From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: "A Democratic Party That Isn't" (Op-Ed)
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:22:15 GMT

In article <9207220420.AA02916@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
>Subject: "A Democratic Party That Isn't" (Op-Ed)
>Date: 22 Jul 92 04:20:47 GMT


>    "What it lacked was any sense of participative democracy. [...]
>    DNC Chair Ron Brown told an ABC Nightline audience in December
>    that he hoped to eliminate half of the candidate field after the
>    first primary in New Hampshire, and to have only one candidate
>    left after Super Tuesday, March 10

>    "But before Ron Brown and the DNC congratulate themselves on their
>    success, I suggest that they pause to consider the consequences of
>    their actions."

>                  *********************************
>                    A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT ISN'T
>                         by Stephen C. Smith
>                  *********************************

>     The Democratic National Convention, a week-long info-mercial for
>Bill Clinton, was a TV extravaganza rivaled in glitz and glamour only
>by an Academy Awards broadcast.  It was Made-For-TV politics.
>Democratic Relief.

>     What it lacked was any sense of participative democracy.  If it
>should lead to Bill Clinton's election this November, it portends the
>probability that future Democratic presidential candidate selections
>will follow the same strategy of exclusion.

>     This scripted event culminated a carefully managed and narrowly
>focused presidential candidate selection process mapped out last fall
>by the Democratic National Committee.  DNC Chair Ron Brown told an ABC
>Nightline audience in December that he hoped to eliminate half of the
>candidate field after the first primary in New Hampshire, and to have
>only one candidate left after Super Tuesday, March 10.  This
>strategy's intent was to select one candidate quickly, who the DNC's
>spin doctors would transform into a mythic warrior who would vanquish
>George Bush in November.

>     This scenario, however, purposely excluded most of the registered
>Democrats in this country from having a meaningful say in choosing
>their party's nominee.  Among the many states left with no significant
>voice in the primaries were California, New York, Illinois, Michigan,
>Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  These represented seven of the
>nine largest Democratic delegate states, and one-third of all
>Democratic delegates.  Overall, about two-thirds of the delegates were
>to be selected after Super Tuesday.

>     The cynical brilliance of Ron Brown's plan was that it would
>create the illusion of "momentum" for his candidate.  With most of the
>candidates out of the race, the one leading a winnowed field couldn't
>help picking up a greater percentage of the delegates.

>     Ron Brown's plan worked almost to perfection.  Bill Clinton, who
>once chaired the party's centrist Democratic Leadership Council, was
>the only "insider" candidate enjoying early substantive support within
>the DNC.  Sure enough, despite early questions about his integrity and
>fidelity, Clinton outlasted his lesser known and lesser connected
>rivals to emerge as the front-runner after Super Tuesday.  If Jerry
>Brown hadn't stubbornly refused to withdraw from the campaign, Ron
>Brown's plan would have been executed flawlessly.

>     Clinton exploited the weeks before the convention to rehabilitate
>his image.  He began with an appearance on Arsenio Hall, where he
>donned sunglasses and played the saxophone.  Next was a nationally
>televised town hall meeting, bypassing the media to deliver his
>message directly to the voters.  And while George Bush and Ross Perot
>spat at one another, Clinton sensibly stood quietly on the sidelines.
>Bush and Perot sank in the polls; Clinton rose.

>     Clinton's rehabilitation was completed by the prime-time variety
>show masquerading as a political convention, carried by virtually
>every media outlet.  As Ohio announced its delegates' support for
>Clinton --clinching his nomination -- the networks cut to mini-cams
>showing the Clinton family in Macy's, as if they were out shopping
>during all of this.  The Clintons exited Macy's into the street, where
>on cue hundreds of supporters waved "CLINTON" signs.  The Clintons
>rode in a stretch limo (not unlike the President's) to Madison Square
>Garden, where a camera followed them through the inner corridors
>towards the convention floor.  The camera dramatically swung forward
>to show Clinton's perspective, a door swinging open to the floor,
>where thousands of well-rehearsed delegates cheered madly.  A
>spotlight -- in fact, a star -- shone where Clinton was to emerge.

>     An entrance worthy of Bruce Springsteen.

>     An ABC News Poll showed that Clinton left the convention with an
>29- point lead in the polls over Bush.  Ross Perot dropped out of the
>race, citing his inability to win "now that the Democratic Party has
>revitalized itself."  The prime-time spectacle even KO'd the blustery
>billionaire.

>     But before Ron Brown and the DNC congratulate themselves on their
>success, I suggest that they pause to consider the consequences of
>their actions.

>     If not for Perot's political ineptitude, a nationwide independent
>campaign could have very well foiled the DNC's plan.  Millions of
>voters turned to Perot not out of any admiration or deep conviction in
>his beliefs, but simply because he was another choice.  Many of those
>voters were registered Democrats who felt they had been denied a
>substantive choice within their own party.

>     The DNC also distanced itself from its traditional heritage as
>the bastion of progressive liberal change.  Its faulty assumption was
>that the dreaded "L-word" would never sell to a majority of voters.
>Apparently, it never occurred to the DNC that the reason liberal
>candidates have failed in recent campaigns was that they lacked the
>political stature, strategic competence or personal integrity to
>appeal to the electorate, not necessarily a popular message.

>     To bury the "L-word," the DNC sought to impede progressive
>liberal candidates.  Larry Agran lacked the national stature of Jerry
>Brown, so he was quickly dismissed by the media and could not appeal
>over the DNC to the voters.  But Brown, ever the political chameleon,
>embraced his newly found outsider status to run against the monied
>interests that control not only the DNC but most of D.C. politics.  As
>the other candidates dropped out, Brown almost wrecked the DNC's
>strategy, but lacked both the financial resources and any deep
>personal resonance with the voters to overtake Clinton.

>     Still, Brown insisted that, as the candidate with the
>second-highest number of delegates, he be allowed to address the
>convention.  Once again, Ron Brown tried to silence him.  Jerry
>addressed the convention only by forcing the issue -- collecting the
>signatures required under party rules to place his name in nomination.

>     Should Bill Clinton win in November, I fear that this
>exclusionary process will set the standard for future Democratic
>primaries.  A moribund party cannot be resurrected simply by painting
>rouge on the corpse.  Candidates have always enjoyed a temporary surge
>in the polls after a convention.

>     If Clinton sincerely wants to salvage the Democratic Party,
>instead of trying to silence dissenting voices he should have insisted
>that Jerry Brown and Larry Agran address the convention.  It would
>have demonstrated to alienated voters that Clinton is indeed a man
>capable of broad support.  Instead, he uses against the liberal wing
>of his own party the same politics of division practiced by the GOP in
>1988.

>     Right now, the Democratic Party isn't very democratic.  Already
>there are signs that the Republicans will exploit this handicap.  Fred
>Malek, Bush-Quayle campaign manager, said on NBC's Meet the Press that
>the GOP's convention, unlike the Democrats', will be "a party of
>inclusion."

>     Bill Clinton says he wants change.  The question is, a change to
>what?


>                           * * * * *


>     Stephen C. Smith is a political consultant.  He served as the
>Issues Director for the Agran for President campaign.

>##################################################################
>From: Agran for President <75300.3112@CompuServe.COM>
To what, indeed? The New Covenant is our New Deal, a gift to the American 
people from the Eastern Establishment. They know exactly what they're 
doing.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13552 talk.politics.misc:36098 soc.culture.latin-america:2735