Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy -NYT

[Rose Siding]

snip>
...Rappaport was surprisingly downcast about the party's prospects, which, he said, would not be improved simply by winning back the White House. Though he sat and thought about it, he said he was unable to name a single Democratic leader in the years since Bill Clinton left Washington who he thought was articulating a compelling new direction for the party. ''There is a growing realization among people who take very seriously the importance of progressive politics that the Democratic Party has kind of failed to create a vision for the country that is strongly resonant,'' he said. ''And our numbers'' -- meaning Democrats as a whole -- ''are decreasing. Our political power has been diminishing, and it's become common knowledge that the conservative movement has established a very strong, long-term foundation, whereas we've basically allowed our foundation, if not to crumble, to at least fall into a state of disrepair. So there are a lot of people thinking, What can we do about this?''

Actually, Rappaport says he may be on to an answer. Last summer, he got a call from Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a fund-raising and advocacy group in Washington. Would Rappaport mind sitting down for a confidential meeting with a veteran Democratic operative named Rob Stein? Sure, Rappaport replied. What Stein showed him when they met was a PowerPoint presentation that laid out step by step, in a series of diagrams a ninth-grader could understand, how conservatives, over a period of 30 years, had managed to build a ''message machine'' that today spends more than $300 million annually to promote its agenda.

Rappaport was blown away by the half-hour-long presentation. ''Man,'' he said, ''that's all it took to buy the country?''

Stein and Rosenberg weren't asking Rappaport for money -- at least not yet. They wanted Democrats to know what they were up against, and they wanted them to stop thinking about politics only as a succession of elections. If Democrats were going to survive, Stein and Rosenberg explained, men like Rappaport were going to have to start making long-term investments in their political ideas, just as they did in their business ventures. The era of the all-powerful party was coming to an end, and political innovation, like technological innovation, would come from private-sector pioneers who were willing to take risks...MORE.........

http://nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html

[mike_c]

1. whatever happened to gov't of the people, by the people...,

...for the people? What we need is more oligarchs and corporate string-pullers? What price will we pay for political power? I do not believe that a democratic "message machine" driven by the uber wealthy holds much promise for a Democratic Party that is substantively different from the Republican Party.

[LuminousX]

2. You are correct

The fundamental problem with the Republican party is there is a forced lockstep. Moderates and those who have a different opinion are silenced. The Democratic party should not follow that particular model. I think the Democratic party is on the right track with organizations like Moveon.org, Democracy for America, and Air America. I do believe the Democratic party needs to focus a bit more on leadership building.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJCher]

3. have you read the article in its entirety?

I quote:

And Soros, who made his fortune as an international investor, is worth an estimated $7 billion; his foundation alone gives away some $450 million every year. In other words, if George Soros really felt like buying the party, you would know it. For Soros, spending $13 million on a campaign is like you or me buying 100 boxes of Thin Mints from the Girl Scout next door.


Cher

[Dover]

8. Yes, but my hundred boxes of candy won't buy influence in Washington

so that analysis isn't really comparable. It's the real money that buys influence whether it's a drop in the bucket to Soros or not isn't the issue. I believe Soros was the one that marvelled at just how cheap it was for the Republicans to buy the country.

But I'm still reading the article...will be back to comment if I change my mind.

[KittyWampus]

21. Your Prejudice (Preconcieved Judgement) Is Lamentable

because if you had actually READ the article and commented on what was written, rather than display your own preconcieved notions, you might have contributed something valuable to the discussion ON THE ARTICLE THIS THREAD CITES.

How many times have Liberals commented that we need our own version of Scaife to help fund a counter to the Right Wing Noise Machine?

It's sad that so many on the Left automatically revile anything if it includes successful business people.

Apparently, the only people who should have a say or input are the poor.

And by the way, the guy who put together the slide show that breaks down funding/organizations of the Right wing had NO money OR connections.

He was a smart guy who put together his information and shopped it around.

Furthermore, the article talks about how the groups forming are looking to invest in AS MANY IDEAS as possible... so that the BEST will flourish.

What a useless bias there is against Business people.

MOST successful entrepeneurs understand the need to look for and invest in novel ideas and talent.

It's just a small number of people who want to stifle growth and innovation.

