Random Roundup of Ideas We Need To Do And Avoid To Restore Democracy

Yesterday's post, in reaction to the ludicrous interview Barack Obama gave to David Axelrod contains nothing I would take back, if anything, slightly cooled down, I'd have put a stronger case with more detail to support my contention that he is if not the last person to do it, he is no one who should be in serious contention to rebuild the Democratic Party.  His choice of the corporate lawyer, revolving door traveler, Eric Holder, to be his agent in that effort should confirm he lacks the sense of reality or judgement to do it.  I think the conventional thinking of both of them, their inability to break out of that was responsible for a lot of the trouble.  It is a rare man in his 50s who is capable of changing their thinking radically enough to make the change necessary to do that, it is certainly not going to be done by someone who is trying to salvage their reputation by not  owning up to their past which is largely the cause of it.   One thing that is essential is that we never again put someone in the presidency who is mostly concerned with his own legend or who has the kind of personal irresponsibility of a Bill Clinton.  Between the two of them. both edges of the double edged sword that charisma is injured the party.

I am uninterested in continuing to catalog the many things that Obama did wrong, though I think if he makes it necessary to convince people that he will only further damage Democrats, that will have to be done by someone. I'm interested in going on to the real post-Obama, post-Bill Clinton Democratic Party.  

Either the 50-State Strategy that Howard Dean promoted or something like it is essential to winning control of the Congress, both House and Senate. Obviously merely holding the presidency isn't enough now that the Republican-fascists have truly decided to rule as fascists, uninhibited by the Constitution or the honor that piece of parchment always depended on.  Rebuilding at the local level is essential, rebuilding the credibility that was lost with the Democratic base is essential.  All of that was in the process of being done in 2008, it withered away in the past eight years.   Having ONE BIG PERSONALITY at the top of the party clearly doesn't do it.  I'd say for Democrats that has been a big part of the problem.

What I said a while back about Democrats having to fix the nomination process is as true. We have to regain control of the presidential nominations through having a modern, large-participation, by-U. S. Mail primary controlled by Democrats and not by state legislatures - participated in only by registered Democrats.  I think that level of innovation is what is needed to save the party.  Ending the stranglehold of Iowa and New Hampshire or any other state that manages to break the calendar for its own gain is essential. They've done a lousy job at it in the past seventy-years and a wider demographic determining the outcome is essential.  Perhaps if the candidate of the Democratic Party was determined by a larger number of people, more representative of the entire population, that candidate and the eventual president they may become would have the support of more people.   There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party protecting its nominations from the attempt by people outside it to hijack the process.  I don't see anything wrong with requiring someone to have been a registered Democrat if they want to participate in a primary.

As I pointed out, this would also have the advantage of getting rid of the awful, anti-democratic caucus system.  State legislatures that insisted on caucuses could be overridden in the interest of greater voter participation in the process.  Political parties are not state entities, they should not be bound by the stupidity of tradition-bound legislatures, especially when those are frequently in the hands of our opponents.

I have also pointed out that now that we know that foreign dictators and others can and will hack Democrats on behalf of Republican-fascism that e-mail communications have to stop.  The convenience of those have certainly cost us everything this year.  If some form of unhackable encryption can't be had, and I doubt it can be, then other means of communication have to be set up.

The frequent stupidities of casual venting that e-mail gives rise to, venting in a permanent and frequently embarrassing form, is not helpful, either.   Way too many of the people involved in the higher eschalons of the Democratic Party have exposed themselves as being far too much like the 12-year-old jr. high school style gossips of so many an entrenched, eutrophic online chatroom.  If it's too much for these people, frequently, far too frequently the beneficiaries of the most elite educations. TO ACT AND TALK LIKE ADULTS then they have to be pushed aside for those who can.  I strongly suspect that the Ivy-Might-as-well-be-Ivy old-boy and gal network are a source of a lot of the woes of the Democratic Party.   I'm getting to the point where I don't really think anyone with an income of over five figures is likely to have much of a clue as to why the Democratic Party even exists.  There are exceptions but they are far too few.

I think many if not most of the figures involved in the Obama and Clinton campaigns should be moved aside, too.  In both cases their success was due at least as much to Republican failures or weak candidates than they were the result of brilliant strategies and understanding.  Anyone who sent stupid e-mails to John Podesta or others which became such a liability for Democrats should never have anything to do with another Democratic campaign.  Anyone who is likely to leak sensitive information to unreliable people should be avoided like the plague they've been.

Update:  This got posted this morning and we had a power outage which fried my modem  before I could edit it.  The modem is fixed now and I hope this post is somewhat fixed, too.