Is the Democratic Party viable (relevant) any longer?
The answer is yes and no and even maybe. A party that cannot elect its members to government positions can hardly be called relevant. (The Greens for example.) But then the only way to be elected to office in Hawaii is to be a Democrat, which means there is no candidate choice other than the one the party presents, but then how is that choice made?
Some wanted to work on support for a third party rather than the Democrats, but they were countered by those who pointed to the lack of success of the Green Party. Even if the Greens remain on the ballot, what is the possibility of a Green being elected to any office in Hawaii?
Another group wanted to work within the Democratic Party and take it over. They see the Democratic Party on Kauai (at least) as being "dead" and ripe for an insurgency. The DPH was thwarted from electing a Clinton supporter as State Party Chair at the 2016 convention because of in-fighting among the establishment. This group sees no party establishment left on Kauai to even battle so that if all the groups like Kauai Indivisible or People Power Kauai and others could create a "KNCC" (Kauai Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), the Democratic Party on Kauai would belong to them.
The last group took umbrage at the premise. This group seems to have been loyal to the party and the party loyal to those members. It would not be fair to label these folks as members of the "establishment", but they certainly do not appear to question the hierarchy. It might be more correct to label this group as "insiders" where all "insiders" may not have the same values, but they recognize that they are the Party decision makers, so they don't want "outside forces" diluting their influence.
If you didn't vote for Clinton in the General, it is your fault that Trump is President.
The heading of this section is somewhat misleading since it was recognized by the picnickers that Hawaii's electoral votes were going to go for Clinton no matter who the individual voted for. But the gist of the point was to apply this blame on a national scale (or more specifically to the voters of Wisconsin and Michigan who didn't show up.)
This is the "lesser of two evils" argument. Several specific issues where Trump is obviously "worse" than Clinton would have been were brought up. The fact that Trump at least got the USA out of the TPP (which Clinton called the "gold standard" until she realized that it might cost her votes) was countered by the argument that the TPP was still happening, ignoring the fact that the USA was not going to be a signatory to that treaty. The TPP, like NAFTA, benefits some Americans and is detrimental to other Americans, it is hardly a "yes" or "no" question. Whether it is a "win" or "loss" that the USA is not a participant while the rest of the world signs on is totally unknown. Those against participation in the TPP were just happy that Trump got us out. (Yes, giving Trump a "win" -- maybe. Waiting on his "better deal" to be revealed.)
However, those who made this argument (non-voters failed) did not seem to be aware of the "moral injury" caused by the USA pursuing foreign policies detrimental to the rest of the world. When informed of Clinton's involvement in the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of Honduras there was no counter argument. The point being made, as an American you are responsible for what America does, whether in its borders or outside its borders. Is it really all right that America used a drone to kill an American Citizen without any judicial review? No trial at all? How can this be moral?
So, sure there are huge differences between what Trump is doing and what Clinton might have done in any number of specific areas. But does that mean it is all right for Clinton to overthrow the government of a foreign country? Is this a case of not wanting to know the evil committed in your name?
DNC Superdelegates? Or the Electoral College.
It does appear that confusing a DNC Super Delegate and a voter in the Electoral College is easy. This confusion is understandable since politicians like Mazie Hirono conflate the two issues.
A Superdelegate is someone the DNC has arbitrarily determined to be eligible to vote for who will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Members of Congress automatically get this award, while other "high donors" may actually "purchase" this designation by contributing enough to the party. Remember that 70% of those voting in the Hawaii Presidential Preference Poll wanted Sanders, while 8 of 10 Hawaii Superdelegates voted for Clinton.
The question then was asked how those members of the Electoral College could live with themselves after having betrayed America's voters. It was actually the DNC Super Delegates who committed the betrayal. Unfortunately there wasn't time to get into understanding the difference. Just understand that they are not the same thing. Doing away with Democratic Super Delegates could happen tomorrow. On the other hand, the Electoral College is part of the US constitution and has been around since the founding of the Republic so it could take decades to eliminate.
The point is, if a member of Congress is proud of being a Superdelegate, and she tries to tell you how horrible the Electoral College is, she is trying to bamboozle you. (Start the video at 43:23 to see Mazie Hirono conflate the Super Delegates with the DNC and fail to answer the question but retreat to her "stump speech". Her answer was not specifically discussed today.)