Why paint all Business people and Wealthy Democrats with the same brush?

[Dover]

25. Quick to judge yourself, aren't you. Why don't YOU read my responses

based on the article. I read every word and DISAGREE with your assessment. There are many possible options for a working model and infrastructure besides the business/corporate model described in the article. The author also has misgivings about the results.

[Darranar]

16. There never was a gov't "of the people, by the people, and...

for the people". Nothing happened to it; it simply never existed.

[starroute]

4. Maybe Democratic pressure groups?

I visited my father today and was asking him about politics back in the late 40's. He mentioned Americans for Democratic Action and said it was formed with the intention of pulling the Democratic Party more towards the left. It struck me that we could use something very much like that today.

I think the key is that very few progressives feel any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party today -- but many do have strong feelings towards the new groups and movements that are springing up. Groups like those are in a position to negotiate with the party -- to say: We are prepared to deliver voters, volunteers, and financial support if you accept part of our platform. Groups like those are also in a position to develop the new ideas which the left so badly needs.

When I got home from the visit, I followed up by doing a little research online. I found confirmation of something I'd been half-aware of -- that the left in general wasn't enthusiastic about FDR in 1932. They thought he was a weak figure and yet another representative of the ruling class. Progressive young people, in particular, were far more turned on by Norman Thomas's third-party candidacy. It was only after Roosevelt took office -- and proved willing to accept ideas from the left -- that he won them over.

Kerry could be another Roosevelt. He hasn't showed much willingness to be hauled away from dead center, so far, but all that could change, especially if he finds the country in deep enough doo-doo when he takes office. I think that's what we ought to be positioning ourselves for.

[struggle4progress]

14. Americans for Democratic Action

http://www.adaction.org/

[BlueScreen]

18. Very thoughtful post

What excites me about the NYT article is that the privatization of the Left could very likely pull it further to the idealogical edge where it belongs. It's easy with all the Right-wing attack dogs filling our airwaves that not all liberals were huge fans of President Clinton. Dems like to blame Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000, but I would suggest that one could as easily explain this loss as the Democratic Party's failure to sway true Left voters. For too long we have fallen for the Right's line about us needing to move "more to the center" as they pull every national debate further toward their end of the spectrum. The Democratic Leadership Council is, in my view, motivated by the fact that we Democrats sometimes put elect-ability above ideology.

And really, when you think about it, do you really see the DNC getting behind a leftist progressive? Look at how quickly the Dean bubble rose and fell, and at the audible sigh of relief on the part of party officials when this happened.

If it takes a little ownership in the Liberal spectrum to begin reversing the trend toward the Right over the past 30 years, then where do I sign up?

Sagar

[Dover]

5. A handful of wealthy people making decisions for the masses

sounds more like the OLD power structure than something progressive and NEW. You can call these guys "ideological" donors, "political venture capitalists" or "private-sector pioneers" (like the Bush cabal 'pioneers'), but they all have serious conflicts of interest with their own business interests AND have disproportionate influence. It sounds very much like privatization of the government.


Granted, I'm only half way through the article, but this is how I'm reading it so far. Why don't Stein and Rosenberg educate the rest of us with their presentation and include us in the the discussion?
There are plenty of very bright people out there who represent ALL classes and vocations and backgrounds. Don't you think their perspective is as valuable? Or are we still measuring success and assigning value by accumulation of riches? Let's see what WE THE PEOPLE can do! The way it's set up, they decide what's going to be on the table and then...in the name of progressiveness..., we get to select among them. Is that really freedom or democracy? Kind of a limited menu don't you think?


A fundamental shift in how we value things will naturally lead to real innovation. Anything short of that just seems to be an exercise in rearranging the furniture without changing the room itself.

[Rose Siding]

6. During the primaries

the NDN was at odds with the DLC, as I recall. They sounded more supportive of the SEIU because of the bottom up structure- one of the NDN bigs seemed far more accepting of Dean's campaign than the DLC at the time.

That seems like a good recommendation to me but with all that money and power, you can never be sure what's going on.

