I think a big bar to our success is that the smartest liberals don't go into politics

[jpgray]

Based on my own lazy inference, it tends to be those with a solid, inherited social position and/or a longstanding family tradition in active Democratic party politics who end up writing our press releases and speaking for our party on news shows. When the motivation is pure amibition, the Republican party is by far the more profitable in our current political scene. When the motivation is to do well, to succeed socially or financially, it seems to me that liberals tend to eschew politics/journalism and instead go into the arts, teaching, and other non-political avenues. Either way I increasingly get the feeling that the best and brightest of those who hold liberal values dear don't enter into the party machinery at the basic functional level--mostly we net the well-meaning but less-than-capable, with few exceptions. Our DNC chair is awesome this time around, but then he has a strong political tradition in his family and a strong inherited social position. Kerry and Gore likewise started off with these two advantages. The one outlier I would say is Clinton, who was very clever and had neither--he achieved vast electoral success, albeit with politics that aren't as liberal as I'd like. So how do we attract brighter and more dynamic people to work the more thankless jobs in our party? Or is this just a consequence of the Democratic Party being viewed as the "losing" party in recent years?

[Vorta]

1. smartest liberals

Either way I increasingly get the feeling that the best and brightest of those who hold liberal values dear don't enter into the party machinery at the basic functional level

Well of course we don't. They would eat me alive. I'm an Episcopalian Buddhist. My parents are distant cousins. My former sexual partners would fly from the woodwork like termites in a fire, and I couldn't bear to dine casually on K Street with my enemies.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Money runs poltics. Until we get the money out of the equation, we

will not see as many average Joes running as possible.

[cspanlovr]

3. Liberals are not as corrupt, so they don't see government as a

way to make their fortune. Neocons see dollar signs when they think of "public service".

[mrcheerful]

4. Hate to bring you more to think about but todays veiws of democrats came from

Reagan and the DLC. Reagan painted a picture of democrats and liberals as being weak losers. The DLC with their trying to appease republicans just made it look that way. Hell, I didn't even know there was a DLC until I got on to DU, I thought it was just democrats and couldn't believe how many were siding with pukes only to find out they weren't democrats but the DLC members. I think many out there still don't know theres a difference between the DLC and the democrats, they are like I was lump them all together. Don't get me wrong, in the 31 years I been voting I have never voted for one puke.

[porphyrian]

5. Who would do that to their friends and family?

Who wants to get shot? There are a lot of reasons not to run.

[ReadTomPaine]

6. Purse-strings, Progressives and Politics

Have you ever stopped for a moment and wondered why Democratic Underground is so very popular? Why it seems so very central to grass-roots progressive Democratic activism? Have you noticed how often the truly active, vital liberal movements and causes have to pass a hat around and beg for money when they are fighting for things that seem so critically important to our future?

If you want an answer and a slap in the face at the same time, just try to get a job on the inside of the party or at a mainstream Democratic organization.

Are you a renowned writer? I don’t care, sweep the floor.
Are you a talented photographer? Too bad, work the phones.
Do you shoot film and write music? That’s nice, go and get us lunch.
Are you a ballsy young journalist with a sharp eye for news? Interesting. Go and make these copies.

Yes, it really is that bad and they expect you to work for free even though we raise more money than the GOP does these days.

When the conservative movement sees an outspoken, effective messenger in their midst, they’re embraced immediately. In many cases they don’t even have to ask they are approached and made an offer. A place is made for them. They are given a chance to use their abilities for the benefit of the GOP’s goals and, this is most critical, they are rewarded with a comfortable salary and plenty of options. Those who do well are given an immediate career path upward. Not surprisingly, it has become quite popular, even for moderates, to take that route. Why? Because it’s a viable one. It’s not a lifestyle hit, it’s an upgrade. There is an unending line of effective communicators all of whom are pro GOP in some way or another.

Now where exactly, is the progressive counterpart to this?

Why does William Pitt eat Spaghetti-O’s?

Simply put, every talented liberal with skills to contribute to the Democratic message should have a comfortable, secure job from a party-related source if they desire one. It should be profitable to be a liberal, not a sacrifice. We shouldn’t have to go lone-wolf or beg for money, it’s a stinging humiliation that we have to do so when so many of us are tremendously wealthy. It hurts the party very badly.

