Enter Your E-mail address to Receive OpEdNews Newsletter Tell A Friend  Contribute $$ to OpEdNews
Sending a Progressive Message to the Democratic Convention
By Stephen Dinan

OpEdNews.com

For months, I have been sending out articles addressing the psychology of the Democratic campaign, attempting to shift the beliefs that people have around the electability of Dennis Kucinich.  Some of these were provocative.  Others were intended to inspire.  But all were grounded in a fundamental challenge to the notion that Kucinich was not electable.

Today, I will write from the opposite premise, assuming that most people are right for a moment:  Kucinich is not electable this year, even if we love him and what he stands for.  Where do we go from there?

Let's assume that you are one of the many people who is nervous about the prospect of a second Bush term.  You are now faced with a situation in which the race has narrowed to two candidates who are deemed electable: John Kerry or John Edwards.  The first question you need to ask yourself is this: is there a fundamental difference in terms of electability between these two candidates?   

Edwards is charming, eloquent, and smart.  He's got very upbeat messaging.  He has lived on both sides of the tracks and can operate smoothly in both worlds.  He is effective at connecting emotionally with voters.  Less experience inside the Beltway can be an asset for him as a voice for change.

Kerry has the war hero past and much of the powerful machinery from inside the beltway behind him.  He's got some statesman-like gravitas and foreign policy experience, as well as a fairly presidential look.  He is wealthy but also seems to connect with the concerns of the working class. He can go toe-to-toe with Bush on military matters and he seems tough in general.

A lot can shift between now and November, so I maintain that there is virtually no way to guess who would be more electable versus George W. Bush right now.  Opinion polls shift quickly.  Youthful charm versus seasoned experience? North versus South?  Rags-to-riches success story or war heroism?  It's impossible to tell.  The majority of Democrats would vote for either.

Thus, if your main focus is beating Bush, voting for Edwards or Kerry in your primary isn't going to matter much.  They both qualify as Anybody But Bush and both represent solidly middle-of-the-road Democratic positions.  

However, there is another factor that you need to consider in this race and that is: to what extent is the Democratic party able to keep the progressive wing actively engaged? The real election-killer will be if the progressive wing loses interests, stops rallying, or starts to splinter off with a Nader candidacy.  The hints of this are already rumbling around the internet, with talk of Republicrats, media conspiracies, and a single system of power in Washington that we need to fight.  

In other words, if your main focus is beating Bush, the game has now shifted.  Either of the two leading candidates are fine.  The MAIN danger now is if the progressive wing decides that the two-party system is actually a rigged, one-party system and that the game is stacked against candidates who advocate for peace, sustainability, justice and against the Iraq war, NAFTA and corporate domination of politics.  If cynicism builds, feeding on the disillusionment of Dean backers, it could cost Democrats the election.

So your challenge in voting strategically now is NOT to decide between Kerry and Edwards. The challenge in voting strategically is to keep the progressive wing of the party fully engaged.  This is true even if you belong to the Lieberman camp: without the more radical wing of the party, you lose the election.

The real issue now is what is the BEST strategy to keep the progressive camp actively involved in a real and meaningful way for as long as possible in this race.  Kerry and Edwards, by virtue of their platforms alone, are not going to do it.  Both voted to support the war, for example, which is a deal-killer for those who see the Iraq war as the main evil right now.

I maintain that the only viable strategy to keep the progressive wing of the Democratic party actively excited about this election now is to make sure that the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich becomes a much more powerful force in shaping the remainder of the race.  The more powerful his candidacy by the time of the convention, the more progressives will feel they have an authentic, shaping influence on the party platform and an active role in the race.  If not, they will splinter away.

Virtually all Greens and progressive Democrats love Dennis' platform but have simply been afraid to rally behind him because of the climate around electability.  They have felt a split between their head and their heart.   Their heart loves him, their head says, "unelectable" and therefore "dangerous." Heads have largely triumphed in this matter.  However, I have good news to all the closet Kucinich-lovers: it's now safe!  It's safe to vote your heart, safe to vote your conscience, safe to express your authentic views!  The results have been coming in from across the country and we're approaching the point at which it is impossible for Dennis to win the nomination.  

You can relax now and rally behind what you really believe in, without running the risk of jeopardizing the race.  You can have fun again!   In fact, if you don't do this now, you may be contributing to the loss of the progressive wing of the party and, possibly, the loss of the election.

There are some that think a vote for Dean's suspended campaign will still make a difference in terms of keeping the progressive movement engaged.  I believe this is faulty logic for a number of reasons.