Edit- I found the article I was remembering-

snip>
The Dean split is mirrored in the centrist New Democrat movement as well. No organization has been more hostile to Dean than the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). In May, Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and the president of the DLC--the group that served as a policy springboard for Clinton's rise--wrote their now-infamous manifesto warning that nominating Dean, whom they view as hopelessly left-wing, would bring certain defeat for Democrats in 2004. But, for months, another prominent New Democrat has been making a different case. Simon Rosenberg, who cut his teeth on Clinton's 1992 campaign and now heads the New Democrat Network (NDN), sees Dean as the most innovative and potentially transformative Democrat since Clinton himself. Like Stern, Rosenberg is a bit of a rebel within his own movement. He once worked for From, but his organization is now challenging the DLC and is becoming an increasingly influential player in Democratic politics. Unlike the more top-down DLC, NDN is building a grassroots network of donors and has become a key player in the new world of 527s. "NDN has not endorsed Dean or embraced him, but we have given our opinion that this is a serious campaign that is going to change the party," says Rosenberg.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Sb2gvEsvwZmbdX22jNYWDB==

[NJCher]

7. finish the article

They are putting the money together now. When the financing structure is put together, they will open it up to progressives with ideas on how to build our own structure, or answer to the republican message machine.

The way I read this, I don't see the money having the kind of influence you fear.


Cher

edited to add: partyline, this is a terrific article. Thanks for posting it. Certainly gives one hope for the future.

[KittyWampus]

23. Many DU'ers Aren't Interested In Finishing The Article, Apparently

any mention of Organization or Building Infrastructure or Raising Capital or Employing Business Models automaticlaly produces a prefabricated kneejerk response of rejection.

The Left must remain unorganized, unfunded and structureless... because being the Underdog is "Morally Superior".

Who the HELL wants to get the word out effectively?

And the Right WANTS us to remain Balkanized.

It's to their advantage.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. If they are smart, any dem or left leaning infrastructure will heavily

emphasize the internet and participation in blogs, meetups and fundraising via the web. All of these are areas where I believe we are way ahead of the Repubs at this moment and have helped bigtime in this campaign season, where the Repubs are still largely married to the traditional fat cat zillion dollar a plate stogie fundraiser.

I personally am a good example.

Donated to campaigns for the first time this campaign season, via the web. First Clark, then Kerry.

Attended a political gathering for the first time this season, organized via the web (meetup for Clark). In the heart of Repub TX. Likely never would have found kindred spirits in an area like this without the web.

Post various random nonsense at all hours on this forum. Satisfying a need for expression. You can blame or credit the web.

[belle]

10. I think we need it all. Mainly I'm glad to see that some Dems are waking

up to what the Republicans have actually been up to these past 20-30 years. Whether or not they decide to go and do likewise is a question; but first of all they had to be able to SEE. If it takes people spelling it out to them with 9th-grade level presentations, well, so be it...

[Dover]

11. Here's the danger of a few minds and wallets driving political agendas

In essence, this purported 'new' model emulates the Republican corporate-style model which is a direct result of only tapping the wealthiest business sector for model building and funding. And while I'm a true progressive, I see the danger of a similar kind of exclusivity...which is fundamentally and paradoxically antithetical to a liberal/progressive ideology of inclusiveness and diversity. Just to toss in another model strategy for comparison...what type of model would a bright group of women from various backgrounds build? Let's explore more options, shall we?

From the article:


...There is, of course, a striking disconnect between the lives of these new Democratic investors and those of the party's bedrock voters: laborers, racial minorities and immigrants, many of whose faith in sweeping social programs has been badly shaken and who tend to be more culturally conservative than the well-off citizens of New York and Silicon Valley. But if the multimillionaires harbor even the slightest doubts about their qualifications for solving social and geopolitical ills, they don't express it.

To see the potential effect of such motivated ideological donors on a political party, you need only study the modern Republican Party. The families who contributed the seed money for what would become the conservative movement were philosophical rebels who followed Barry Goldwater. Like the new venture capitalists, these ideologues started out not with specific policy ideas but with a broad sense of fear, a notion that the system of free enterprise was under siege from radical forces. (The guy who most kept them up at night, oddly enough, was Ralph Nader.) Their money spawned academic proposals, some of which, like privatized Social Security or missile defense, were so far beyond the mainstream of their time as to be considered ludicrous. Not only did these ideas ultimately infiltrate mainstream Republican thought, but much of the agenda ultimately triumphed in the broader arena of public opinion.

