The Politics of Bullying

We have become a nation where bullying not only is too common in school hallways and playgrounds but in our politics and public meetings.

As we saw in the Congressional town halls of 2010 those angered by the lies being spread about the health care reform bill were loud, rude and nasty to elected officials and other citizens.  There was no evidence of respect for the office of the persons conducting the meeting and no civility toward neighbors who were present and perhaps on the other side of the issue.  Instead there was simply an attempt to loudly bully those in attendance to either join in harassing the elected official or keep silent.

And that continues today. While once was considered standard at a political rally or a peaceful demonstration to cheer,  jeer and exhibit enthusiasm is now common at community governmental meetings to shout, scream and accuse elected officials of lying. This reached the extreme when a Congressman shouted at the President during the State of Union address “You Lie”.  Citizens shout at their local officials until they do what the citizens want.  We were a nation whose body politic was formed around the concept of representative democracy.  People voted in elections and accepted the results of the election.  If those who won did not perform to the expectations of the majority they were ousted in the next elections.

Today as soon as the ballots are counted the losing side declares the winners illegitimate.  The losers than practice the art made famous by former Speaker Gingrich in 1995 - the politics of personal destruction.  Rather than debate an idea the losing side demonizes and seeks to personally defame and destroy the individual who represents that idea or party.  Epithets are tossed around and accusations with no basis in fact are issued like dogma.  Some of the charges are a distortion of an underlying fact but most are simply made up.  And, if the attacked party attempts to reason with their attacker they can’t because anything they say in their own defense is twisted and used against them.  When the shouter claims the sky is green and the elected official says no it’s blue the attacker responds you know it’s black when there’s a storm.  You cannot reason with irrational people; you cannot present facts to those who refuse to understand them. As the Bible says none are as blind as those who will not see.

The result of this bullying politics is to drive good people out.  Those who will not fight fire with fire stay home - they may vote but that’s the last time they are heard.  They will not seek or accept office because understandably they don’t want to make themselves the targets of the bullies.   When the Communists took power in Russia in 1917 and when the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933 it was through the tactics of bullying.  They silenced the opposition using force when verbal bullying failed.

One of the many reasons I support the people of Wisconsin in their effort to recall Governor Walker is to show people that there is another way.  Vote those you disagree wit out.  We need more recall provisions in our various state laws and we need more states with initiative and referendum.  We also need term limits for legislative officials.  But with those reforms must come a societal acceptance of the results of the elections.  Let those elected show their stuff and then let the electorate take the appropriate actions to replace them if they wish to.

If we no longer accept the legitimacy of our elections - and the right wing efforts to suppress voting by enacting photo id laws and reducing the number of polling places and restricting absentee voting will only increase the seeming illegitimacy of the election results - we will soon lose the right to hold elections.  If we don’t adopt a constitutional amendment to require full transparency and total disclosure of campaign contributions and limit the size of personal and corporate contributions our democracy will become an oligarchy of the very rich.  And we will find that when Patrick Henry cried “Give me Liberty or give me death” he never assumed that two hundred years later we might get neither.

22 January 2012   

Our Political System isn’t Working !

The founders in the 1770's-80's saw America as a new model of how people could rule themselves.  It was, they believed, the first attempt at a republican form of government since the city states of Greece and the ancient Roman Republic.  In fact many feared that the 13 state 3 million people nation would be too big to govern itself effectively.

The USA soon became a symbol to those in Latin America and Europe who wanted to defeat absolutism and monarchism.  America became the example around which Bolivar and the South Americans rallied as they won their independence from Spain; the French revolted to overthrow the monarchy and in the 1840's many in central Europe began democratic revolutions (that failed).  By the end of the 19th century America was seen as the “best hope of mankind”.  The twentieth century - the American century - saw the US lead in the wars against monarchism, fascism, Nazism, militarism and then communism.  And in all those the democracies prevailed.

Today the vast majority, of the 191 nations on the planet, are democracies or have democratic style institutions and the dictatorships that remain use democratic modeled constitutions and institutions to appear legitimate.

But, something has gone wrong with the American system.  When this political system started it was based on civil debate of issues. There were great divisions over issues such as where to place the capitol, how to pay Revolutionary War debts and ultimately the issue of slavery.  All the disputes, except slavery, were resolved through civil discourse and political debate and most often compromise.  Not so with the issue of slavery - its extension or its elimination.  In the 1970's when the matter of abortion and the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade became viral many compared it to slavery as a moral issue that in the political arena did not lend itself to civility or to compromise.

Today every issue has become like the slavery and abortion issues.  Political debate is strident, nasty, combative and abusive in every arena: the Congress, the state legislature and the local municipal councils.  Town meetings consist of citizens shouting at elected officials, calling them liars and spewing forth their version of the facts.  Citizens come to meetings today armed with what they believe to be factual and they will listen to no one produce facts that contradict them.  Ronald Reagan used to say that “facts are stubborn things”.  Today everyone believes that they are entitled to their own facts, not just their own opinions.  If a group comes to a meeting believing that the sky is green and the elected officials can prove it is blue then the people call the officials liars and jeer at them. 

