic Party label means more in terms of public policy than questions of personality such the names of one's favorite singers, authors, movie stars, or porfessional athletes. It is a standard that recognizes that the Democratic Party label, while providing no guarantee, is a strong indicator of one's policy positions on thousands of discrete issues that a public official must come to grips with.
Electing Democratic majorities is much harder than it needs to be because of the practice of abstention so widely used by civic activists. If someone in progressive politics wants to argue here that the state or the country was better off with Republican legislative majorities from 1995 through 2006, they should feel free to do that here.
But the presumption that Democratic nominees and Republican nominees are equally likely to support the interests of working people, are equally likely to support neighborhood interests against corporate interests, are equally likely to support governmental programs to benefit low income people, are equally likely to favor a foreign policy that does not needlessly waste human lives, are equally likely is support good government reforms, etc. is totally without empirical verification.
Unless one defines the word progressive in right-wing terms as meaning laying off governmental workers, cutting governmental programs, and switching the tax burden away from business and towards low-income people, almost any generic Democrat in a given district is far more progressive than almost any generic Republican in that district.
To argue against that proposition is to ignore massive historical evidence. Who here can name a single Republican elected from 1994 through 2006, for instance, who was more progressive as the word is most commonly used than the Democrat he or she succeed?
How about some evidence?
Of course that rebuttable proposition is true. Why would you think any of us deny it. Have you seen massive defections among progressives to the Republicans? I'm sure progressive in the 10th district voted for Sean McAleer.
How about some evidence for the claim that civic activists make it hard to elect Democratic nominees. That claim strikes me as bizarre. Every shred of evidence I know suggests that civic activists whose ideals tend toward to the left vote to a much higher degree for Democrats than any other group.
If you want to know why we don't have more Democrats in office, I'd look closer to home. Up until four years ago the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives did very little serious work in recruiting, training, funding and supporting candidates. Things changed in the last two elections when the HDCC got its act together with pretty dramatic results. They are still not good enough--where is the challenger for Tom Murtt?--but far better than they once were.
Things are still awful on the Senate side. Maybe I don't know enough about state politics yet, but I can't name one good challenger to a Republican State Senator that has been recruited by the Democrats this year.
Of course, if the Democratic leadership in both Houses were more interested in gaining power for the party, instead of securing their own position and that of their members, they would call for an independent commission to draw legislative boundaries rather than supporting reapportionment plans that are mainly designed to protect incumbents. If districts were less gerrymandered, we might have a better chance of defeating Perzel, O'Brien, Kenny, Taylor, not to mention Republican Representatives and Senstors in the Philadelphia suburbs. (And if the 198th had not been re-drawn to protect Rosita Youngblood and you, I would have won in 2004.)
It would help, too, if the leaders of both house were free of any taint from the pay raise scandal and had the capacity to communicate a progressive vision to the public at large.
I think you are confusing progressive criticism of Democrat office holders--which in my opinion is very richly deserved--with progressive voting behavior.
If Everyone Agreed About a Rebuttable Presumption
If everyone agreed about a rebuttable presumption in support of Democrats, then there would be a lot more endorsements and work done on behalf of so-called "no name" Democrats.
The fact that so many Democratically-inclined groups instead subject long-shot Democratic nominees to an extensive and often demeaning series of grillings, delays, equivocations, and rejections, discourages Democratic candidates from running and distracts them from the ultimate purpose of of reaching the people in their districts.
I have often told candidates that it is sometimes far easier to actually win an election than to convince this group, that group, or any group that victory is possible or that the candidate meets the extraordinary standards required by many groups at so many times of what is often the only person in a given district willing to run a long-shot race.
I have no idea why my willingness to engage in general discussions here has to lead to attacks on me. But the offhand allegation here that I schemed on behalf of Rosita Youngblood and myself in the 2001 legislative redistricting is totally false; Rep. Youngblood publicly complained to the Philadelphia Tribune about the redistricting which replaced the 38th Ward in her district (which went to Jewell Williams) with parts of the 42nd (represented by Bill Rieger in the prior decade) and 49th (represented by me in the prior decade) Wards.
The task of the redistricting was to eliminate the district of Judge-Elect Chris Wogan and to divide Wogan's district among myself, Dwight Evans, George Kenney, Bill Rieger, and John Perzel. Wogan was supported for Judge by many Democrats for the precise purpose of elminating his seat. Getting new territory forced all of us to give up some territory, as no more than 62,000 voters were allowed in any Philadelphia House district.