1. Dean was never that progressive, especially when you look at his track record.  It was precisely the combination of his perceived electability AND his anti-war stance and progressive rhetoric that got people excited.  Now that he has been removed from contention, the only question is how effectively can he carry the torch of the progressive movement?  The answer is "not very."  I do honor him for bringing the war front-and-center and for activating the movement.  But now that the movement is giving up on having an actual presidential candidate to represent it, it needs to turn to a candidate who best expresses its values and views.  Instead of a president, we are now looking for a torchbearer.  Dean was compelling as a potential president but much less interesting just as a torchbearer.
2. Dean has already had his time in the spotlight.  He has triggered important and substantial changes when seen as a legitimate, powerful contender.  He will continue to have influence. However, in order for the progressive movement to find a more amplified voice in this election, we need a new and stronger progressive voice on the stage. Dean is no longer newsworthy.  It is time to shift to the next wave of change, farther from the mainstream.  That means Kucinich.
3. The media interpretation will be that any votes for Dean are the votes of those who are simply attached to him.  The votes won't be perceived as a positive statement but a negative one: folks who refuse to move on.  Thus, a vote for Dean would lack any sort of a media punch.
4. The media loves drama and positive surges.  Edwards will be riding a crest of momentum and attention now because of his Wisconsin finish.  If we can create that same surge of momentum around Kucinich, the media will be very excited since it will keep people much more engaged in the race (and buying more newspapers and watching more TV).  Once Kucinich is in the spotlight, that means that his policies and platform will get that much more attention and thus be that much more influential in shaping the Democratic platform.

A quick note about Sharpton.  I really like Sharpton: he's insightful, brave, honest, and very funny.  He helps keep the voice of the non-white-male majority on the stage.  However, I don't think he's the right person to rally behind as a torchbearer for a number of reasons.  First, he doesn't have any actual influence in legislative processes, whereas Kucinich is co-chair of the progressive caucus in the House.  Second, he doesn't have as much experience as a politician so his stances are not as well-articulated and grounded in practical politics.  Third, Kucinich tends to see our potential future better, leading us towards such things as a Department of Peace, universal health care, and 20% sustainable energy by 2010.  

Sharpton's campaign can also keep running by virtue of media coverage alone, even if he doesn't have the influence on the ground.  Sharpton doesn't need a ground campaign.  He just needs a pulpit to speak the truths he is there to speak.  Kucinich, by contrast, actually has a strong grassroots support base.  Until January 1st, for example, he had more people donate to his campaign, most in small amounts, than anyone but Dean.  In terms of mobilizing the progressive base at a grassroots level, Kucinich's infrastructure is more valuable.

Now that Kucinich's chance of an actual nomination have shrunk to 200 to 1, according to one London betting house, Americans can look at him through the lens of being a torchbearer - a powerful messenger to the established order.  And there is no better torchbearer than Kucinich.  He:

1. Led anti-war efforts in the House and has a strong motto of "U.N. in and U.S. out"
2. Challenged the Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence from the beginning
3. Advocates for Universal Health Care
4. Has a 98% voting record for unions
5. Is opposed to NAFTA and WTO and even marched in Seattle
6. Supports gay marriage fully
7. Advocates for 20% renewable energy by 2010
8. Has "no strings attached" by virtue of taking no special interest money
9. Has a proven ability to challenge corporate corruption (and even pay the price for that)
10. Is willing to call Bush a liar and expose contradictions and deceptions, much more so than any candidate besides Sharpton
11. Has a deep appreciation of the spiritual dimension of life, which brings in people who have been alienated from progressive politics.
12. Knows what it is like to grow up in poverty.
13. Is an exceptionally talented speaker who has the capacity to really "wow" people with his insights.
14. Has an uncanny ability to speak to conservatives and win them over to the Democratic party and progressive views.  In his home district, for example, which started quite Republican, he has swung momentum strongly to the Democratic party.  In this way, he's a very good bridge to Reagan Democrats.
15. Has Nader's respect.  Nader has said he would not run if Kucinich were to get the nomination.  So long as Kucinich has a strong voice in the process, that may keep Nader out.

In short, Kucinich is the perfect torchbearer for the progressive message to be carried all the way into the convention and to keep it blazing all the way into the election.  The more delegates we get him, the more influence he will have in the process.  And if we can win California and perhaps a few other states, which I believe is quite possible if the Dean and Kucinich camps join forces, then we will have a significant voting block at the convention to influence the platform.

Finally, even if you are committed heart and soul to Kerry or Edwards, it is to your advantage to bolster the race of Kucinich.  Why?  He is willing to take on risky subject matter that might provide fodder for Rove to attack with his $200 million war chest.  In other words, you can leave some of the risk and heavy lifting to Kucinich when it comes to challenging Bush on his lies.  The party as a whole benefits by having this stance publicly witnessed but not necessarily seen as attached to the nominee.  In fact, the more a Kerry nomination looks inevitable, the more beneficial a strong Kucinich-led movement will be to the campaign to remove Bush.

So breathe a sigh of relief!  No more split loyalties.  You can bring your heart and head back together and get passionate for Kucinich, knowing that this can only strengthen the effort to remove Bush from power.

For more information on the campaign, see
http://www.kucinich.us

Stephen Dinan stephen@radicalspirit.org is the author of Radical Spirit (New World Library, 2002), and founder of the Radical Spirit Community. Stephen directed and helped to create the Esalen Institute's Center for Theory & Research, a think tank for leading scholars, researchers, and teachers to explore human potential frontiers. Currently, he serves as the marketing manager for an HR software company called Enwisen , campaigns for Dennis Kucinich and runs workshops. Stephen is developing several new books, including a companion volume to Radical Spirit entitled Radical Spirit in Action, a memoir set in India called In Kali's Garden, a collection of poetry and a novel. He graduated from Stanford University with a degree in human biology and holds a master's in East-West psychology from the California Institute of Integral Studies.

 
Enter Your E-mail address to Receive OpEdNews Newsletter Tell A Friend  Contribute $$ to OpEdNews