Without the ability to engage in civil discourse - to respect each other’s opinions but to recognize incontrovertible facts our system will not work.  Without the ability to develop consensus and sometimes compromise our system will not work.  And you cannot develop consensus and compromise if everyone insists that their version of the facts is the only correct version.

Lack of civil discourse has torn nations apart, sometimes for centuries (e.g. Ireland). And, it threatens America’s standing in the world--not as a military or economic super power but as the symbol of democracy to the many who venerate that symbol (e.g. the Libyan, Burmese and countless others fighting for their liberties).

I do not know how to restore civil discourse to our political system.  Those who do not engage in name calling and visceral attacks seem to lose elections which encourages others to so engage.   It might help if our schools went back to teaching civics so young people had some understanding of how the system works.  It might help if our schools were better at teaching history so our young people understood the founding of the nation and how it came about and how slavery almost tore it apart (and did cost 600,000 lives in a Civil War).  It might help if our religious institutions instead of being involved in every issue battle began fighting for a return to a more civil and respectful system.

Monday we celebrate the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  He dreamed of an America where brotherhood and freedom encompassed this nation from New Hampshire to California.  Today that dream is under attack, not just from those who would repeal programs or restrict rights, but from all who damage the American psyche and system with their negative ads, their false facts; their media ratings based attacks and their disrespectful treatment of the President, Congressmen, Mayors and local elected officials.

Perhaps all we need is for everyone to remember the words of what is truly our national hymn: “America, America, God shed his grace on thee; and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea”. 

14 January 2012

Representative Democracy in America Is Changing -- for the Better?

When I was a youngster and lived with my family in Cypress Hills, in the borough of Brooklyn, NYC, I often dropped by the local Democratic club. These clubs had buildings where they met and conducted their business and they were the citizen’s gateway to the government.  Every Friday if you dropped in you could see and talk to the Congressman Eugene Keogh, the last to wear a straw hat.

If you wanted to see your state representatives they were there also as was the party district leader around whom the clubs organized.  In the days before Baker v. Carr (one man one vote) districts were often geographically based, e.g. one representative per county or a state senate district consisting of three state house districts.  With the Supreme Court rulings that electoral districts that served to elect representatives to legislative bodies had to be equal in population (with a wider discrepancy allowed the smaller the districts were) counties and neighborhoods became less important to the concept of district representation.

Because the Courts have refused to rule that political based partisan gerrymandering is contrary to the federal constitution we have suffered under forty years of ever increasing politically motivated redistricting – with computers making partisan calculations even more precise and using population equality to hide behind.

The nature of representative democracy in America has changed. In the 19th century district representation played a great role but districts themselves not so much. Congressmen were people who went to Washington to act on the nation’s problems, state legislators went to state capitals to do the same on state matters.  For local representation, that one could go to for assistance with problems, one went either to the local county officials or in the cities to the aldermen (precursors of the Councilmen who were a combination of elected officials and party officials).

In the 20th century the nature of representatives duties and compensation changed. From annual state elections we went to two and four year terms. From rotation in office for Congressional nominations (the norm by which a party gave its nomination to state representatives who waited their turn) we went to incumbents and even incumbent families “owning” Congressional seats.  These federal and state legislators also took on the role of constituent servants. They opened offices in the districts and assisted with red tape problems; at first all problems and then eventually a hierarchy of helping only with the problems that related to bureaucracies at the level of government they served in.

As the nation continues to increase from its’ nearly 4 million in 1790 to its’  312 million now - the nature of representative democracy has again changed.  Rather than bemoaning it and yearning for the good old days- that trust me weren’t that good - we should understand and accept and use the changes. When the nation started the founding fathers wanted one representative per 30,000 persons – now it’s one per 705,000 (precise number may vary by state).

Districts today have become masses of election precincts combined for the purpose of electing a Congressman or a state legislator.  Often that elected official is the only thing the people of the district have in common with municipalities and postal areas and shopping zones divided.  These legislators should be looked at as representatives and the citizenry should use the social networking and the Internet and the 24/7 news media to follow what their representatives due in Washington D.C. or the state capital and judge them accordingly.

Local municipal government and councilmen and party officials should again be handling citizen constituent. Representatives should represent.  With the demise of earmarks and the public outrage at the insider trading antics of federal representatives we may see a new Congress where members vote and speak and are judged accordingly.  Again with the use of social networking, online petitioning, and the availability of information about the legislative branches activities district lines will become even less relevant.  If we impose federal Congressional term limits (both Houses) and, if we ever get a handle on the money that is poisoning our politics (we need open public funding not backdoor public funding by the contributions of corporations that take federal money) we might see a return to real Representative Democracy in America.

