Left Center Left

The developments in local politics are coming too fast and furious for me to keep up with, especially given my overloaded schedule this week. Snackgate was the most fun and most surreal, of course. But the news of substance has been word that a draft-Chris Gabrielli movement may be underway to try to siphon off 15% of nominating convention delegates (the threshhold needed to get on the primary ballot). This drives activist blogger Mariposa to angry words, garnering alt-weekly pundit Adam Reilly to a retort, which got in turn some rebukes of its own. MassMerrier for instance noted, "the two views at the blogs above are revealing. He is theoretical and she has the nitty gritty. Among them, they represent many Democratic voters in Massachusetts. You already know which one I think is right." For those who don’t regularly read him, it’s the latter.

My better instincts tell me to avoid stepping into the fray, but Adam’s point echoes my criticisms of the MA Progressive from before and my own perspective is probably "theoretical" in MassMerrier’s sense (not to put words in his mouth, but judging from his post the label seems to apply), so some comment seems appropriate. Let me start by saying that I’m not bothered by Gabrielli’s delegate shopping as Mariposa is. Robert Reich, after all, barely had his campaign up and running before the caucuses and had to get 15% by cajoling previously pledged delegates. No harm in that, if a candidate can pull it off. It’s the nominating convention, not the primary itself, at stake; its sole function should be to balance a gatekeeping function that keeps the primary ticket focused on viable candidates without having too great a burden to challengers.

That said, Mariposa’s right about Gabrielli. He’s a poor choice for a candidate, and his selection represents a desperate effort among the party establishment to keep one of their own in the running. I’ve criticized the Progressives for treating the primary as a chance to jockey with the Party Establishment for power and only secondarily focusing on the ultimate battle. Adam’s words of "bolstering the collective self-esteem of the grassroots" may be overly harsh, but in his defense the Progressive activists have approached this race as an explicit consciousness-raising exercise.  But the criticism cuts the other way, too, and I don’t think the Establishment has a ground to stand on with this one. There may have been all sorts of reasons to get behind the centrist strategy, the political experience, and the "honest guy" persona of Reilly, but the truth is his campaign skidded out of control. When the draft candidates the establishment players come up with have no electoral victory, no particular charisma, and political stances no more centrist than Deval Patrick’s, then clearly they’re not focused on ultimate electability so much as worrying about tilting narrow political advantage in their favor. They should be shamed or at least called out for what they’re doing.

It’s too bad, because as I’ve argued before, there’s a third term at play: the voters - first primary and, second, general election - who do not care about the internecine battle between Establishment and Progressives and whose voting behavior is quite different than the party activists and allies. (And I’m not buying the "opinion leader" thesis that activists are always, even usually, leaders in swaying the passive vote). It’s not worth tossing blame in every direction: Democrats should be united in the understanding that the primary is their time for presenting their differing views on what will win the general election (with the best positions) as clearly and respectfully as possible. The Progressives could probably use a little more pretty persuasion: your guy is doing pretty well now, start treating Reilly supporters and undecideds as potential allies rather than the Enemy. You don’t have to talk in exclamation points. The Establishment types could probably use less backroom-dealing; at this juncture it’s counter-productive and leads people to read your motives in the worst light. If that’s one’s first instinct to every political battle, that’s a bad sign to say the least.

Despite MassMerrier’s labels, we’re all working on some theoretical basis. My theoretical assumption is that 2002 represented a real tax revolt. I was a Reich supporter and volunteered for his campaign, yet even as I continued to think him a better candidate than O’Brien I couldn’t write all of the Democratic losses off to a poor candidate or wishy-washy strategy. I read the large Romney margin, the bilingual ed referendum, and the income tax referendum as a loud rebuke to MA Progressives and Establishment both.

The Progressive activist-bloggers, on the other hand, have relied on their own theories. One, that electoral problems stemmed wholely from a centrist strategy. The political geist just needs a dialectical push from those with vision. Two, that a charismatic candidate or grassroots support or party that doesn’t alienate Progressives (if we’re so lucky) is all that’s needed for electoral victory.

You know where I stand, but it’s largely a moot point. At this point, circumstances have forced our hand. The safe strategy has been hindered; perhaps it’s time to give the dialectical theory a chance. Deval Patrick as a candidate may himself be working on multiple theories.