NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/5292

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 8.3 KB | 170 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: [e-mail] (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: "A Democratic Party That Isn't" (Op-Ed)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:19:32 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 155

    "What it lacked was any sense of participative democracy. [...]
    DNC Chair Ron Brown told an ABC Nightline audience in December
    that he hoped to eliminate half of the candidate field after the
    first primary in New Hampshire, and to have only one candidate
    left after Super Tuesday, March 10

    "But before Ron Brown and the DNC congratulate themselves on their
    success, I suggest that they pause to consider the consequences of
    their actions."

          *********************************
            A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT ISN'T
             by Stephen C. Smith
           *********************************

     The Democratic National Convention, a week-long info-mercial for
Bill Clinton, was a TV extravaganza rivaled in glitz and glamour only
by an Academy Awards broadcast.  It was Made-For-TV politics.
Democratic Relief.

     What it lacked was any sense of participative democracy.  If it
should lead to Bill Clinton's election this November, it portends the
probability that future Democratic presidential candidate selections
will follow the same strategy of exclusion.

     This scripted event culminated a carefully managed and narrowly
focused presidential candidate selection process mapped out last fall
by the Democratic National Committee.  DNC Chair Ron Brown told an ABC
Nightline audience in December that he hoped to eliminate half of the
candidate field after the first primary in New Hampshire, and to have
only one candidate left after Super Tuesday, March 10.  This
strategy's intent was to select one candidate quickly, who the DNC's
spin doctors would transform into a mythic warrior who would vanquish
George Bush in November.

     This scenario, however, purposely excluded most of the registered
Democrats in this country from having a meaningful say in choosing
their party's nominee.  Among the many states left with no significant
voice in the primaries were California, New York, Illinois, Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  These represented seven of the
nine largest Democratic delegate states, and one-third of all
Democratic delegates.  Overall, about two-thirds of the delegates were
to be selected after Super Tuesday.

     The cynical brilliance of Ron Brown's plan was that it would
create the illusion of "momentum" for his candidate.  With most of the
candidates out of the race, the one leading a winnowed field couldn't
help picking up a greater percentage of the delegates.

     Ron Brown's plan worked almost to perfection.  Bill Clinton, who
once chaired the party's centrist Democratic Leadership Council, was
the only "insider" candidate enjoying early substantive support within
the DNC.  Sure enough, despite early questions about his integrity and
fidelity, Clinton outlasted his lesser known and lesser connected
rivals to emerge as the front-runner after Super Tuesday.  If Jerry
Brown hadn't stubbornly refused to withdraw from the campaign, Ron
Brown's plan would have been executed flawlessly.

     Clinton exploited the weeks before the convention to rehabilitate
his image.  He began with an appearance on Arsenio Hall, where he
donned sunglasses and played the saxophone.  Next was a nationally
televised town hall meeting, bypassing the media to deliver his
message directly to the voters.  And while George Bush and Ross Perot
spat at one another, Clinton sensibly stood quietly on the sidelines.
Bush and Perot sank in the polls; Clinton rose.

     Clinton's rehabilitation was completed by the prime-time variety
show masquerading as a political convention, carried by virtually
every media outlet.  As Ohio announced its delegates' support for
Clinton --clinching his nomination -- the networks cut to mini-cams
showing the Clinton family in Macy's, as if they were out shopping
during all of this.  The Clintons exited Macy's into the street, where
on cue hundreds of supporters waved "CLINTON" signs.  The Clintons
rode in a stretch limo (not unlike the President's) to Madison Square
Garden, where a camera followed them through the inner corridors
towards the convention floor.  The camera dramatically swung forward
to show Clinton's perspective, a door swinging open to the floor,
where thousands of well-rehearsed delegates cheered madly.  A
spotlight -- in fact, a star -- shone where Clinton was to emerge.

     An entrance worthy of Bruce Springsteen.

     An ABC News Poll showed that Clinton left the convention with an
29- point lead in the polls over Bush.  Ross Perot dropped out of the
race, citing his inability to win "now that the Democratic Party has
revitalized itself."  The prime-time spectacle even KO'd the blustery
billionaire.

     But before Ron Brown and the DNC congratulate themselves on their
success, I suggest that they pause to consider the consequences of
their actions.

     If not for Perot's political ineptitude, a nationwide independent
campaign could have very well foiled the DNC's plan.  Millions of
voters turned to Perot not out of any admiration or deep conviction in
his beliefs, but simply because he was another choice.  Many of those
voters were registered Democrats who felt they had been denied a
substantive choice within their own party.

     The DNC also distanced itself from its traditional heritage as
the bastion of progressive liberal change.  Its faulty assumption was
that the dreaded "L-word" would never sell to a majority of voters.
Apparently, it never occurred to the DNC that the reason liberal
candidates have failed in recent campaigns was that they lacked the
political stature, strategic competence or personal integrity to
appeal to the electorate, not necessarily a popular message.

     To bury the "L-word," the DNC sought to impede progressive
liberal candidates.  Larry Agran lacked the national stature of Jerry
Brown, so he was quickly dismissed by the media and could not appeal
over the DNC to the voters.  But Brown, ever the political chameleon,
embraced his newly found outsider status to run against the monied
interests that control not only the DNC but most of D.C. politics.  As
the other candidates dropped out, Brown almost wrecked the DNC's
strategy, but lacked both the financial resources and any deep
personal resonance with the voters to overtake Clinton.

     Still, Brown insisted that, as the candidate with the
second-highest number of delegates, he be allowed to address the
convention.  Once again, Ron Brown tried to silence him.  Jerry
addressed the convention only by forcing the issue -- collecting the
signatures required under party rules to place his name in nomination.

     Should Bill Clinton win in November, I fear that this
exclusionary process will set the standard for future Democratic
primaries.  A moribund party cannot be resurrected simply by painting
rouge on the corpse.  Candidates have always enjoyed a temporary surge
in the polls after a convention.

     If Clinton sincerely wants to salvage the Democratic Party,
instead of trying to silence dissenting voices he should have insisted
that Jerry Brown and Larry Agran address the convention.  It would
have demonstrated to alienated voters that Clinton is indeed a man
capable of broad support.  Instead, he uses against the liberal wing
of his own party the same politics of division practiced by the GOP in
1988.

     Right now, the Democratic Party isn't very democratic.  Already
there are signs that the Republicans will exploit this handicap.  Fred
Malek, Bush-Quayle campaign manager, said on NBC's Meet the Press that
the GOP's convention, unlike the Democrats', will be "a party of
inclusion."

     Bill Clinton says he wants change.  The question is, a change to
what?


                           * * * * *


     Stephen C. Smith is a political consultant.  He served as the
Issues Director for the Agran for President campaign.

##################################################################
From: Agran for President <[e-mail]>