I'm not really clear on what the rules are at the DNC that caused a re-vote to occur, following the election of David Hogg as Vice-Chair, and Malcolm Kenyatta. Should I be suspicious that, because of his strong opinion that some Democrats are asleep at the wheel when it comes to resisting and opposing Trump's ineffective, incompetent and anti-Democratic leadership, and he's threatening some of the status-quo establishment, they are pulling power strings to orchestrate this move and get him out? Or should I just take this for what it is, and consider that a sleepy, moribund, ineffective organization like the DNC is just a political relic, and be glad that Hogg is no longer tied down by his role as one of its vice-chairs, but is now free to pursue raising money to help Democrrats awaken from their slumber and do their damn job?
I'll go with the latter option.
As a loyal Democrat, raised in a Union home, and voting straight ticket for almost my entire life, I believe making regular contributions, as much as I possibly can, is part of what helps candidates get elected. I give as much as I can, being careful to try to direct those gifts as effectively as possible. I mainly support our Presidential candidates, the Senate candidate in my state and the Congressional candidate in my district, along with making a small gift to the DNC's Congressional election fund, and occasionally, finding a candidate from another state whose election is strategic and critical to the party's ability to be effective.
I'm getting up in years, and headed toward eventual reduction and living on a smaller fixed income. So I give now while I can. The effectiveness of that gift is important to me. And so, with this news today, I have decided that the small amount I've been sharing with the DNC will now go to Leaders We Deserve. I got the message loud and clear, the DNC is committed to protecting an ineffective status quo that is asleep at the wheel, and has earned a lower job approval rating in Congress than either the Republicans or Trump.
And you can't win elections like that.
Taking Trump Seriously as an Existential Threat to Democracy
Hogg made the mistake of pointing out the flaws of the Democratic party status quo. Many of them, in turn, are attacking him, rather than paying attention to the message he is delivering, and how it is resonating with their party members. The true colors of an entrenched bureacrat show out pretty quickly. It was the influential movers and shakers among the Democrats who let the chance to prosecute and convict Trump on charges related to stealing documents, and to the January 6th insurrection slip through their hands while they stood around and did nothing about it. The abysmal failure of Merrick Garland, and of Democrats who controlled both houses for two years following the 2020 elections, runs counter to the achievements of the Biden Administration, which Trump is now undoing and picking apart one by one.
I'm in 100% agreement with Hogg on this issue. We need effective Democrats who are willing to be bold, take risks, and consider the needs of their constituents as more important than protecting their own political turf. We had the power, the positions and the ability to show the nation that we took the threat of Trump to our democracy seriously, and we failed to bring about even one action that would have prevented him from running for office. That's because the old guard status quo was more interested in how political those things would look, than they were in getting the job done. I will not vote for those polticians who hesitate, dither, dawdle and worry about their own reputation or job above their concern for me as one of their constituents.
So I think Hogg has been set free from what would have been unnecessary restraint of trying to please the status quo of a moribund political club like the DNC. I've been waiting for the war room they promised to get going. Looks like Ken Martin is no more effective than Jaime Harrison was, and that wasn't a very high bar at all. The DNC is well off the beaten path now, and I've lost my interest in supporting it.
Leaders We Deserve isn't about age, though there are a lot of younger, more energetic people involved who will do a good job if they get a chance, setting aside the sleepy status quo and staying on message. I'm almost 68 years old, and I happen to think that Democrats need to shed their sleepers and pick some effective leaders that will motivave the party to take actions that attract voters. And votes are the numbers that win elections, not someone's age.
No comments:
Post a Comment