God, Guns, and Gays, or...? Thoughts on Unity and Convention 2004

[dpbrown]

God, Guns, and Gays
Dan Brown

God, guns, and gays. These are the three themes that Republicans use to divide America.

Republicans need a divided America to ignite passions that cause people to vote against their economic interests.

I went to the Democratic Party national convention in Boston as a delegate pledged to Ohio Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. I understand, as Rep. Kucinich understands, that invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and that did not represent a threat to America was wrong, and we should get out. I believe, as Rep. Kucinich believes, that we need to make peace a guiding principle in our society and in the world, in order to address the real weapons of mass destruction: poverty, racism, homelessness, joblessness, and ignorance. I am convinced, as Rep. Kucinich is convinced, that the profiteering privatization of common resources, as symbolized by Halliburton and United Defense sweetheart deals in Iraq, lies at the rotten center of corporate control of the political strings in this nation and the world.

I took those core principles to the Democratic Party national convention in Boston, and I voted for John Kerry. In his endorsement of Senator Kerry, Rep. Kucinich explained that the arguments about how to build a better America, how to confront corporatism, and how to get out of Iraq belong INSIDE the Democratic Party, not outside of it.

In one sense, it was difficult to let go of my strong desire to vote for Rep. Kucinich at convention in order to signal my complete endorsement of his voice, his passion, and his message of hope. And what would the people who elected me think? But as Rep. Kucinich explained, it is only through working together, inside the Democratic Party, as he has done and continues to do, that progressives will continue to have a seat at the table, burning a passionate grassroots fire beneath the party and the nation to reclaim the soul of democracy.

There was another difference that influenced my choice at convention, between voting for the Democratic standard-bearer then already endorsed by Rep. Kucinich, and casting a symbolic protest vote the meaning of which would have been interpreted by many, including other progressives from the Dean and Edwards groups, as abandonment of the fight for principle in favor of a doctrinaire vote of rejection of the inside path. This vote of rejection would have been a rejection of the only path to progressive change that the people for whom Dennis Kucinich is continuing to fight, now with our help, will continue to have. This vote of rejection of the process and the party would have taken the focus off of the benefit to be had by highlighting Rep. Kucinich's ongoing fight against the real weapons of mass destruction.

Incremental progress is better than continued dramatic loss.

A Kerry administration makes it possible that Rep. Kucinich or like-minded individuals can become part of that government (a level of influence above just having a lobbying effect on that government, or successfully resisting or protesting that government). And that's because (and the way these things go a primary reason) Dennis Kucinich is INSIDE the party.

Compared to Rep. Kucinich, there are at least two reasons why any Nader platform is a pipedream: 1) He will never gain control over the reins of government himself, because a constituency that thrives on pedantic rejection of the broad in favor of the narrow values division over progress and will never be strong enough to afford him wide acceptance; and 2) By obstinately placing himself outside the process, he will never be in a position to bring either one of the major political parties all the way to his position. Therefore, as rosy-sounding a platform as Nader may espouse, it will never come to pass through his efforts, so it's a promise with no meaning.

Rejecting incremental progress ensures continued dramatic loss.

However, since 2000, a brave populist Democrat has risen inside the party to pragmatically and courageously fight for certain clear, traditional, liberal Democratic Party principles - and that Democrat is Ohio Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.

I was not privy to the discussions between Kucinich, pragmatic politician, strategic thinker, and long-term visionary, and John Kerry, but I do know one thing - Dennis Kucinich carried the weight of fighting against the real weapons of mass destruction: poverty, racism, homelessness, joblessness, and ignorance - all the way to the Convention. He fought against the odds to raise the profile of issues that should define the Democratic Party, and encouraged thousands to pick up the banner and enter the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. As a result of his efforts, those issues are now part of the everyday discussion of Democrats everywhere. The struggle is just joined. Wielding progressive influence over the Democratic Party before it implodes is a herculean task now shared by all of us, not just Dennis.

Dennis said that the next step in bringing the Democratic Party back to its liberal populist roots is getting a Democrat into the White House. My interpretation of his direction on this matter was to obtain the best possible result at the Convention (somewhat, while pushing the envelope) according to the nominee's rules - preaching unity to the outside world while building relationships with insiders and educating and energizing new constituencies to the power of progressive action. I'm neither bright enough, nor courageous enough, nor whatever else enough to second guess a man who's proven himself over and over again in the political crucible, while I haven't.

Nader's been invited to work inside, and to thereby stand a chance of getting some of his ideas into play. He's refused. Dennis is ALREADY inside, and because of his integrity and selflessness I followed this brave politician's lead and did what he thought was right, knowing that the Convention was just one step along the way as we focus "like a laser beam" on making the Democratic Party into a "viable opposition party."

I trusted Dennis because Dennis trusted me.

Dennis positioned us as well as he could for the next step, that of influencing the Kerry administration. More than that, he laid the groundwork to make it possible to continue to be positioned for the steps after that, continuing to exert more influence over the makeup and philosophy and direction of the Democratic Party. We will be there before we know it, by playing nice when we have to, and using our leverage when we need to.

