 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 3, 2008 at 11:26:56
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 8/3/08: by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
I'm still at the PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) conference. It's been very refreshing to see how bottom-up the meeting has been with extraordinary efforts to include ALL the participants in attendance. In the first session, each of the close to 50 participants was asked to introduce themselves and tell about what they hoped to get out of the meeting. I thought that was unusual, with a national organization, with so many attendees. As the meeting went on, the same process occurred again and again, in breakout and single track sessions. Each person was asked for reports on progress locally, ideas on how to do things better, on flaws or problems with the organization. These reports were recorded and summarized then fed back to the group-- feedback and feedforward. We got a report last night from Norman Solomon and Donna Smith, who was in Michael Moore's Sicko. They each attended the DNC's platform planning discussions in Cleveland. From their reports, it would seem that rather than discussions, they were planned, pre-written presentations-- totally top-down-- very disappointing, but not surprising. 
Bottom-up is becoming a value. Failure to include bottom-up is becoming something that is identified as a liability, and associated with antipathy to democracy and even associated with failure and backwardness. Hierarchical thinking, leadership and organizational policy are on their way out and for good reason. They don't tap the wisdom of the crowds and they are based on archaic conclusions that it is not feasible to include the "we," the "many," in participating in discussions and decision making.
We live in a new world, enabled by the internet, cell-phones, instant messaging and texting that allows organizations to open up the discussion and decision-making process. Failure to tap the capabilities is diagnostic of inflexibility and being stuck in what has become obsolete top-down leadership. Don't get me wrong. Leadership is still needed, but leadership within a bottom-up model is different and very much involves facilitation and collaborative delegation which also includes bottom-up participation.
At PDA, leadership is very much about facilitating, encouraging and helping energize the bottom-up participation. Just imagine that-- seeking, supporting, and reaching out to get feedback, input-- what a concept-- empowering, energizing tapping the full power and passion of the grassroots.
bottom-up leadership with Tim Carpenter
Getting up this bottom-up mindset, becoming part of the bottom-up revolution is something the Democratic Party is failing at now. Howard Dean deserves credit for his 50 state plan, but I've seen too many examples where a handful of senators or Rahm Emanuel and his DCCC bullies come into states where grassroots action has identified strong local candidates, only to ignore the grassroots, and with a lot of corporate or DCCC or DSCC money shove a compliant, more right wing candidate down their throats-- a candidate, like Tammy Duckworth, who replaced Christine Cegelis-- who filled a slot that could have been filled with a more progressive legislator-- someone who is actually a real democrat, not a bluedog DINO.
PDA could do better. At the Personal Democracy Forum, which I attended a few weeks earlier, they used a digital projector to display a website which collected comments by meeting participants as the speaker presented-- all in real time. PDA was streaming the conference. So it could be possible to have a similar screen displayed at the conference, on which members of PDA from all over the country, who were unable to attend the convention in person, could post comments on the ongoing discussions. Maybe next year. Maybe at YOUR next conference. With the cost of travel skyrocketing, this kind of technology, which is really not at all difficult to do, can enable people who can't afford the time or monetary cost of travelling to still participate.
Like I said earlier, bottom-up is becoming a value, like fairness, justice, democracy, balance-- and failure to take a bottom-up approach is becoming as offensive as failure to include these latter listed values. It's just the wrong way to go. Obama's campaign has done well using some bottom-up approaches to fundraising and campaigning. As the new leader of the Democratic Party, Obama would be wise to apply bottom-up principles, and that includes transparency, to the way the Democratic Party makes decisions. The lockout of so many voices at the Party Platform discussions was offensive and suggests an archaic (as in Neanderthal) mentality that MUST go.
There's a reason the congress has such dismal ratings. The Democrats are feeling optimistic about November. But with their shameful failure to protect the vote and so many aspects of elections, they shouldn't be so smug. Electronic, paperless voting has been sold as a top-down, faster and more efficient way to count votes. But this approach sacrifices the verifiability and reliability of properly printed paper ballots. The Obama campaign promises a health insurance plan of dubious value, that is far less than the universal single payer plan that every other developed nation has. The Dems should not settle for anything less than the real deal-- universal single payer, private provider, selected by the consumer.
Then, there are those other things that the huge mass of Americans want-- ending the war, defending the constitution and democracy. Somehow, some way, the 111th congress ought to figure out how to make those wants real. That's democracy and we shouldn't be settling for anything less.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 18 comments |
|
Ratings Comment on this article
PDA is a very good group for an activist. Almost all PDA members in my group are state committee member here in Arizona and are very active by Douglas Kladis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: PDA rocks, but...
