One Night In West U.
My inclination in summing up the West University Democrats meeting tonight is to do so in the form of an Open Letter to Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerry Birnberg. I'll get there, but it requires more than an average (or even healthy) number of cavaets:
1. I have no absolutely no disregard or disdain for Gerry or the job he does as Chair. I most certainly don't envy the job he's got at hand and I regret that anything might be construed as simply making that job more difficult. I stand squarely behind him as Chair and look forward to many productive (and quite likely some unproductive ones, too) for years to come.
2. Nothing here is to be construed as missing some of the highlights about this past campaign season. The temporary Satellite Offices and permanent growth of area Democratic Clubs is a measure of progress that is not to be ignored. Gerry deserves great credit for the incorporation of both .... as well as everything else that gets done out of my own personal vantage point.
3. I write this not to jab Gerry, poke my own partisans with a sharp stick while we're down, or otherwise serve any other counterproductive service. The following is one part of a discussion that Democrats NEED to have. I offer my own views not on the presumption of my own certainty nor with any grand monopoly on truth, justice, or even the American Way. I offer them because I believe that the outgrowth of such a discussion/debate will generate a party motivated to win and (more importantly) smarter enough to develop a game plan to win. Democrats are reknowned for doing this very thing. We've done it before. The last time we did it, we got a President elected four years later. That, as well as attaining many more offices below that, serves as my goal. Should anything get in the way of that, I'll offer my own apologies now.
Sidenote: Just to place into context ... the West U Dems meeting was fairly small (West U covers all of 7 precincts), but extremely energetic. Those in attendance were mad, but for the right reasons: they were mad that we lost. Like them (and untold others), I'm mad too. I hate losing, I don't care to develop an affinity for it, and I'll do whatever is in my power to see that it doesn't happen again. The Club President this year is none other than a good personal friend: Byron Barclay. The intended speaker had to pass due to a bout with the flu, so I get the invite to speak. As part of our good fortune, both Gerry Birnberg and former State Rep. candidate Jim Dougherty showed up as well. Saved me from putting people to sleep. But more importantly, it also showed the other side of the coin regarding views on this past election. To Gerry's credit, he lays his cards on the table and defends them well. To that end, Gerry has my respect. Those specific views, as well as mine, I'll present below to the best of my abilities and/or recollection.
That said ...
Gerry,
Last night showed a wide array of thought regarding our latest electoral loss that I think ought to be reconciled, distilled, and eventually acted on if we are to start winning elections in Harris County and beyond. Take the cavaets above to heart. They'll come in handy.
The postives worth extenuating are what they are: Hubert Vo won, Scott Hochberg upped his margin of victory, we've made some inroads into making Dist. 134 contestable, and the 133rd is also a pleasant surprise to see near the top of the State Rep districts for winnability.
Now to the business at hand of winning countywide and seeing to it that Harris County is winnable among the Statewide races coming up in two years.
It is my position that there are two components required to accomplish this: message and mechanics. The mechanics (voter reg, GOTV, mail, TV, phone banks), I think we agree on - they're a vital necessity. If any campaign can afford to neglect that, then I'd fear for the society that is governed by it regardless of which party is in power. When it comes to challenging entrenched, concentrated power, I'm definitely a small-l liberal in my disdain and distrust of it.
The point where we seem to disagree, however, is on what to do about message. I'm of the opinion that we at the grass roots ought to care about it, focus a little on it, and demand the best of our candidates to have a compelling case for their election that resonates to those among us who aren't news junkies, political hacks, wild-eyed bloggers, or others committed to the cause. I'm also of the opinion that we at the grass roots can have an effect on this. Your response, if I can do it justice, is that this is B.S. ... that we cannot hope to affect something that takes place 3000 miles away ... that the best thing we can do is turn out votes in precincts that will vote blindly for any Democrat and hope that our base outnumbers that of the other side.
It's not just I think that's a wrong idea ... it's that I think this is a dangerously wrong idea that will doom the party to that of being a permanent minority. Therein lies the emphasis on my own disagreement. It is my hope that if I do a half-decent job of spelling out my case in greater detail than a 90 minute Democratic Club meeting will allow for (not to mention the ability to edit one's self), I believe you may see more common ground than those in attendance might have felt they saw last night. I do this because I believe in the power of persuasion ... something I don't believe you were mindful enough of last night. After all, if the other side consists of people who are not at all persuadable, than I'd have to believe that the President of the Club which you spoke at doesn't exist ... he's a recovering Republican, something that a listener might feel is an impossibility based on the views you expressed last night. I'd also point out that we have recently had as State Party Chair a woman who you'd have us believe could not exist, as Molly Beth Malcolm is likewise a recovering Republican. You see, to some people, message matters.