I was pledged to Dennis Kucinich, and therefore I followed his lead in casting my vote.

I can support the Democratic Party and its nominee because it has Dennis in it. And it has Donna, and Faith, and Alex, and John and Rebekah and Jed and Seema and Bill and Laurie and Krysta and Sharon and Kirsten (some of the many other Minnesota Kucinich delegates and volunteers in Boston) - and others, maybe even you.

The Republicans don't have that. The Republicans don't have progressive power, they don't have a connection to people, they don't have a moral center. As long as the Democratic Party has Dennis, it does.

For me, it's not a long leap then to being able to follow the direction of my chosen candidate, Dennis Kucinich, when he says that we have a responsibility to become united. For me, I can believe him when he assures me that the Democratic Party and the nominee are internalizing more of the progressive message. For me, supporting the nominee and participating in the process in the manner that my candidate suggests is not a break with the constituency that elected me to carry the message of Dennis Kucinich to Boston, but rather a fulfillment of my responsibility.

For me, my mandate was a pledge to support putting the government of the United States of America in the hands of the party that has Dennis Kucinich in it - and working forward from there to put that party itself in the hands of progressive populists.

There was no greater way I could find that I could honor the commitment I had been given.

Democrats don't need a divided America. Republicans do. And as long as the Democratic Party has Dennis Kucinich, it will have a soul.

Fear ends. Hope begins.

John Kerry for President.

Dan Brown
CD4 Kucinich Delegate
St. Paul, Minnesota

[benfranklin1776]

1. Thanks so much for posting.

You might also consider sending this to [e-mail] for consideration for use as a DU article on the front page.

[Mad As Hell]

2. Yes thank you.

It was beautiful and inspirational.

[no name no slogan]

3. GREAT REPORT!

It's very heartening to read this! Needless to say, I agree with you, as well, that we have a lot more influence within the party than without it.

I have been re-energized by all the great reports out of Boston by those MN folk who were there. I think we'll have a VERY big role to play this fall, in races big and small.

:D

[rhite5]

4. Thank you Dan

It's been very helpful to learn more about the decision-making process that DK delegates were going through. Today we have learned about it from two different DK delegates, both from MN, who made different choices, and for whom the decision was difficult, even gut-wrenching. I feel privileged to have had a chance to learn about this from both of you.

Throughout this spring I worked for Kucinich off and on, following the sequence of Primaries, sending postcards, making phone calls, collecting petition signatures, even doing database entry work from my home computer for the National office and helping organize an event for him in my hometown in Oregon. I was not able to go to Boston, but I have been eager to learn how things went for the DK people who did go.

[mdguss]

5. Thanks:

You made the right choice.

[dpbrown]

7. Personally, I think the focus on "oppression" is way overblown

This was Kerry's show, and Kucinich asked us to get in line.

At the same time, we were being given indications from everyone from Kucinich, to Mondale, to the Kerry MN Chair, to others, that although we were only 1.5% of the delegates in the hall, we were being paid attention to.

I didn't really expect to be able to have my own signs in the hall, and even though the negotiations were ongoing on "issue" signs, I always thought that Kerry's team would be able to veto any signs they thought were inappropriate.

I think there was some missed communication, and maybe some misinterpretation of the rules that influenced choices for some, but overall, I disagree that we were "oppressed" in getting out our views.

Kucinich volunteers distributed a daily newspaper called "Inside Out" to the delegations, tracking Kucinich activities. There were issue signs at the MN delegation breakfasts. We met with Kerry people over and over again, and with Mondale.

We may have gotten a very substantial soliloquy from Mondale if one person hadn't held out for a "theater of the absurd" mention of Iraq in the roll call for the MN delegation. We'll never know now, of course.

Not only that, but the focus would have stayed where it belonged, on what Kucinich brought to the convention, and what the progressives stood for, instead of devolving into complaining over a process we had no expectation of controlling.

I'm not disappointed in our performance, but it could have been better if some people had felt more committed to the ongoing process instead of their own personal statement.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[qwlauren35]

6. Oh THANK YOU!!!

After reading the other message, this one warmed my heart.

I have a lot of respect for Kucinich, and I think his followers are an extremely principled group of people.

I am really hoping that Kucinich will make a Senate run.

[eridani]

8. Since when did voting for Kucinich mean you didn't--

--want to work on the inside of the party? I'm glad to say that all the WA state delegates voted for Kucinich, and all intend to support Kerry in the coming election. They wished to make one last stand against the war and the PATRIOT Act and in favor of universal health care, which is what their caucuses elected them to do on May 27th, knowing full well at that time that Kerry had the votes for nomination. A vote for Kerry would have said to all their supporters "Why did you even bother to push the caucus process that far?"