I'd say the PDA members are great , but the PDA platform leaders should keep their ears open regarding election reform- If we are going to be progressive- we must strive to lead the movement. So far, the PDA election reform platform has not included open source. This means it it not even up to date with the California State Democratic Platform- I know PDA will eventually come around to it- but time is of the essence. Please urge them to support open source /paper ballot election systems. Whoever is currently the election reform advisor should get up to speed sooner rather than later. We need open source yesterday. Brent Turner by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:31:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Was money a big topic?
I'm sick of politicians, their supporters, and of course MSM talking about how much money this or that has gathered, spent, or intends to pay TV in ad presentations. If PDA members have any answer to the disconnect between cash and thought, please write about it. In my experience, I learned to handle telephone calls by telling the truth. I have little money and am not able to send any, but I spend a lot of time in our efforts to elect (fill in the blank), so I work at OpEdNews. If the caller doesn't brush me off, we usually have a meaningful conversation. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1852 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:40:32 PM (0+)
|
|
I Wish You Well
I commend you Rob for what you do. I do not believe that there is any difference between those running either the DNC or the GOP. They have combined into what I term The Money Party and merely show as a Circus for the public. Both are Rabid for the sensation of power. The Centralization Of Power is what both sides seek to achieve. I would suggest to you that you watch the Bill Moyers report on Jack Abramaoff and his buddies. It is very informative about the shell game run by representatives and congress. Do Not Be Fooled That This Is A Republican Disease !!! This is a structure, a conduit if you will, to exchange money for influence. The Lobby Machine Still Runs On Both Sides Of The Isle. There is no amount of debate that can stop this from affecting the outcome of legislation. It seems to me that the only man speaking of substantive truth is Ron Paul. There are very dark times ahead for America. Remember how they called him "Crazy" when even the least perceptive can recognize our ills. Thank You For Allowing Even The "Crazy" To Have Representation In Your Forum. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 4:21:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Degrading the Progressive Brand
PDA is far from a good example of a bottom-up organization. I hope your optimism that they're moving in the right direction is justified; I can't even get answers to questions I email them. As for the Congressional Progressive Caucus they are affiliated with, only seven out of their 75 members signed on to cosponsor Kucinich's bill to start impeachment hearings on Bush. What kind of progressive government official doesn't use their powers of office to oppose a Fascist power grab in a constitutional democracy? I look individually at the record and/or positions of a candidate to see whether I will support him/her by volunteering or contributing, because the progressive brand has been reduced to meaning the candidate supports one or two social programs. PDA list candidates won't necessarily defend our democracy by, as you pointed out, protecting the vote, or by removing from office those who grossly abuse their power to foil the will of the people. by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:30:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I, I, I
Great example of the leftwing circular firing squad. sorry, but it takes a lot of "we"thinking, acting and doing to make for better politics. You're right that the progressive caucus in congess has not done enough, but the folks in PDA are the ones, perhaps the only, and certain, among the most organized at pushing the members of congress further left. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:40:03 PM (0+)
|
|
The author displays a distinct lack of knowledge about IL-06
Christine Cegelis raised all of $363,000 from November 2004 when she got stomped by the decrepid Hyde who barely campaigned from his wheelchair to June 2006 when she closed out her campaign. She spent her time from June 2005 on complaining about the DCCC's "secret plan" to subvert her coronation as candidate after they rejected her demand for money. Instead of raising cash or building a winning organization she chose to divide the local party. It was no secret Durbin was trying to recruit Duckworth. To win in Chicago's media market against the DuPage County Repub machine and Roskam who eventually raised $3.2 on his own you need to raise millions yourself. By primary day the uncontested Roskam had already raised a million. Duckworth who declared just before the deadline 3 months earlier had raised $750,000, $250,000 each from Hillary and Kerry and the rest off a commerical Obama made for her in January and the blizzard of free media she earned starting with 60 MInutes, the Today Show and right on down the line. Once Duckworth entered the race Cegelis's whole campaign hinged on bitterly attacking her. Yet she never made a peep about Lindy Scott the anti-abortion professor from Wheaton College entering the race in August 2005. Of course Cegelis was the most progressive candidate in the race talking about cluster bombs to suburban voters worried about paying their kids' college tuition. In the end she lost 44/41/16 with most of Scott's support coming out of Duckworth's end. Christine had a year and a half to build a grassroots network and raise enough money to impress Durbin, Emanuel, and voters in the 6th. She didn't do it and thanks to the bitterness she spread which lives on to this day thru people who don't know what they're talkng about or the first thing about winning elections chances are Roskam will have a long and ignominious career representing the 6th in the US House. In the end Duckworth outraised Roskam by a million and attracted thousands of volunteers. She forced the NRCC to spend millions retaining Hyde's seat and they had to send hundreds of operatives from DC in the last weeks they needed in other races to save Roskam's butt. One last point, Duckworth's anything but a Blue Dog. Anyone who bothered to read her positions on her website or heard her talk about Iraq, healthcare or any of the dozens of other issues on which she's knowledgable would know that. The next time you decide to critiicze the party Rob try to get your facts straight. Most of us have moved beyond blindly supporting amateur candidates without a shot. We want to actually elect more and better Democrats. And in districts where tv is important and expensive that means candidates who do the icky poo poo work of raising enough cash to win. by markg8 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:48:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Duckworth raised...