I'd belabor the point a bit more, but I think at some level you get that. So I'll claim my own incomprehension as to why you think message is something that needs to be cast aside. To wit ...
To sum up ... dwelling on a party message is not B.S. It is but one part of the puzzle to what Dems must discuss actively and constructively. The mechanics of a campaign are vitally imporant, and I trust that you will do everything in your power to make 2006 a more focused and better planned design that builds on the highlights of this past election. But if I hear any countywide candidate claim that they're approach will be to merely make inroads to known or likely Dems and rely on a better-run GOTV effort alone to win, I doubt I'd want to place money on them.
The crux of all this is that I am a firm believer in the power and consequences of ideas. I doubt I'd have spent the past two-plus years blogging if I felt otherwise. I think if we stop talking to those persuadable sorts who genuinely go into an election wanting to know and feel that the candidate they vote for is the best one, then we lose every time. The reality is that we are the minority party ... for now. When we stop ceding any ground to the opposition, we'll change that. As a statistical aside, let me note the following election stats. In the 2000 election, the precincts composing West U & Bellaire garnered 30% of their vote for Al Gore and 32% for Jim Dougherty as District Attorney. In that same election, however, Eric Andell essentially tied his opponent (winning West U outright). Now, there's some apples and oranges involved, I realize. But did Andell have a better GOTV effort in that campaign? Of course not. He had a better message. Why ignore what works?
I offer all of this with the hope that you may see something in here that ought to be added to the mix in whatever gameplan we, as a party, devise for 2006. I say that because I believe in the power to persuade. When confronted by one member, you turned to her and said "I'm a Jew, convince me to be a Christian" as it to draw a horribly flawed comparison. The point was wide of the mark because if you tell me that among the record turnout we saw in this election, that none of our candidates could possibly identify and/or communicate effectively with the 1-2% necessary for a countywide win that we would forever sell our souls and neglect our base, then I believe the risk we run is in starting off with a horribly flawed concept in how to win elections. Do we truly have nothing to say? If so ... then what? Can we not, ourselves, do better?
I realize I've left a lot on your plate. Take your time, digest it, and by all means respond. Voters ought to see where our party is headed and what lessons we learn in defeat if we are to be rewarded with votes later on.
Categories
Politics-20042 Comments
Greg,
Insightful and thoughtful commentary. I addressed a brown-bag lunch at the Harris County Democratic Party HQ on Tuesday. I said similar things about the importance of message, and drew a similar response from Gerry (whom I like and respect.)
An example I used of how the grassroots can affect message was the Howard Dean campaign. I was never a Dean supporter (I was Clark's guy in Houston), but I've read Trippi's book, and have come to admire many of the things they were able to do. I believe the grassroots force and fundraising prowess of the Dean campaign dramatically changed the course of the primary. Ironically, it may have contributed to Kerry's defeat -- his vote against the $87 billion for Iraq was clearly a response to Deaniacs pressure among primary voters, and clearly damaged him in the general election. This groundswell was generated almost entirely over the Internet, and cost the candidate almost nothing. While I wish the message had been more sensible, there's no denying the power of the medium. Used wisely, this kind of grassroots activism (among moderates like us, for example) could be an extraordinary positive force for our party.
As I told the group on Tuesday, just registering and turning out voters is not enough. It appears that in the Latino community, we registered some folks we assumed would vote for us, just because of where they lived. Turns out some of them went the other way. We must have something to say to voters.
Also, the bottom line is still, good candidates win elections. In my opinion, neither Kerry nor Gore were good candidates. Both men are bright, complex, and immensely capable of doing the job of President. But I think the outward appearance of those qualities was the very thing that made them bad candidates. Clinton understood this. He is equally bright, complex and capable, but he spoke to the American people as one of them. Bush, while not a capable leader, clearly understands this too, and "connects" with voters.
When we nominate good candidates with a good message, we will do a lot better.
I also agree with you that it is important to field candidates in heavily Republican areas. We won't win any converts until we start trying to persuade. Look at Bill White. Albeit, in a non-partisan race, Bill campaigned everywhere, including Kingwood and Clear Lake. He got 36% in Kingwood, and won Clear Lake. You have to try.
Greg and Keir,
I was at the Harris County Dems HQ on Tue for Keir's rundown on the election results (thanks Keir!). I went primarily because after this election I feel I can no longer sit on the sidelines of the political process. I think its safe to say that the packed hall was full of newbies looking to get involved. That was heartening.
What was disheartening was the lack of any direction on how to get involved. Though I did have to leave early to get back to work, I did not hear any mention of how we were going to get organized. Not even a signup sheet. Go figure.
Keith