Their votes have given them a great deal of street cred in arguing with those inclined to go third party, and will wind up helping Kerry more than if they had fallen into lockstep at the convention.

[dpbrown]

10. Wanting to work inside the party is one thing

And finding a "best fit" on the continuum of committing to do so is another.

Everybody's different.

I think that there were many constituencies with whom we had an opportunity to develop "cred" - all the way from at one end the "Kucinich or nothing" people, through to the Dean "backbone" people, to the Sharpton "ride this donkey as far as it'll take us" people, to the Edwards "two Americas" people, to the Kerry "unity" people to the DLC "you're nuts if you don't want war" people.

I'm glad everyone found the position on that continuum that they believe best positions themselves to push forward Dennis' vision.

That said, I think that the "one last stand" mindset goes directly against what Dennis said about getting inside to move things forward, not stopping at the convention.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[eridani]

13. When in the entire history of party politics in the US--

--has a candidate in any convention won the first ballot by 100% of the vote? Why do party regulars insist that this has to start in 2004?

If the point of the convention was to have all the delegates vote for Kerry, then I would have stopped working to get Kucinich delegates in our state after Feb. 7th. We didn't stop because we wanted to say something about the direction of the party. And though supporting Kerry, we will not cease to remind him from which direction our support is coming.

[dpbrown]

14. 100% might not have been the goal, and that misses some points anyway

Since as I pointed out, there were many reasons to make a choice, depending on to whom one was most trying to communicate with the vote, in order to move forward the work that Dennis has done.

Turning it into an "us versus Kerry" reinforces that "they" are not "us" and in fact, Dennis said very clearly several times that we are the Democratic Party.

Dennis asked us to vote for Kerry. One of the reasons was probably to see whether he is seen by this movement as a leader, or just a tool for people to use to get their own viewpoint out there.

Some people say they saw "ambivalence" in Dennis' request, through his "body language" or something similar, and some people turned their back on his request believing he was honestly making it, to forward their own agenda.

But even those things are less meaningful than the points I made above, that the message sent by voting for Dennis or voting for Kerry was perceived differently by different groups representing different candidates or different points on the liberal spectrum.

Even the point in my above original essay makes that clear. Some people saw a refusal to vote for the nominee as a rejection of the "inside" path, and for some former Dean, Sharpton, Braun, Edwards, etc., supporters, that may then present a barrier to building "Progressive Democrats of America" or doing other work to move forward a progressive agenda.

That's not to say that making the decision solely based on the effect it might have on Kucinich supporters or those who identify themselves as "outside" isn't valid. There are just other perspectives that are out there, and weighing them, if we're really in the business of building coalition, is important.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[LWolf]

9. That is eloquent, Dan.

What a challenge Dennis, and the progressives who have organized behind him, have taken on. It's not a surprise if you've followed how Dennis works.

Your post brings a new thought to me this morning: The protest vote is the easy road. If you are going to invest your energy into protesting what you don't like, and spend your vote on a candidate or a platform that will "lose," you don't have to do any of the work to actually enact any of those ideals. You've already "lost," and you've already proved your point. You can sit back and blame the rest of the world for the problems. The "inside path" that Dennis has taken, and has asked us to support, is so much more difficult. There is never a time that you have "won" or "lost," and you can sit back and rest. It's never over, and you are always working for each incremental step. That road calls for a level of patience, persistence, and fortitude, over a lifetime of working for change, than a protest vote ever will.

That defines Dennis pretty well; patience, persistence, fortitude....and integrity. If the groups working for change follow that model, we will make a difference.

[no name no slogan]

11. If I could add to your definition LWolf

That defines Dennis pretty well; patience, persistence, fortitude....and integrity.

I would also suggest that, despite his overwhelming optimism and idealism, he's also one of the most realistic candidates we've had in a long time.

Dennis knew it would be an uphill battle the whole way, but still he persisted. And he also knew when to quit fighting one battle, and move on to the next one.

If Dennis was completely idealistic, he would have either supported someone like Cobb or ran in the GE himself. But, as a realist and a smart politician, he knows enough to support Kerry now.

One thing different about DK's supporters is that many of them actually got involved in the inner workings of the party-- they are the NEW precinct chairs, district chairs, state central committee members, etc. They have effectively BECOME part of the party. And as such, they probably faced a lot of pressure to "go along" in Boston-- or risk being shunned (or worse) by the old-time party folks.

But every delegate did what they knew was right for themselves individually, and what was right for the party as a whole. IIRC, most of our MN delegates also hold official party offices, so organizing for 2006 and 2008 will be that much easier-- we've already got a head start this time!

Onward to November....and beyond!

[LWolf]

16. Yes.

The so cal group that I met with a few times is still busy; they transferred smoothly from campaign workers into a group lobbying for issues. I haven't met with them; they are about 90 minutes away. But I keep up with them via computer.

[goodhue]

12. Thanks Dan!

Its as if I were there myself. :D

[dpbrown]

15. Indeed!

As if you were right there the whole time!

:toast: