Interesting Article on the Democratic Party.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

While certainly written from a liberal-leftish positions there are many points in it which I think are very relevant.

Democrats And The Iron Law Of Institutions
Read this if you're driven insane by the Democrats.

John Caruso of a Distant Ocean is pissed off at Medea Benjamin:

Medea Benjamin complains that Nancy Pelosi makes time to meet with Democratic coffee klatches and "high-dollar donors" but won't meet with activists from Benjamin's CODEPINK.  My response:
The Democrats generally (and Nancy Pelosi in particular) learned that they could ignore people like CODEPINK generally (and Medea Benjamin in particular) in 2004, when progressives made it eminently clear that they would vote for a Democrat who was as bad as (or worse than) George Bush on the most crucial issues--especially Iraq...

So if Nancy Pelosi won't meet with you now, Medea, it's because she knows that there's absolutely no need for her to do so.  You can sputter all you want about how "Pelosi has alienated CODEPINK and most of the peace movement" and how "disillusioned" you are, but you've already proven that in the only place that Democrats care about what you do--the voting booth--you're willing to sacrifice your principles and give them your support...


Let me gently suggest that John, in his understandable frustration, is not perceiving this situation clearly. What he's overlooking is that the Democrats operate according to the Iron Law of Institutions. The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.

I'll get to back momentarily to today's Democrats, but first it's useful to look at how the Iron Law plays out in other cases. At the country level, Saddam Hussein is an extreme example: during his thirty years in power, he made choices that led to the obliteration of Iraq—not because there was nothing else he could have done, but because choices that would have strengthened Iraq would have made him less individually powerful within Iraq. And this is a constant occurrence in the history of dictators. When Stalin purged many of the Red Army's most competent officers in the late thirties it made the Soviet Union itself far weaker—in particular, more vulnerable to a Nazi invasion—but what mattered to Stalin was eliminating internal rivals to his power. The same dynamic is displayed in less virulent form with Bush and Cheney: whenever they've had to choose between sharing power with others within a stronger America, and holding more power within a weaker America, they've chosen the latter.

Probably the best writing about this at the political party level was done by the late Walter Karp. Karp points out in Buried Alive that before the 1972 elections there was a huge influx of new people and energy into the Democratic party from the anti-war and civil rights movements. This was enough to get McGovern nominated. But here's what happened then, as Karp describes it:

As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous. A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose"...So deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a "landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.
Could McGovern have won if he'd been fully supported by the status quo powers with the Democratic party? Impossible to say. But they didn't want to take any chances: they preferred to make sure he lost the election, because his winning it would have meant newcomers would dilute their power within the party. That's the Iron Law of Institutions in action.

In The Politics of War Karp examines a similar situation in the election of 1912. The incumbent was William H. Taft, a Republican. However, he was extremely unpopular both nationally and with the progressive movement within the Republican party. First the National Progressive Republican League (essentially a party within the party, like the Progressive Democrats of America today) backed Robert La Follette. They eventually deserted him for Teddy Roosevelt, because he seemed more likely to wrest the nomination away from Taft. Karp writes:

If a presidential nomination were decided by the sentiments of a party's rank and file, Roosevelt would have won the nomination by a landslide. Of the 388 convention delegates chosen by popular vote, Taft won a mere 71, or less than 20 percent. If a presidential nomination were decided by money, Roosevelt again would have won. He had the preponderance of money on his side. If a presidential nomination were dictated by the party leaders' desire to win the general election, they would have nominated Roosevelt themselves. The Republican oligarchy, however, was fighting for its life. Compared to the prospect of losing power within the party, rank-and-file sentiment meant little. Winning in November meant least of all. The oligarchy was determined to renominate Taft, a certain loser, solely to keep control of the party. "When we get back in four years," explained a machine senator from Indiana, "instead of the damned insurgents, we will have the machine."
So what does this mean for John Caruso's (and everyone's) frustration with the Democrats today? A lot of things, such as:

1. The voting booth is by no means "the only place that Democrats care about what you do." In fact, from their perspective, by the time you get to the general election much of the game is over. Withholding your November vote from candidates they like but you don't will, at most, make them a little sad. Often they'd prefer it, if that's the price of keeping you out of their hair the rest of the time. That's why they don't try to appeal to the ~50% of Americans who don't vote.

2. If you want to motivate powerful Democrats, attempt to threaten their power within the party, not the well-being of the party overall. Of course, this is easier said than done, particularly because much of the power within the party is (as Karp would put it) an unelected Democratic oligarchy. For instance, Pelosi's status as Speaker can be challenged straightforwardly. Getting at the source of the party oligarchy's power, which is money and institutions outside of electoral politics, is much more difficult.

3. Any serious attempt to transform the Democratic party would include a conscious attempt to change its culture, into one that celebrates different people: organizers rather than elected officials and donors. Culture only seems like a weak reed. It's in fact the most powerful motivation people have. If people are celebrated for acting for the good of the whole rather than just themselves, they'll act for the good of the whole. Likewise, a better culture would humble the "leaders," to discourage those with individualistic motivations from seeking the positions. A Democratic party that worked would require Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer and anyone who donated over $5000 a year to clean the Capitol toilets.

4. If you don't believe the Democratic party is redeemable, don't get your hopes up that another party would end up being much better. Any other party would also be subject to the Iron Law of Institutions. It thus would be quickly just as dreadful as the Democrats...unless people put in the same amount of work as would be required to clean out the Democrats' Augean stables.

5. Generally speaking, don't expect too much from political parties, and certainly don't expect them to change much in less than a generation. And in any case, keep in mind much of the power in society lies elsewhere.