Local Kauai Government
Oh Boy. So many issues with no resolution except to say everyone at the picnic felt powerless. We were united in our desire to find and fund alternatives to our County Council and State Representatives but felt powerless to overcome the "good ol' boy" network. Unless supporters were disinclined to speak up, we all agreed that if Kauai's mayor runs for Governor it will be embarrassing. (Even though we were united against Governor Ige.)
No Conclusions
What's next? We all left baffled without a new plan. We all recognize that if anything is to be different, it is up to us to make that change. But no one had any idea what to do. The argument remains, "Support my issues" vs "Vote the lesser of two evils" (which implies that will fix it later).
At least we came together to talk about it. We need to do it again soon.
Further to the discussion post-session that continued over beer on Super-delegates, I wanted to contribute the following:
ReplyDeleteSuperdelegates now comprise one-fifth of the total delegates and usually either are or were elected office holders -- members of Congress past and present, governors and lieutenant governors, big city mayors, and chairs and vice-chairs of state parties. They are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
KL asked me if there were a way to ensure that the superdelegates didn't nullify her vote. The superdelegates are not a block vote, though they can vote individually and in effect vote en bloc.
One change would be to make it a rule that no superdelegate could announce publicly their vote in advance of the primary or caucus results from their state, and then they would have to announce reasons for diverging from the majority vote.
We should pay attention to the ongoing Unity Reform Commission that was formed up in May this year pursuant to a 158-6 vote of the DNC Rules Committee. I know Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, I do not know Larry Cohen.
In other words, Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are letting this committee do its work on reforming superdelegates right now. I haven't checked the DNC website to see if they are in meetings and if those meetings are minuted.
Superdelegates, a useful reform post-1968, can be found in Wikipedia:
DNC Unity Reform Commission and superdelegate reform, 2016-2018[edit]
On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns; in the past, Sanders had pressed for the complete elimination of superdelegates.[9]
Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. The remaining one-third would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice.[9]
Under the reform package, a 21-member unity commission, chaired by Clinton supporter Jennifer O'Malley Dillon and vice-chaired by Sanders supporter Larry Cohen, was to be appointed after the 2016 general election. The commission would report by January 1, 2018, and its recommendations would be voted on at the next Democratic National Committee meeting, well before the beginning of the 2020 Democratic primaries.[9] The commission was to consider "a mix of Clinton and Sanders ideas": expanding the ability of eligible voters to participate in caucuses (an idea supported by Clinton) and expanding the ability of unaffiliated or new voters to join the Democratic Party and vote in Democratic primaries via same-day registration and re-registration (an idea supported by Sanders).[9] The commission drew comparisons to the McGovern–Fraser Commission, which established party primary reforms before the 1972 Democratic National Convention.[9]
By April 2017, the complete committee had been appointed. In accordance with the compromise agreement, the 21 members include, in addition to O'Malley Dillon and Cohen, nine members selected by Clinton, seven selected by Sanders, and three selected by the DNC chair (Tom Perez).[10] By May 2017, the DNC Unity Reform Commission had begun to meet to begin drafting reforms, including superdelegate reform as well as primary calendar and caucus reform.[11]
ReplyDeleteAs Michael said:
"One change would be to make it a rule that no superdelegate could announce publicly their vote in advance of the primary or caucus results from their state,"
This is an obvious flaw in the delegate system and could certainly use this fix. If there had been a rule to not announce ahead of the primary results, that could have avoided the massive undemocratic voter suppression fiasco that happened in CA during primary 2016.
This written on CA primary day, June 7, 2016.......
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
– Glenn Greenwald, writing at The Intercept
I found the Greenwald clip on the website Zerohedge, which is a new site to me. I found the entire rather lengthy piece, linked below, to be thought provoking and for the most part a reflection of my feelings. Worth a read if you want to understand how disenfranchised from the Democratic party a strong progressive feels right now.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-07/symbolic-end-farcical-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-th
The second fix suggested by Michael however doesn't sit well with me...
"and then they would have to announce reasons for diverging from the majority vote."
I do not trust this delegate group to have a righteous reason for disregarding our vote. They have shown themselves to be a corporatist group, I don't trust corporatists. I suggest allowing the votes to count and speak for themselves.