Let’s be clear from the start; this is not another piece making fun of Chris Owens; he just happened to start the discussion. Last week Owens, the self-proclaimed (and surely consensual) leader of Brooklynites who call themselves “progressive” stated that those who share his vision support “public policies that promote and establish equitable social [and] economic…outcomes for all Americans, including quality public education, affordable and accessible health care, and quality and affordable housing.” Although, for my own reasons, I don’t call myself a progressive, these goals are just fine with me; however, in seeking to implement those goals, Owens proposed, among other things, support for efforts to “maximize voter registration and voter turnout….regardless of an individual voter's profile”, to which I replied:
“I thought the idea of winning elections was not to maximize voter registration and turnout ‘regardless of an individual voter’s profile’, but to turn out your base. Frankly, I want voters who don’t meet the right profile to stay home.”
A debate ensued. The left-blogger Rwallnerny was outraged: “I find that statement utterly appalling. It shows that Gatemouth has no respect for true democratic principles. Those who believe in democracy want EVERYONE to be involved, want EVERYONE to vote. This is because you want your elections to mean something. If you get elected in an election with a low voter turnout, you have no mandate. Gatemouth's comment is just as bad as bourgeois right wingers like George Will saying they'd prefer if the uninformed and the ignorant don't vote. In both cases, those are arguments against full participation. Politics just can't be about winning, it has to be about winning the right way. I am a loyal democrat and have done many many voter registration drives over the years and have proudly registered republicans as well as democrats. I want high voter turnout. I want everyone to be involved, so as many people as possible will respect the results.”
Allow me to differ. Rwallnerny says: "I am a loyal democrat"; I say, "I am a loyal Democrat"…therein lies quite a bit of difference. Hubert Humphrey used to call small “d” dems “process liberals”, and said they were more concerned about how shiny the pipe was than about what ran through it (he chose Michael Dukakis as the perfect embodiment of this type). I’d advise those who disagree with my preference for product over process (which, careful reader may note, has its limits) to read their Alinsky. The right things, when they do get done, invariably get done for the wrong reasons, or they don't get done at all. “Democrats” with a large “D” want to end the war, raise the minimum wage, and lower the interest rate on student loans, among other worthy goals. By contrast, ‘democrats” with a small “d”, although giving such ideas lip service, prefer full participation of the electorate to any particular set of goals. It's not an ideology I embrace, but this is America, so I hope they go forth in good health (especially since they usually vote my way). Maybe we can even find some common causes to work on together; but when we do, I hope they don't go doing the opposition's work for them or they won't get invited to the victory party, because there won't be one.
I am not anti-“democratic”, I just believe it is my responsibility to maximize participation in the process by those who share my views; those with different views are perfectly free to do the same; that's what's wonderful about democracy; it's a marketplace of ideas; but even in a free market, Macy's doesn't sell Gimbel's.
The small “d” dems actually have more in common with George Will than I. Both represent strains of idealism which advocate views concerning popular participation in the electoral process which are not necessarily always helpful to the other causes which they purport to embrace; Will is the embodiment of a “process conservative”, a small “r” republican. Unfortunately, not everyone on the right shares Mr. Will's views; Karl Rove is ready, willing and able to pull out the votes of every sub-moronic snake-handler he can scare to death by talking about marriage among the Sodomites. My only area of agreement with Mr. Will is that we both would prefer such people stay home (although I'd prefer that our own morons come out to vote early and often). By contrast, small “d” dems make common cause with Mr. Rove in hoping for the full participation of such folks in our democracy.
Daniel Millstone of Daily Gotham also chimed into this discussion (and eventually posted his own piece on the topic), asking “Is increasing total voter turnout a good goal? You give, in my view, a negative spin to this discussion. Is pulling favorables all that politics is or should be about? Turnout in NY and Nationwide was low. Would Democrats (&/or progressives) have done better with higher turnout?”
Well, that depends upon who turns out, doesn't it? I think there's really little way to ensure that the high tide lifting all ships does the work you want it to do; we really don't want to wake up sleeping evangelicals so distraught over Republican corruption that they've gone into a depression induced stupor. When was the last time anyone watched a show on network television? Broadcasting is so much history; we are (perhaps sadly) now in the age of narrowcasting. We can all pay tribute to the idea that we are speaking to the entire electorate, but in reality, we are either trying to maximizing our base vote, or to persuade the undecideds, and preferably both.
While there are many proposed process reforms, some quite worthy, which might remove real and perceived obstacles to ballot access, the biggest obstacle to potential voters accessing ballots is lack of interest in the election. The whole debate reminds me of a speech given in my high school by a candidate for Student Council President; “if all the people cared”, she proclaimed, “there wouldn’t be any apathy.” If liberals give voters a reason to care, those voters will cast a ballot.
Just asked the Working Families Party (WFP), which re-achieved its line on the ballot by carefully targeting what it perceived to be its potential voter base, by issue-oriented outreach to particular blocs of voters on topics both macro and micro. On the blogs, all manner of armchair leftists angrily debate whether targeting is wrong, and most come down against targeting, preferring campaigns based upon maximizing full participation by all. However, in the field, those leftists who actually get off their ass and run campaigns play by methods tried and true.
Which methodology is more successful? Well, while the WFP did not officially endorse in the race, its was clear that its most active elements backed Yvette Clarke against Chris Owens. You do the math.