That success built a governing majority for Republicans, but it may have come at a cost to politics as a whole. In 1965, the Republican Party was an inclusive organization, comprising not just Nixonian pragmatists and Goldwater zealots but also liberal followers of Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge. Forty years on, it is getting increasingly difficult to find a true moderate in the Republican Party, let alone a liberal, so far to the right has the party's equilibrium tilted. This was in large part -- if not entirely -- a consequence of the kind of political philanthropy that Stein and Rosenberg have come to emulate. The culture of the party came to reflect the ideology of the men who subsidized it, and the national dialogue, as a result, has grown less temperate and less tolerant.

[Dover]

13. Regardless of the model, I think the demise of the Party system as we know

it, is inevitable as true diversity and inclusion pressure these old institutions to overload and split apart at the seams. I'm not sentimental about that, as it is not the container but what it contains, that is important. But we will build a new kind of vessel...unlike the previous variety, and I think while the ideas in this article are harbingers of these important changes, I hope we fully examine it's limitations too, due to the corruptive nature of power and money and influence-pedaling and the business model. I would like for this to only be the beginning of the conversation and brainstorming rather than the difinitive "new" model that gets built only because the process wasn't inclusive of other possibilities.

From the article:


It is not unthinkable that the privatization of Democratic politics is a step toward institutional obsolescence. People like Andy Rappaport and Jonathan Soros might succeed in revitalizing progressive politics -- while at the same time destroying what we now call the Democratic Party.

[amandabeech]

15. I would like to know

(1) how many temporary, no-benefits jobs these folks have created here versus the number of decent-paying, full benefit jobs;

(2) how many jobs generated here were filled by H1-B or L-1 visa holders or other non-citizens or non-permanent residents;

(3) how many jobs have they created overseas and what were those jobs; and

(4) how many jobs or functions have they out-sourced.

Decent jobs for regular people has been a traditional Democratic pledge. Current economic theory embraces global trade, and, if the practitioners will admit it, global wages for most workers that do not support an individual, let alone a family here.

It is hard for me to imagine Wall Street and Silicon Valley venture capitalists actually adopting a policy of hiring U.S. citizens and permanent residents for jobs here, when cheap labor is available abroad or for importation here. What would they tell their shareholders who are clamoring for short term EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, IIRC) if they didn't squeeze out every last tenth of a penny by reducing their biggest expense, labor costs?

Unless this group comes up with something real on the jobs front, they are Rockefeller Republicans to me. Which are better than DeLay repukes, mind you. But that leaves me with the question of, "Where are the traditional FDR Democrats, and who will represent people who are struggling to make a living in the global labor market?"

[area51]

22. Excellent point. (n/t)

[robcon]

17. The lack of grass roots...

is the big problem with these organizations. The organizations are all competing for the millionaire donors (exception: MoveOn), while ignoring the rank and file of the party.

There is no invigoration of the base: blacks, latinos, working class, students, etc. This may not only be the end of the Democratic Party, (the author suggests it might) but it also may be the end of the relevence of the left.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Privatization of the party is not exactly a new idea or different

from the dlc. Sorry.

[readmylips]

20. Kerry has an army of people; bush an army of money.....

From what I can see and relate to Iraq and Vietnam; the army of people always wins. The army of money always loses. We lost in Vietnam against a 3rd world country and Iraq is going the same way. The army of people, the citizens took arm against the mighty US.

How much money has bush and his army of money spent discrediting Kerry? Not including the 24/7 massive media for bush. You would think that bush would be at least 15 points ahead, instead he is neck and neck (so the repigs say). Bush's mighty army of money are not even making a dent in NY or California, as they planned.

Around the world, bush has tarnished the honor of the US. This is one issue to keep hammering on. Americans don't like to be embarrassed or diminished. Even his daughters have tarnished the honor of the White House, compared to Clinton's staff removing a few keyboard keys.

[gulliver]

24. About damned time!

The Dems are finally getting into the game. The problem for Repubs has always been that the Dems have a better product. That's why the Repubs have to lie, divide, and sell people their own religions.

There is nothing worse for Repubs than Dems with a truer product, an empowered sales force, and a dedicated support team. Articles like this make me very, very optimistic!