I am a registered and ideological Democrat, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember. In 2008, I went inside the automated voting booth for the first time with my mom. She’d just secured American citizenship and was voting for the first time. Together, we pressed the button for Sen. Barack Obama.
I love the Democratic Party because I love the Democratic Party. Believe it or not, there is untapped energy in there, a strong emotional sentiment, good policy and humanity. I assure you, some of these people care about me, about you and about us. I know this because I’ve seen it in real time. I’m a Massachusetts and Boston University College Democrat, and I am constantly surrounded by some of the most dedicated activists I have ever met.
Because I love my party, I can also recognize when it is not living up to its potential. Unfortunately for the party and for us, it’s not.
Don’t let the Obama victories fool you into thinking that the Democratic Party is viable. First things first, Obama ran on his own terms. He invoked Saul Alinsky’s organizational tactics and kept his successful campaigning organization, Organizing For Action, distinctly separate from the Democratic National Committee. Secondly, Democrats were decimated in the 2014 midterm elections and have been rapidly losing state and city level influence in recent years. More governing happens at the state and local level than it does at the federal level, may I remind you. So by losing ground there, we lost a significant bulwark of power. Finally — and this one is a bit of a throwback — we’re still the same party that lost to George W. Bush, one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Twice.
If the 2016 election revealed anything, it is that Clinton-era neoliberalism is dead. Pandering to big businesses, embracing social conservatism and invoking law and order just don’t do the candidate good anymore. However, despite that this is very obviously the case, the Democratic party refuses to make the schematic changes necessary to shift the party in a more progressive direction.
The DNC chair election was the Democrat’s chance to make it right, to begin courting the Bernie Sanders voters who felt tossed aside or forgotten in all the rough and tumble of things. Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison (D) was the progressive choice and had the most popular support. However, Tom Perez, former Labor Secretary and Obama holdover, wound up winning the coveted seat. Sure, Perez is the most progressive chair in the party’s history and moved to make Ellison the deputy chair, but none of that matters. To many people, he represents the “establishment” of the party. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.
The rank-and-file Democrats want one thing, and the old horses want another. What is unfortunate about this is that the old horses are disproportionately in power and almost always do what they want regardless of the practical consequences. They chose good ole’ Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader and political moderate Chuck Schumer as Senate minority leader. They picked Perez, and they’re not doing enough to curb Trump. Though the Massachusetts State Senate has a democratic supermajority, they sometimes can’t get progressive legislation passed. Why? Well, I guess you can always blame it on our Republican governor.
I know the effort seems futile, frustrating and sad. The party seems devoid of reason, devoid of goodness and devoid of a heart. But — and I must stress this — there is a little bit of hope in the up-and-coming generation of Democrats. We put Sanders on the scene, we elected Elizabeth Warren, we legalized marijuana in Massachusetts. We are getting better at organizing, staging rallies, workshops and engaging with our communities. The young Democrats I know are political and social wizards of sorts. They email, they call, they do phone bank, they plan, and in some cases, they write. They run for DNC seats, for their Ward Committees or for their school boards at 18 because they want to be a presence. Sometimes, that’s all you need to get the old horses riled up and uncomfortable.
Belief in a kind of vanguard of youth isn’t a new concept. Randolph Bourne once said that “youth is the leaven that keeps all these questioning, testing attitudes fermenting in the world. If it were not for this troublesome activity of youth, with its hatred of sophisms and glosses, its insistence on things as they are, society would die from sheer decay.”
It appears to me, then, that we ought to encourage and further tap into this fervor before it’s too late.
