Not who, what!

The Democratic Party is electing a new Chair, and we have quite a few thoughts. But our most important conviction is that the crucial question about the next Democratic Chair, is not who it is going to be. Far too often Americans tend to fixate on the personalities.  Voters like the people who are like them or agree with them.  It’s understandable to want your wing of the party to prosper. Many did or did not believe in Bernie Sanders. And it through these lenses that it is tempting to view this race. 

Focus on choosing a champion is an entirely human and somewhat rational mindset, but it is what we need as much as possible to break out of. Who the next Democratic Party Chair is going to be is not the right question.  The right question is what will the next Democratic Party Chair do. In our first letter, (each section of which we will expand upon as we go), we set forth very clear ideas as to what the party should do.  Every Candidate for Chair should be similarly challenged to present a real plan for what the party is going to do?  

Looking at the two leading candidates so far, we have a decent idea as to what they will do based on the past.  Howard Dean’s tenure at the DNC and the success we had then are to my mind underrated.  In 2006 and 2008 Democrats had big wins up and down the ballot with Dean as chairman. The Congressional Party and then later the Obama campaign made it seem as if Dean’s tenure at the DNC had nothing to do with that success. But since it was both of those entities that oversaw catastrophic failures in 2010, 2014 and 2016, it seems Dean’s role should be given a most positive view. He did a lot of good things at the DNC, including adoption of the 50 state strategy. Although competing everywhere may seem like a non-optimal use of resources, it sends a message about being national, broad-based and unwilling to give up. There is even a decent amount of evidence suggesting that treating a state like it is competitive has the effect of making it more competitive.  This is a positive sign. 

Congressman Keith Ellison is the other leading contender. He also has a strong record on some of these issues.  In particular, and for what he deserves the most credit, he used his Congressional campaign with energy and judgment. He determined quite rightly that all of a Congressional campaign’s money can be used to drive turnout in a very blue district.  Because he did that it seems, quite frankly, that Congressman Ellison’s work is the difference between Minnesota staying Blue, in 2010,2014 and 2016 and the contrary fate of next door Wisconsin.  The only minor downside to Ellison is that being in Congress is a full time job. We need DNC chair to be a full time job.  Moreover a sitting Congressman is more likely to bow to the Congressional Party, even when that is not the right decision. 

These are both good choices, and more may be coming online. (There already are a few more names being floated, but they are not yet as serious).  The key question for any such candidate is what he or she will do, not whom he or she is. We cannot get caught up in the personalities; yet there are some signs that is already happening.  What the DNC chair will do is the crucial question.