| With the greatest of respect and appreciation to every commenter for having taken the time to engage in this important discussion, and with hostility toward none, as a 35-year-long Democratic Party volunteer at every level of participation (from envelope-stuffing to running for statewide office), I am deeply concerned about the idea expressed by many well-meaning bloggers, and by many well-meaning Party activists today, that there is a hierarchy of qualifications for "credibility" as a candidate for public office. I respectfully submit that the only qualifications to run for public office are those set forth in the Texas Constitution and Texas laws for state office, with the addition of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law for federal office. I respectfully submit that any citizen who meets the Constitutional and legal qualifications, and who is willing to offer him/herself for public service to his/her fellow citizens, should be treated as qualified and respected as such by our Democratic community. I further respectfully submit that within the Democratic Party, after our Primary has determined our Nominees for the General Election, every citizen who offered him/herself to serve on the ballot as a Democratic Nominee by submitting the applicable filing fee and/or petition, and who then was certified as the Nominee by winning the Primary, is entitled to be treated as qualified and respected as such. This is not a trivial matter. With the greatest of respect for members of our Democratic community, especially some younger members, who with the best of intentions seek to establish thresholds of "credibility" for political candidacies, and with no intention to insult such well-meaning Democrats, I respectfully assert that the exercise of scoring and ranking the "credibility" of political candidates who (1) meet the Constitutional and statutory qualifications, and (2) if Democratic Nominees, qualified for the ballot and were chosen in the Primary by Democratic voters, is contrary to the fundamental values of both the Democratic Party and democracy itself. If we use additional qualifications not contained in the Constitution and the law to restrict candidates' access to support and resources, are we not blocking the voters at large from the full democratic opportunity to pass judgment on the candidates' qualifications? As the DEMOCRATIC Party isn't it our moral duty to enlarge rather than restrict choices for the people in the exercise of governing themselves? I respectfully submit that the selective "screening" and "targeting" practices that result from such exercises in assessing "credibility" are elitist and unworthy of our great Democratic Party. When our State Party engages in such practices and in the philosophy that results in such practices, we who allow our Party to do these things are thereby permitting our Party - the DEMOCRATIC Party - to shut the doors of the political process to the common person. By permitting our Party to handicap and weight the political process in advance according to the private judgments of the few, we are complicit in blocking the many from the full opportunity to express the collective judgment of the whole people through the democracy of the ballot box. This may be suitable for an aristocracy, but not for a democracy and not for the Democratic Party. "Come on David," some will say. "Surely you don't mean that any common janitor who manages to get on the ballot but has no campaign bank account, no organization, no rich family or friends, and no way to put out press releases, is entitled to be treated as a credible candidate." "Come on David," they will say, "all that noble sounding stuff is fine in theory, but this is the real world - you have to have access to money and organization to be credible as a candidate." With the greatest of respect, in reply I will say, to the contrary - indeed I do mean that hypothetical janitor is entitled to be treated as a credible candidate. Not just with lip service either. If my hypothetical janitor has made it past the Democratic Primary onto the General Election ballot, he SHOULD have something very special and extraordinary at his side: the Democratic Party, the great Party of the People. Rather than dismissing my hypothetical janitor for not having money, organization, staff, or resources, the Democratic Party community - as I understand the values we profess - should be PROUD of their janitor candidate, proud that their party is the party of egalitarian democracy, proud of their belief in the intelligence and judgment of every citizen, proud of their nominee (and every other nominee), proud and eager to trumpet their nominee both to the Democratic base of voters and to the community at large, and proud of the opportunity to turn out the vote for their janitor nominee. With the greatest of respect and appreciation for all who have commented in the last several days, I respectfully and cordially submit that making the possession or the ability to attract large sums of money a qualification for candidate-worthiness is contrary to everything our Party purports to stand for. To those of my fellow Democrats who advocate such a theory, I respectfully submit to you that the money-chase version of politics you are advocating is the very thing that makes it the hardest for voters to differentiate between the two major parties. Further, I respectfully and cordially submit to you that making prospective candidates' ability to attract big money a primary qualification for supporting candidates is a practice that explicitly restricts access to public elective service to the wealthy and friends of the wealthy. Respectfully, I submit that you are unwittingly advocating an aristocracy, not a democracy. With all respect for your well-meaning intent, I respectfully submit that if Democrats follow such a philosophy, then we should not be surprised if individuals who get elected to office through the application of such a philosophy align themselves once in office closer to the interests of the bankers, law firms, and corporate CEOs than to the interests of working people. The bankers, law firms, and corporate CEOs already have one party. The philosophy you are advocating is what I would expect from the Republican Party. But aren't the people entitled to a political party too? Don't we need a party of the people for a balanced playing field? To the extent that some of you may have based previous comments on an assumption that in my recent run for Attorney General I did not attempt to raise money and did not want monetary contributions, you unwittingly based your comments on inaccurate assumptions. However, to the extent you may have based your comments on a perception that I think people are more important than money in the political process, you would be correct - I do indeed think people are more important than money in the political process and in government. I respectfully submit that my opinion on this is closer to democracy and the contrary opinion is closer to aristocracy. To the extent you may have based comments on a perception that I do not think Democrats need to raise as much money as Republicans, your perception would be correct. A party of the people does not have to raise as much money as a party of the banks and CEOs. However, there is a basic threshold that even a party of the people or candidate of the people does need to raise in any given race. Knowing where to estimate that threshold is, I submit, more of an art than a science. It cannot be determined purely by statistics or other mechanical formulae. This is where part of my disagreement with what I have often called the consultantocracy is based. Knowing where that threshold lies in a given race, as well as many other decisions about political campaigns, cannot conclusively be determined by counting beans. It and many other factors are unique for each race, requiring the incorporation of a myriad of factors, including the instincts and values of the candidate. (The latter sentence is not intended to imply any self-judgment about my instincts as a candidate.) To use my own experience merely as an example that happens to be close at hand, and not as a dogma, in my race for Attorney General last year it was not necessary, I am convinced, for me to match Greg Abbott dollar for dollar to win. Abbott outspent me by a ratio of approximately 55-1. A money edge of such a huge proportion is too much to overcome, I quite agree. However, I submit to you that if Abbott's spending edge over me had been at the ratio of 5-1 instead of 55-1, he would not be in office as AG today to continue cheating the people of Texas. There is much more I could say, particularly about the culture of defeatism about the statewide ticket that made money raising so unusually difficult for our statewide candidates in 2006. However, the length of this diary already stretches to the limit of reasonableness. To Burnt Orange Report, thank you for the forum you make available for discussion, engagement and debate. To each visitor to this diary, thank you for your visit. To each commenter, thank you for participating in the discussion. With my apologies, I will not be able to remain on this Blog for several hours after posting. I will return at 3:30 p.m. today to check comments. I will read every comment. If time permits, I will post replies at that time. Please permit me to close with this respectful exhortation to my fellow Democrats: Listen to your hearts a little more and to bean-counting a little less. Let's carry our state in 2008. |