Duckworth raised? Sorry. The DCCC raised the money for her. I'll bet Duckworth didn't raise as much as Cegelis, who actually raised the money, compared to Duckworth, who accepted money raised by the DCCC. I don't believe that the DNC, the DCCC or the DSCC should give a nickel in the primaries. Let the best candidate win on their own. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:43:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why not check first?
Before making yourself look foolish? Tammy Duckworth (D) Peter Roskam (R)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/alsorun.php?cid=N00026575&cycle=2006 Christine Cegelis (D) Candidate for 2006 Illinois House Race
That's all money Tammy raised on her own. The NRCC and the DCCC each threw about $7 million into advertising on top of that. Cegelis was never going to carry this race. The district bordered Hastert's on one side and Emanuel's on the other. Henry Hyde held the seat for decades. DuPage is the one last bastion Repubs have in Illinois. They threw everything they had into it from the start. Delay held a $500/plate fundraiser for his old intern Roskam in Sept. 2005. This year we kicked their asses in the primary up and down the ballot and stand a very good chance of winning three more House seats in the collar counties to go with Foster in IL-14, possibly four if Morganthaler pulls thru on Obama's coattails. That's if guys like you stop reopening old wounds. If you want to get noticed and a seat at the table do something productive. Find a candidate you believe in and work a precinct for him or her instead of sitting on the outside complaining about those who are doing the work. That's what I did today. And yesterday. Tomorrow night I'll be phonebanking. I put in so much work for Foster in February and March he personally called me two weeks after the election to thank me. When he told me he was assigned to the banking committee I took the occasion to point him to Elizabeth Warren's site at TPM. That'll help him be a much more effective congressman and that's what I'm in this for.
by markg8 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:06:09 AM (0+)
|
$4,563,409
$4,556,495
$6,913
$363,331|
Reply: looking Foolish or fooled
In PA, the DSCC shoved Bob Casey down our throats, saying the Chuck Pennacchio couldn't beat Santorum. Anyone could have beaten Santorum and in the end, he was creamed. But that doesn't mean it was about Casey. Also, you are transfixed by the money. It's not all about the money. Over and over again, we've seen that millionaires lose to less well funded candidates. I still say that those contributions Tammy pulled in were with the help of the DCCC. And if you think otherwise, I don't think you're foolish, just deluded. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:08:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Duckworth/Cegelis
Who ran in 2004 without any help from the DCCC? Not Duckworth, but Cegelis, who got a sizable and respectable portion of the vote against Hyde. So, who should the DCCC have supported in 2006? You'd think they'd go with the candidate who had the moxy to go after Hyde, but no not the DLC wing of the Party--they preferred dropping Duckworth in rather than support a true progressive. You seem to miss the point of what PDA is trying to do, and you apparently support a Party that moves in lock-step to the Right along with the Republican Party. If Cegelis would have had the support of the Party, she'd have won. The DCCC should have supported her as least in principle and at most with money, but they have little of the first and a lot of the second to keep business as usual in the Democratic Party. That is why there is a PDA. We already have one corporate Party that has little concern for the working people of America. We are tired of having two that ignore them. by MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:32:57 AM (0+)
|
|
PDA
PDA is a stooge for the Democratic Party. If the organization was really progressive they would stop supporting the Democratic Party. They're no different than Democracy For America or MoveOn.org. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:46:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: PDA people work hard to make change happen....
rather than railing and doing nothing. Fact is, most PDA people would vote third party if they thought it would make the world a better place, but like me, they realize that voting for Nader or MCKinney in swing states is iabsolutely a vote for McCain. If you're in a blue state, fine, send your message. But Florida taught us. If people had voted for Nader there, we would not have had eight years of apocalyptic presidency. Sure, Gore would have been less than perfect, just like Kerry would have been less than perfect and Obama will be less than perfect. PDA works to support candidates who are better than the incumbents, further left, more progressive, more populist and who actually have a chance to win. Now, you can vote for your up the wazoo candidates, in a time when they have zero chance to win, but that is electoral masturbation as far as I'm concerned-- with sandpaper, if you're in a swing state. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:19:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Good but......