22, Dec. 2011

How Democrats Can Win in Delco

For twenty-one years I’ve been a Democratic activist in Delaware County PA.  First as chairman of the Radnor Township Democratic Committee (1990-4); then as Chairman of the Delaware County Democratic Party (1994-2010) and now as chairman of the SouthEast Delaware Co. Dem. Committee. (2007- now).  During those years I’ve organized and coordinated and in forty-two election cycles (primaries and generals).  Democrats have lost most of those (except for carrying the county for President and twice for Congress (Joe Sestak) and a few state legislators.  In odd numbered years when municipal and school district contests comprise the ballot Democrats in Delaware County tend to lose the majority of those they contest.  There are some municipalities that are solidly Democrat and Republicans can’t win.  There are few that are truly competitive where either party could win but most are solidly and often uncontestedly Republican.

So why do Democrats lose in Delaware County?  The registration in the county when I first became involved in 1990 was just a bit over 25% Democrat; it is now over 43% and only two percentage points or 10,000 voters less than Republican. But Democrats still lose countywide. Why?

First, we usually have few real candidates and we fill out tickets with place holders who party leaders feel are important. We need candidates that want to run, want to serve and will devote in some cases  two years, 24-7, to winning an office which they have ideas to use for specific purposes. I believe that a candidate on the ballot who does not intend to work and doesn’t really care about winning is a drag on a ticket and one is better off without them.   Similarly we are better off running no candidate than one with negatives whose baggage will become the issue in the campaign.

Second, we need to present a clear and simple message on an issue that resonates with voters.  In the midst of this Great Recession the matter of the county foreclosure process is such an issue and was used creatively by a judicial candidate in 2009.  It should have been followed up and pursued in 2011.  Even more the county Democrats need to begin to speak out on controversial subjects that will offend some but will get the attention of voters and in the long run win out. For example, the consolidation of our municipalities as it makes no sense for forty-nine local governments to be doing the same things within the county.  A fair consolidation can be worked out with local Councils that have district representatives (which would actually give people better representation than the current at-large systems that most of our municipalities have) a county police force with local police headquarters and a county wide fire department with local community firehouses;. similarly, regional libraries.  All these could reduce local government costs and lead to a reduction in local property taxes.

Third, we need to stop using the old tired worn-out strategies.  We shouldn’t spend our time trying to get Republicans to votes for us.  Focus on registered Democrats and non-Partisan voters and moderate/independent Republicans will come along. We need a real GOTV plan or a GOOV (Get Out Our Vote) plan doesn’t mean putting people in front of polling places to say hello to those whom the Republican machine drags out but getting one phone caller and one door knocker per precinct to work election day to get our voters out. 

Fourth, at the county wide level, we need to raise serious funds to do mail and name recognition signs and massive lit drops.  You can’t go door to door in over 400 precincts.  But you do have to do the other things.  That includes campaigning at any event even those that the Republican machine over the years has scared candidates away from.  The model here is Sestak2006.  Since he was new to politics in the county, he didn’t know what he couldn’t do, so he did everything that made sense and he won. 

Now let me make clear that too often over these past twenty-one years I have made these mistakes. Once I began to focus on Folcroft I ran candidates sometimes who really didn’t care and did nothing putting the burden on the few who did.  That didn’t work.  When I knew we had a winning message I allowed those who did care to veer off the message and try the old technique of pictures and bio material instead of banging away at the message. In 2009 we raised $20,000 but we didn’t do much door to door and we never honed our message - we increased the Democratic turnout but not by enough. In 2011 the Council candidates did extensive door to door and we stayed on the message Repeal the Boro Income Tax - we won.

Democrats can win in Delaware County.  Sestak, Vitali, Lentz, Davidson  and Spingler have won races that were thought likely not winnable; four of those were against entrenched incumbents. They also followed another model - that of Bob Edgar, the Democratic Congressman from 1976-1986.  He recruited activists who were interested in his campaign either due to his personal charisma or an issue they and he cared about.  They became Edgar people and they fueled the campaigns as did the Sestak volunteers of 2006 and Obama volunteers of 2008.  They coordinated their efforts with the county party structure and therefore in turn with the local committee structure (which during my years as chairman were part of a unitary county party not 49 pieces). By building their own field organizations of volunteers they were not burdened by the “we tried that before and it didn’t work” refrain of too many committee chairs and persons, or the parochial turf envy of local committees and the paranoia of local leaders seeing new volunteers as threats to their party titles.

Democrats with the right message and candidates with a profile that excites voters can win in this last bastion of northeastern suburban Republicanism.  Not because the voters want to exchange the worn out corrupt Republican machine with a Democratic version but rather because the voters are offered something new - an old fashioned concept of a public service oriented candidate whose value and beliefs are more important than party affiliation.

7 Dec. 2011