There is No Messiah and You’re It: The Challenge of Bernie’s “Radical Transformation” of the Democratic Party

ANALYSIS

Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the godfather of what might be called the new Progressive or “Dem Enter” movement, said that in order to “organize and educate people around a progressive agenda,” the Democratic Party was going to need “radical transformation.”

Since the election of 2016 the Democratic party has been in transformation mode, as Berniecrats have come into the party and are putting their back into the transformation.

In the Democratic Party of Georgia, prominent Berniecrats have risen into positions of influence and power.  Berniecrats influence showed in a close election for DNC chair between establishment candidate Perez and Berniecrat choice Keith Ellison, so much so that Ellison was put in the Vice Chair position, ostensibly to mollify the Berners. 

In California, the Berniecrats snatched up 600 of 1120 in the State party assembly.  Bernie’s “Our Revolution” was an essential part of this, according to an IVN article, entitled “the Revolution within”.

Although the “Our Revolution”, or “Dem Enter” concept of “radical transformation” of the Democratic Party is already forthcoming, as it should be, it still lacks a cohesive, explicit agenda for what this transformation of the party entails.

That is, what are the building blocks and measures by which we will know the party is being transformed?  What are the steps?   Although the “Our Revolution” site has a lot on its agenda page regarding the political platform of the party, there is little in the way of instruction for the “radical transformation” of the party. 

Waiting for “Radical Transformation”

An Episcopal priest and friend of the family used to tell us, “there is no Messiah and you’re it.”  I think this is a decent paradigm for the “radical transformation” going on right now.  

The old party is dysfunctional, shrunken, and out of touch with a new generation.  The new hands are coming on hard, but without a clear strategy for reforming the party.   On the margins of the party is an electoral gold mine:   millions of dissatisfied voters who supported Bernie or other, non-Democratic party candidates, who want a progressive agenda but are half (or more) convinced the Democratic party is just too corrupt to be a vehicle for a progressive agenda.   Bernie sympathizes with these voters, from people put off by being labelled as “deplorables”, to others who the party made a lot of “promises” to, but were let down when Democrats “deregulated Wall Street” and made disastrous trade policies.

Now, in the rush of new enthusiasm and party unity in the face of the absolute worst GOP administration and splintered GOP factionalism, there is a lot of quiet among Berniecrats about transforming the party.    Bernie himself only hints at the agenda, so far.  Establishment Democrats are pushing for “party unity” and for Berniecrats to quiet any dissent on how things ought to be done.

 Straddling the fence, a lot of “Dem Enter” Berniecrats are showing signs of fatigue.  Between the margins of the party and the camp of disaffected “Dem Exit” Berniecrats who nonetheless stay right on the edge of the party, the “Dem Enter” Berniecrats seem to be growing weary.  “Dem Enter” Berniecrats must navigate on one side the Hillary fans who believe “Berniebots” are the sole reason why she lost and that only party unity, regardless of any kind of principles, will win for the Democrats.  On the other side, the “Dem Exit” Berniecrats, hovering just outside the orbit of the party, tend to talk a lot about conspiracies and the money in the party, and that Bernie could have one, etc.  

THE FORCE MAJURE

Let me suggest that this dialogue isn’t that helpful, unless it becomes solution oriented.   The Dem Exit Berniecrats are an obvious gold mine of votes for Dem Enter Berniecrats to bring into the party.  Not simply votes in elections, but a force majure that can be put to work doing the organizing to “radically transform” the party.

A Force Majure is a superior force that can change the ordinary tides of events, break the usual contractual agreement, if you will.

The establishment democrats are taking steps to include Berniecrats into the party.  Recently, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri reached out to the Berniecrats, and possibly chose to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch in part to keep the Berniecrats from coming after her.   Ellison was chosen as Vice Chair, and Bernie as chair of outreach for the party.

This is a recurring theme, the Berniecrats are in charge of outreach.  So, what will bring in the stray Berniecats?

Well, hard to know for sure, and to be certain, not all of them will come in the party.   Some people just like to complain.   But in some of their complaints are the seed of the “radical transformation.”