Conservatives pump money into their causes like they are paying tithes, and it shows. Our funding tends to go upward. Can you image what loyalty it would inspire among the rank and file if outspoken, talented communicators could put their kids through college making our message? It would transform the party, and maybe that’s the problem. We are shut out. Donna Brazile gets the check, and uses it to go have dinner with Karl Rove. They don’t eat pasta out of can.

-----

Originally posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... back in '04, but a key part of the discussion today on this topic as well.

[Mythsaje]

7. Oh, Christ...isn't it the truth?

People like Will Pitt, Nance Greggs, and <ahem> myself, as well as several others I can't name off the top of my head, could be writing for the Party machinery and getting paid for it.

You want a response to the current "talking point?" Drop onto DU and you can be damn sure there's a host of us that already know how to refute it. And well.

But we're left on the fringes while paid "consultants" allow our elected officials and front persons to bobble the response.

John Kerry? The perfect response, in my opinion, would be "an education means you get to be a leader, not play 'follow-the-leader.' Especially if you weren't born with a silver steam-shovel in your mouth. It means you get to MAKE decisions, not be pulled along by the decisions made by other people."

[ReadTomPaine]

8. The institutional inertia at play is crippling the Democratic Party.

When an effective progressive organization appears, it’s a telling sign that the first instinct of the party is to disavow official connections and often marginalize them. Many Democratic Party leaders often seem embarrassed by actual democrats getting involved in politics. They behave as if they are parents tolerant of wayward children still awake during an adult evening dinner party. These movements come into being despite the Dem establishment, not because of it and this represents a huge organizational difference between the left and right.

Our good friend Senator Lieberman is a picture perfect example of this and the photos of his red, frustrated face during the primaries are a window into the mindset. They even turned on Howard Dean, a former front running Presidential candidate and a popular state Governor, when he started as head of the DNC and began to change the way the party works and organizes itself. If they were ready to toss a strong moderate like Dean under the bus, what sort of a chance do you think they would give you or me? The fact is these are precisely the sort of movements out of which future party leaders arise but instead of encouraging and fostering such growth, the party would rather play Herod and kill any such rivals in the crib, no matter the cost to posterity. Consider it a savage, self destructive form of job security.

Meanwhile, no fringe group is too crazy for the GOP to disown. From the Minutemen to Ann Coulter, if they sing the party song, they get cash, exposure, staunch support and all the perks they can gobble down. Extreme or not, they push the discussion rightward and the GOP benefits in multiple ways even if the individuals in question aren’t taken seriously or go over the line. People like Coulter don’t hurt the GOP. They enable it by making any suggestion that comes from the right seem reasonable by comparison. Then in the off season, Ann enjoys her frequent trips to the French Riviera and as far as the party is concerned everyone wins.

And that’s just the fringe. There are dozens of moderate commentators who lean right for purely professional reasons even if they don’t necessarily feel that way themselves, politically. A good example of this would be Chris Matthews, a former beltway Democrat, who goes rightward whenever the memo area of his check advises him to do so.

Back in the 90’s the GOP made the painful decision to finalize a process it had begun in the 60’s and finished purging the old Rockefeller wing of the party from areas of power and influence. During this “Republican Revolution” housecleaning, they opened the doors to younger, more aggressive politicians who weren’t interested in DC’s institutions or traditions, and they spent the next decade breaking down and then reforming the government in their own image, mocking the people who said they should not or could not.

Now we live in this foreign political landscape and are fighting a defensive conflict using outdated rules of engagement against a foe that has every advantage. Think WW I troops vs. modern special forces and you begin to get the idea. Until we enter the 21st century and ditch the archaic political model that many Democratic leaders & consultants cling to, we won’t move an inch from the trench we are trapped within.

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. My unconventional theory

I really think that a lot of the liberals who would have been today's political leaders veered away from politics in the 1960s because of all the assassinations. With the examples of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and probably some others that I'm not thinking of offhand, it was pretty clear that any liberal who got into a position to make a significant difference was going to be assassinated. Ever since then, additional examples such as Paul Wellstone reinforce the impression.

[WI_DEM]

10. Some do but they don't run for president, case in point

Mario Cuomo could have run in '88 and '92 and probably have been nominated either year--especially '88. He would have been a formidable candidate and especially in debates.

[ReadTomPaine]

11. I think Mario would have made a good Supreme Court nominee...

as well. He's a pretty good Democrat, very thoughtful, and an excellent communicator. I wish he were 20 years younger.

[ReadTomPaine]

12. Kick.

[ReadTomPaine]

13. Kick.