The effect of this political change was to eliminate the only Republican seat in the state that was eliminated in the redistricting in either chamber, giving House Democrats our current one-seat margin, and to somewhat weakening the Republican hold on George Kenney's seat to the extent that Democrats have to be rated the favorite to win when he retires in 2008.
My district was a safe seat for me both before the redistricting and after the redistricting. I had won without primary or general election opposition in 1998 and 2000; the 1991 boundaries were fine with me politically but completely untenable governmentally in view of population losses in neighboring districts.
The alternative to dividing the seat Wogan was vacating was to keep that Republican-leaning seat in existence and force two African-American legislators to run against each other. The then-twelve seats with African American incumbents has lost about 75,000 people since the 1990 census, although the black population of Philadelphia had risen by 30,000. The widespread consensus in the Philadelphia delegation was to preserve the African-American delegation intact, and to give an African American a realistic shot at what is now the Tony Payton district at such time as Bill Rieger retired.
Shortly after the redistricting process was over, I became the first white legislator in Pennsylvania history to receive an award from the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus. My extensive outreach to the the various black communities in Philadelphia and my close work with the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus in Harrisburg were cited as the reasons for this honor.
Democracy and democracy
Mark,
You are perhaps the leading champion of social justice legislation in Harrisburg yet, while you are frequently honored for that there, you also get attacked.
I’ll tell you why.
First, because, you are a defender of a way of doing politics that most of us would like to see reformed. Your contempt for Neighborhood Networks and Philly for Change and other such organizations is barely contained in your criticism. And we find it hard to understand this. People who loved your father, including me, understood why he had to play the traditional ward leader’s game. Given your utterly secure house seat, it is hard to understand why you defend that kind of politics, a politics that many of us see as morally and practically wrong. I’m going to write on this at some length soon, so I’ll just put it this way: The General Assembly works more or less the way Congress did in the 1950s when it was a mostly closed circle in which Democrats and Republicans got along well and tried to insulate themselves form public pressure. Congress has radically changed since then, mostly but not entirely for the better. But Harrisburg remains the same.
Second, because while you are always certain, you are sometime wrong and quite often in ways that betray the undemocratic spirit of your politics. How dare progressive groups—you might as well add labor unions—ask legislators to fill out forms describing their political views. How dare them having high standards for the candidates they support? How dare them not support every Democratic? They should just let the people in charge choose their candidates and hand out leaflets for the Democrats, no questions asked.
You may be a Democrat but you constantly make arguments that are profoundly anti-democratic. In some ways you are even worse than a traditional ward leader. At least ward leaders promise people jobs. There is a genuine transaction carried out in traditional politics in which each party to the transaction is respected. You want us to presume that Democrats deserve support on ideological ground, without allowing us to ask ideological questions. Traditional ward leaders treat their supporters as real human beings with interests that have to be respected. But you are upset that you have to respect the ideas of people who haven’t served in the General Assembly for thirty plus years.
As for the details of the redistricting, I know that Rosita complained because she thought of Chestnut Hill as her base, but someone high up in the Democratic Caucus told me that they thought they were doing her a favor when they redistricted her seat. Another person said that the redistricting was also meant to help you, although you are quite right that you had about as safe a seat as anyone could have. And to be perfectly fair, the reason is in no small part because you do a good job. When I campaigned in the 42nd and 49th ward in 2004, your former constituents were very disappointed to have lost you as their Representative. They all said you did a wonderful job. Perhaps the folks who told me about the redistricting had an axe to grind and I was misinformed.
But on the larger point, I don’t think I was wrong. If you want to win more Democratic seats in the House and the Senate, Democrats have to be willing to put their seats at risk and come up with a redistricting plan that doesn’t protect incumbents first of all.
Marc
A Misreading of Reality
Marc Stier says in post that is also full of compliments that I am "a defender of doing politics the way most of us would like to see reformed." That is an accusation without meaning and substance, especially considering that I was the first elected official to join Philly for Change and first to join Neighborhood Networks. I do not join organizations I have a "contempt" for; nor do I ask people I have a "contempt" for to be Facebook friends as so many of them are, including Neighborhood Networks co-founder Marc Stier and Philly4Change co-founder Anne Dicker.
In the late 1960's, I headed the University of Pennsylvania chapter of the New Democratic Coalition, an openly Democratic organization that actively recruited candidates for Democratic committee posts, and created the situation in which a 24 year old graduate student in microbiology, Jeffrey Freedman, was elected wardleader of the 27th Ward. I did not suddenly become interested in reform politics the day before yesterday.
I plead guilty to seeing a tremendous difference in the Democratic and Republican parties and supporting Democrat after Democrat against Republican after Republican when the Democratic nominees do not the meet standards of greatness that some demand of them.
I accept as a fact of life that the average person is average and I further believe that average people working together can do great things. I also believe that losing campaigns of average people move the ball forward for many causes that I care deeply about, and I am quite frustrated at the obvious distancing behavior that so many Democratic nominees face from a large number of progressive activists.
I would have no problem with questionnaires if they were used as a point of discussion between candidates and voters. More often, however, they serve to justify a hunt for minor differences which is then used to deny support to candidates. What is justified as a means of accoutability all too often degenerates into a justification for apathy or abstention. Candidates who started running for the best of reasons wind up burned out and bitter, and the enterprise of participating in politics to advance the cause of social justice is moved backwards instead of forwards.
I do not believe the analagy between the Democratic Party in the Pennsylvania House and the Democratic Party in the U.S. House fifty years ago has much merit. The Pennsylvania House Democrats, including myself, engage in extensive constituent outreach, as is obvious for anyone who looks at my Internet involvement or who talks to my current or former constituents as Marc Stier has done.
When Marc Stier talked to my former constituents in the 42nd Ward three or four years ago, it had been over a dozen years since I had last represented them; it had been more than two years since I had last represented my 49th Ward constituents. I still represent different parts of both wards, and former constituents from those wards and other parts of the city still often visit my legislative district office. Generally they vist for constituent service, but my staff I and are touched by the number of times they visit just to say hello.
Fifty years ago, Congressional Democrats were deeply divided on issues of civil rights; Pennsylvania House Democrats are united on civil rights for minorities and women and are moving towards unity on civil rights for gays.
The legislature is extremely responsive to public opinion, and, if more groups would recognize that, more would get done. From passing the minimum wage to repealing the pay raise, from expanding property tax rebates to establishing the most amibitious program of governmentally subsidized senior citizens presciptions in America, from setting up district offices and holding town meetings to attending numerous community meetings, members of the legislature are constantly interacting with voters and acting in ways that are responsive to them.
While it appears to be an irrestible temptation for posters here to critique "perhaps the leading champion of social justice legislation in Harrisburg," I would hope that our conversation could evolve into how we could pass more social justice legislation in Harrisburg. That is the pre-eminent reason I participate in these discussions, and I hope we could move on in that direction.
Who are these progressive activists
who you say are distancing themselves from Democratic nominees and are using questionaires to look for minor differences between themselves and those nominees? I assumed you were talking about NN and P4C members which is why I drew the conclusion that you have contempt for us even if you are a member.
If you are not talking about NN and P4C, who are you talking about? I don't recognize the behavior you are complaining about in any groups of which I am a part. And I certainly don't recognize it in myself. Maybe you don't know that I did a substantial amount of fundraising for Democrats running for State Representative in formerly Republican districts in 2006. I didn't agree with everything they stood for...Brendan Boyle and I don't quite see eye to eye on abortion. But I supported them because I share the presumption the Democrats are better than Republicans.
Most of us in NN believe that reforms such as campaign finance laws, open record laws, lobbyist registration, and the like contribute to our campaigns for social justice because those who oppose things like RxPA, for which I'm working now, have far more money than we do and use it in hidden ways to pursue their agenda. And while most of us do think that public servants should be well paid and even should have reasonable expense accounts, we think that unconstitutional pay raises call into question government in ways that undermine our fight to use government to pursue social justice.
To wit...I fear that the bonus scandal may cost us the Democratic majority in the House. I've been worrying about this for weeks and hoping that John Perzel has similarly problems. It would be a shame if the inclination to cut constitutional and legal corners again brings shame down on the House of Representatives.
I thought you did not share our ideas about political reform because of the number of times when you have shown impatience and frustration with discussions about political reform in Harrisburg over which, you've said, distract us from the more important businsess of pursuing social justice.
If I recall correctly the NDC shared NN's view that social justice and political reform were two sides of the same struggle. I hope you share that view, but I can't say you've been defending that perspective at YPP.
You are right that my analogy between the 1950s Congress and the contemporary PA House is not perfect. But it is not totally wrong either. Not everyone in the House is as good at reaching out to constituents as you are. And lots of people, including you, strike me as more concerned with maintaining cozy relatinships inside the House than in bringing ouside pressure to bear on Representatives. That was the nub of our disagreement about strategy for raising the minimum wage. And given that the radio advertisements that ultimately pushed the Senate leadership to allow a vote hit them hard on the pay raise issue, I don't think I was wrong.
I'm glad to see you recognizing the compliments among the criticisms. I consider this a health diagreement among friends.
Those progressive activists
Those progressive activists, always giving progressive politicians the opportunity to advertise their progressive positions to progressive voters, without the filter of the scandal-crazed, right-wing local media. Where do they get the nerve?
It's a mistake for voters to politically educate themselves, or for anyone, especially Democratic politicians or Democratic political groups, to try to help them. The only thing that voters should know is the difference between Democrat and Republican. There is no other meaningful political information. Especially for average people, trying to elect average people like themselves.
(I'm sorry, Rep. Cohen. You make it too easy.)
--Tim
No Idea Of Time Pressures
This kind of angry response shows no understanding of time pressures people are under who are running long shot campaigns while working at a job which usually has nothing to do with their campaigns and dealing with the normal pressures of every day family life.
We are not dealing with public policy experts in this discussion; we are dealing with concerned citizens who are willing to stick their neck on the line because their core beliefs but are not expert in countless other fields for which detailed answers are often required by many, many questionnaires.
This kind of blind hostility and confusing of accountability of elective officials with demands on people who are not elective officials is an obstacle towards actually having meaningful Democratic majorities in the state legislature and getting more Democrats in other offices.
The story of activists and Democratic candidates is like the story of the man who never made a serious commitment to a woman because he was looking for the perfect woman. One day, he glumly told a friend, he found her. But she was not interested in him because she was looking for the perfect man.
Political maturity, like emotional maturity, requires coming to grips the fact that perfect people are extremely hard to find.
The regressives are a bigger problem than the progressives
What is the context here? Are we talking about a real situation, Mark? You are making an impassioned argument but I have no clue who if anyone you are talking about. Are there really Democratic candidates for council or the general assembly who were hampered by having to fill out questionnaires?
I ran an underfunded, long shot campaign. And I have a few complaints about the process--not as many as you might think given the results. On the whole it was an increndibly enjoyable and exciting if exhausting process.
Filing out questionnaires is not one of the things I complain about, with one exception. Most of them were actually helpful in getting a clue about what different interest groups and individuals care about. They were good preparation for personal meetings. It is easier to take the time to do some thinking and carefully fill out the questionnaire than to have to wing it before a live audience.
Of course, I've been studying politics and public policy for 36 years so I had a head start doing these questionnaires. Still, knowing as much as I do sometimes made it harder. Knowing a lot of public policy sometimes made it harder to figure out how to frame issues in an approachable way and also politically sensible, while leaving out qualifications that are important only to me. And sometimes it was hard finding the time to write these things, although I had two good staff people who, once they knew me well, were able to help out a great deal.
The only questionnaire that was a problem was that of the Chamber of Commerce which had about 30 openended questions. I spent way too much time on it. I should have known that my views on economic issues wouldn't mesh with the chamber, although I had some hopes that they would be attracted to my reform agenda. What really pissed me of was that the one issue that was make or break for them was the casinos. If they had told me that in advance, it would have saved me a whole lot of time and effort. I should have known better given that the chamber is a pretty useless and regressive organization most of the time. But my congenital optimism got the better of me.
So it wasn't the progressive but the regressive swho were the problem.
By the way, if filling out those questionnaire is a problem for candidates who don't know enough about public policy than (a) maybe they shouldn't be running for office or (b) maybe the HDCC could do some training sessions.
Not angry at all
Rep. Cohen, I can't imagine you at a loss for words; you're always articulate in your responses here, and I don't think you take an undue amount of time to read and think about what you write, even as you're still thoughtful about what you've read. And you clearly enjoy this kind of engagement, and devote time to it, even with people with whom you disagree about many things.
So it astonishes me that you don't likewise see the questionnaires as the kind of opportunity to connect directly with voters that you clearly relish. That, for me, is and always has been the value of the questionnaires, rather than the endorsement or non-endorsement that follows them. I always read them, even though I'm not a member of any of these groups and don't place much stock by their endorsement alone. And it isn't a quest for perfection. Many progressives are often purists about certain issues, but all Democrats are used to compromise and disappointment. Look at our presidential candidates, for virtually all of living memory.
It's possible, as you suggest above, that you're arguing on behalf of other office-seekers. But still, I don't understand why you defend so much of what doesn't make sense about the just-part-of-doing-business side of politics, and express so much frustration with the same kind of transactions when they actually seem to make some kind of sense.
--Tim
Do tell...
Using legal terminology, I am arguing there should be a rebuttable presumption for Democratic nominees in general elections. That is it should be presumed that we are supporting the Democratic nominee unless he or she is so bad that he or she should be repudiated.
Why, then, did the Democratic Party apparenly support Donna Reed Miller in both the Primary + General elections, when she is clearly the kind of person who should have been repudiated? In each case, far superior options were available, yet none were taken.
-Z
Let me clarify what I mean
I don't think Sean McAleer was a progressive candidate. Whatever the history of his family and his credentials, I don't think the Sean McAleers of Philadelphia will do much better than 40% in the 10th.
However, just as a coalition of progressive and liberal Democrats and disaffected crossover Republicans can unite to unseat an unpopular incumbent Democrat, it is possible that a coalition of progressive and liberal Democrats and disaffected crossover Republicans, with traditional and yellow dog Democrats, can unite behind a progressive, reform-minded Democrat in the 10th district.
The two mayoral candidates that did the best in the 10th district were Tom Knox and Michael Nutter. There were differences in the platforms and abilities (and obviously, I was an enthusiastic supporter of Nutter) but both candidates were similar in that they ran on reforming city politics, hiring more police officers to reduce violence, reducing taxes to encourage economic development, and took an outsider stance to the current mayor and other leaders in the city party.
My guess is that Knox's numbers were better in the 10th until he pledged to support Jannie Blackwell's effort to become city council president. These are Democrats who don't like the entrenched power players in the city. The Republicans and moderates like them even less. If a smart, talented progressive/liberal reformer runs in the 10th district, they can attract Republicans in the same way that David Oh attracted Democrats. And I think this is something that both progressive organizations AND people in the city committee should think about if they are serious about winning that seat.
--Tim
P.S.: And if we can't find one, then one, just one of the perennial candidates in the NW or elsewhere in the city should consider moving. ;-)
NN's goals are not to defeat anyone, but to elect . . .
progressives and to bring about progressive change by organizing people to fight for it in the neighborhoods where they live. There's nothing personal about any of it.
Northeast Political Goals Are Partisan, and Northwest's Are Not
The fundamental point is that the key Northeast political goals are partisan goals, while Northwest political goals are not partisan. Those people with more partisan orientations are more attracted to helping achieve partisan goals, while those without partisan orientation or with little partisan orientation are not so attracted to helping achieve partisan goals.
A Bob Casey Jr. candidate for the 10th
I see what you mean about progressives in the NW who are disaffected with the Democratic party's candidates joining up with disaffected/moderate Republicans. But I don't necessarily see why that dynamic can't be applied to the NE in reverse. David Oh was maybe-elected by a coalition of progressives, liberals, and disaffected conservatives. A similar coalition could be launched to field a similar candidate (in the far NE, someone like Oh would probably be a Democrat) in the 10th district in 2011.
Of course, again, this means that progressives in and around the NE need to be found, encouraged, mobilized, etc.
--Tim
Sean McAleer Was A Good Candidate For Those Looking for A Dem.
Sean McAleer was a good candidate in 2007, as was Bob McCarthy in 2003. Both were hardworking, intelligent, personable, well-qualified, and involved in their neighborhoods.
Certainly, we need more people to campaign for candidates for that seat. These people, though, have to be looking for a Democrat to support; for those who are looking to find Republicans to vote for, Brian O'Neill is certainly acceptable as a thoughtful, pleasant, intelligent attorney who once headed the National League of Cities and has served since first winning election in 1979.
A good candidate and a great one
Sean McAleer and Bob McCarthy may have been good candidates, but to become great is to continue with what you sell yourself on. There are many candidates that seem to disappear after the elections.
I hope that all the candidates who ran and lost are not lost from the cause of making the city the finest place to live.
Don't go back to just your day job reach out and continue to reach out then they will be great candidates.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter".
Dr Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.