Will these PDA efforts just be grafted on to cover up the top down DNC? by Nathaniel Heidenheimer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:13:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Hierarchy and advantage are hiding places for crooks.
Democracy, equality and talk are the antidotes to crookism. It is all about comparing notes. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM (0+)
|
|
You're just lookiing foolish
Duckworth raised that $4.5+ million herself. She was a bright, outgoing, determined and incredibly energetic candidate who just happened to have her legs blown off in Iraq. The nat'l. media couldn't get enough of her. Hell at the debate at College of Dupage there were camera crews from as far away as Norway and Japan. Burt Bacharach came out from CA to do a fundraising concert for her. Feingold brought her up to Madison for a fundraiser. Half an hour before the polls closed on election night I was making GOTV calls at campaign HQ and an anxious matron from the upper east side of Manhattan called to see if we had any results yet. I told her she'd probably know before I did and I had to make those last calls. The point is Tammy became an instant political celebrity because of her story and her sunny disposition and intelligence kept them coming back for more. That's how she raised the money. I don't know much about the Casey/Pennacchio race so I won't comment on it other than to say it always looks easy in hindsight. Early in 2005 when Schumer and Emanuel wre recruiting candidates it looked anything but. Bush had just been reinstalled. Republicans owned the House and Senate. Santorum was the third ranking Senate Repub and ran the K St. Project. Nobody knew there'd be such a drastic sea change the following year. Rahm and Chuck needed to find candidates who could stand on their own, i.e. raise their own money, with their own name recognitiion who could attract volunteers. Apparently Casey was able to do that and Pennacchio wasn't. The proof is always in the pudding. There were a number of grassroots candidates in 2006 who knocked off DCCC picks in the primaries. You earn the nomination by winning the primary and that's the way it ought to be. I believe in democracy. The fact that Cegelis attracted not one but two primary challengers who took a combined 60% of the Dem primary vote ought to tell you a lot. I'm not fixated on money, I'm fixated on winning. A little reality is in order here. The Chicago media market is very expensive and no Dem House candidate could compete against the DuPage Republican machine which was every bit as entrenched as the Daley machine was in Cook in 2006 without it. You need a good ground game and an air campaign. I spend at least 5 days a week doing some kind of field, on the phone and canvassing on weekends. Been doing it all year but I won't waste my time working my butt off for a candidate who won't do the same putting in 8 hour days calling donors asking for money. Because come October if he or she doesn't have the cash to hit the airwaves out here they're gonna get bombed and all my hard work won't make a difference. You can pretend otherwise but that fools no one. You can demand seats at the table with Howard Dean but until PDA backs their words with volunteers in the field day in and day out you haven't earned that respect. And frankly the PDI folks I know around here are very good at exchanging vitriolic emails with each other but expanding their influence by helping campaigns? Not so much. You want more and better Democrats you have to work for it from the ground up. by markg8 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:02:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Winning at all cost?
You are all about winning? Well if winning is the only outcome you seek then you might want to reassess that and consider that there is a greater purpose for winning other than only being "in." We need winners who make the bulk of Americans the winners--winners who have true universal health care, an end to the militarism that is destroying our nation, election and media reform, etc, etc, ad nauseum. No good being in the catbird seat if all you do is the same as your counterparts in the "opposition" party. by MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:39:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Bottom-up has its place, but...
The "wisdom of crowds" (the accuracy of aggregate guesses) is a valuable contributor to the power of democracy, but the way that we know that the aggregate of guesses is more accurate than any individual guess is by measuring the item guessed about. Establishing that measurement as authentic and authoritative is a top-down process. What most people miss when they learn about the wisdom of crowds is that, while the average of all guesses is usually more accurate than any individual guess, the measurement itself is the most accurate of all. Bottom-up works better than anything when we're guessing or when accurate/expert measurements cannot be made, but when such measurements can be made top-down is the more rational option and bottom-up simply becomes irrationalist, almost superstitious, populism. I'm not saying that the DNC is expert at making accurate measurements in the realm of its activity (that is clearly not the case) but the presence of an incompetent or unethical application of a principle does not invalidate the principle. Bottom-up is only valid when we're guessing based on limited information. When information can be collected and analysed by specialists, top-down is the only way to avoid falling prey to popular misconceptions, prejudices, superstitions, and even political fraud. Global warming, natural selection, cigarette carcinogenesis, the earth revolving around the Sun... should all of those have been put to popular vote? by John Leith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:07:04 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