COMPLAINTS OF THE “DEM EXIT” CROWD

First, I will dispense with the more ridiculous complaints. I’d rather jump right into State politics, but I have to deal with a few big nationwide issues first because they are such a common complaint.

ONE:  the DNC is run by party elites out of touch with the rank and file.

TWO:  THE PARTY PRIMARY PROCESS (E.G. Nevada and other states) was anti-democratic.

I’m not going to go into detail on these two issues, or try to defend them.   If you think they aren’t important, you probably don’t believe in a “radical transformation” of the party anyway, so no problem.  Everything is fine, go back to whatever you were doing before because it was working so well.

Rather, I’d like to look at these two issues, because I think they point to a problem present at the state and local level of party function that has a lot to do with recruitment.   As it turns out, I think the issue also points to solutions not only for the party, but ultimately for the country as well.

It has to do with democracy.

DEMOCRATIZING THE PARTY AS AN AGENDA vs being Co-Opted by the Establishment

Without a unifying agenda, clear and open to all, aren’t the “Dem Enter” democrats in danger of simply being co-opted by the establishment that runs the state democratic party?

Isn’t the thrust of the Progressive movement to empower and encourage individuals to take part in government, to give people more power than the corporations, to make the rules easier for people to be involved in the function of government? 

I mean, really easy for anyone who wants to participate to do so?

Isn’t it a legitimate concern that the rules of the party seemed to favor the exact opposite of this in some states and in some instances in the primary of 2016?

 I mean, in some places, people weren’t allowed to take part because they missed a deadline to become democrats.  In other places, establishment dems simply outnumbered the Berniecrats.  But generally, isn’t it often true that the rules governing the selection of officers at the county and state level are obscure?

 In Georgia, the DPG hasn’t often operated in the open, and the process for selecting the leadership of the party is less than straightforward.  And in all of this, what are newcomers to do?  How can they be empowered to be part of the process?   Not simply given a job, but given a voice.

Wouldn’t it make sense that if the party were promoting “power to the people” that that party first do the “radical transformation” of empowering people?

This radical transformation is called democracy.  And the strongest way to promote it is by giving everyone a say, or a vote.   Right now, that isn’t the way the party makes decisions.   

Instead, on the county level (in Georgia) people vote in 159 different ways, depending on the county, to occasionally select officers.   To an outsider trying to come in and play a meaningful role, this array of rules is baffling and off-putting.   It puts all the power in the establishment instead of the force majure.   

The State level of power is even more remote and obscure, selected in a way very similar to the Super-Delegate process.  Very undemocratic (like the US Constitution) designed to thwart the will of the members , or mitigate it through elites who are elected in a complex fashion, all very removed from the potential power of the force majure that might be doing the “radical transformation.”

So what might a radical transformation look like?  What would a party reform look like?  I would suggest it would be a lot more ground up in the decision-making process than it is right now.

How can Berniecrats come into the elite without simply becoming another out of touch elite force, with the patronizing authoritarianism of the establishment?   The Berniecrats must overcome the elitism of the past 25 years of Democratic politics, and distribute power by changing the bylaws of the Democratic party.  The members of the party must be given more of a role and more power, and not simply those in the know.  That’s the “organizing and education” mission of transforming the party.  Because as political insiders know, that’s how they learned how things worked.  When they managed to get some power.

IDEAS FOR A MORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

What would this democracy look like?  Well, a start would be more turnover of all party positions, standard bylaws, and periodic regional assemblies of members that could make resolutions, or suggestions to the state assembly.  The state assembly would be directly elected by the membership of the party, and no more “superdelegates”.   How to “credential” party members?   There are various methods for this, but there is no foolproof plan to ensure that people are “democrats” any more than there is to assure that elected “democrats” have any fidelity to the belief system.   To some extent, a democracy has to function on faith.  These are just suggestions, there are many possibilities to begin to democratize the party, which I think would qualify as a radical transformation of the party.

The one way it won’t happen is if former Berniecrats simply join the establishment and do nothing to really change the way the party works.