UPDATE: American Coprophagia points out another of Karp's favorite stories, which appears in Indispensable Enemies:

It was a Republican state party boss, Senator Boies Penrose of Pennsylvania, who early this century stated with notable candor the basic principle and purpose of present-day party politics. In the face of a powerful state and national resurgence of reform and the sentiments of the majority of the Republican rank and file, Penrose put up a losing slate of stand-pat party hacks. When a fellow Republican accused him of ruining the party, Penrose replied, "Yes, but I'll preside over the ruins."

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

[So the Heroes Fall]

translation:

Boo hoo, Pelosi won't meet with a group that supports Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah The Democrats didn't support a candidate over 30 years ago who had no chance anyway (despite being a very great man) and that obviously has much relevance today blah blah blah nominations are done today exactly as they were in 1912 blah blah blah The Democrats are evil for trying to raise the money they need to win elections.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

translation:

Boo hoo, Pelosi won't meet with a group that supports Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah The Democrats didn't support a candidate over 30 years ago who had no chance anyway (despite being a very great man) and that obviously has much relevance today blah blah blah nominations are done today exactly as they were in 1912 blah blah blah The Democrats are evil for trying to raise the money they need to win elections.

Yet you don't think it's odd at all that the Democratic party basically ditched it's own candidate ensuring a humiliating defeat, no?

The 1912 comparsion was made as an analogy towards how those at the top of political parties can ignore those lower down. Not as a comment on nomination process.

You don't think the Democratic party is doing such a perfect job that it doesn't need to be reformed, at all?

[So the Heroes Fall]

No, but it should be listening to ideas for reform from people who support people who are extremely against the Democratic Party and do everything in their party to harm it and are more focused on harming it than the Republicans like Cindy Sheehan and most likely Ralph Nader.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

No, but it should be listening to ideas for reform from people who support people who are extremely against the Democratic Party and do everything in their party to harm it and are more focused on harming it than the Republicans like Cindy Sheehan and most likely Ralph Nader.

Sheehan and Nader gave up on the Democratic leadership because of it's inability towards reform (or rather it's unwillingness - hell, remember how hard Sheehan campaigned for the Dems as long ago as last year), not because they particularly hated the idea of the party in the first place. Plus the idea that both Al Gore and GWB were pretty identical wasn't too difficult to believe back in 2000, don't you remember at all how uninspiring and how avoiding-of-issues both candidates were - Plus here I should make much of the fact that Al Gore has shares in Occidental petroleum (.. Yes, yes I know Nader has shares in Halliburton, thank you.)

Or Do you consider Eugene Debs a Republican as he split the (mostly) Democratic vote?

(One thing of note about the McGovern candidacy, despite the common myth McGovern actually did very well among blue-collar workers in the Democratic primary - especially in areas without very strong unions who were deeply embedded in the Democratic party structure, which mostly stayed with Humphrey. Once McGovern was nominated that supported faded away due to ambigous attitude of the party leadership. Without a doubt, McGovern would have won Rhode Island, South Dakota, Minnesota and quite possibly alot more states if it weren't for the attitude of the Party leadership)

[So the Heroes Fall]

Sheehan and Nader gave up on the Democratic leadership because of it's inability towards reform (or rather it's unwillingness - hell, remember how hard Sheehan campaigned for the Dems as long ago as last year),

She never campaigned for the Dems. Last year she was writing articles bashing the Democrats for lewrockwell.com

not because they particularly hated the idea of the party in the first place.

Oh really? Then why does Sheehan bash the Democrats calling us the party of slavery and creating the Federal Reserve (usually an extreme libertarian rant) and a bunch of other crap that basically says the Democratic Party is the most evil institution in the country's history? That goes a lot more than just being annoyed with lack of reform.

Plus the idea that both Al Gore and GWB were pretty identical wasn't too difficult to believe back in 2000, don't you remember at all how uninspiring and how avoiding-of-issues both candidates were - Plus here I should make much of the fact that Al Gore has shares in Occidental petroleum (.. Yes, yes I know Nader has shares in Halliburton, thank you.)

No, anyone with half a brain could see policy differences.

The difference between Gore and Nader is I don't expect Gore (or any other candidate) to be perfect. This reminds me of a great quote from openly gay and ultra-progressive Rep. Barney Frank. When asked how he could support Kerry even though Kerry didn't support gay marriage he replied "I've only voted for a perfect candidate once in my life. Once I ran for re-election, I wasn't perfect anymore."

Nader on the other hand, bashes the Democrats for the slightest imperfection and expects us to worship at his feet when he is just as flawed. And Al Gore has never openly sided with James Dobson.

But regardless of what 2000 seemed like, that doesn't matter anymore as far as Nader is concerned, as in 2004 he clearly continued to spout the crap that Bush was exactly the same as Gore or Kerry and there was absolutely no difference between the candidates on issues whatsoever.

Or Do you consider Eugene Debs a Republican as he split the (mostly) Democratic vote?

Not really (his support probably mostly came from progressive Republicans) and the parties were way difference back then.

(One thing of note about the McGovern candidacy, despite the common myth McGovern actually did very well among blue-collar workers in the Democratic primary - especially in areas without very strong unions who were deeply embedded in the Democratic party structure, which mostly stayed with Humphrey. Once McGovern was nominated that supported faded away due to ambigous attitude of the party leadership. Without a doubt, McGovern would have won Rhode Island, South Dakota, Minnesota and quite possibly alot more states if it weren't for the attitude of the Party leadership)

And he still would've lost. McGovern is my favorite candidate of the 20th century, but he was also over 30 years ago and that election is barely relevant today.