HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

I'll say it again... I don't know enough about the inner workings of the DNC to know if Dean will make a good chair. No idea in fact.

But what I do know is that this sounds an awful lot like the 1960's Goldwater movement that transformed the GOP and led to 25+ years of Republican dominance in D.C.

The DNC chair race has exposed deep fissures within the Democratic Party. Some of these are ideological, but the real story of the race is the diffusion of power away from Washington and to new people and entities that have rushed to fill the power vacuum at the top of the party. When the Democrats control the White House, the president can simply pick the chair of the party. But, even when out of power, Democratic pooh-bahs traditionally rally around a consensus figure and present him to the DNC members as a fait accompli. An open process with all the trappings of a modern political campaign--including a seven-candidate field, fund-raising, regional debates, and smear campaigns in the press--is unprecedented in the party's history. To many Washington Democrats watching the circus-like contest from afar, it has been an embarrassment. "I think it's pathetic," says James Carville. "It's so indicative of the Democratic Party. Now we're just playing into every stereotype: We're weak, disorganized, flopping around. ... Somebody should have fixed this damn thing in November. I wish someone would have taken charge and three or four people would have gotten together in a smoke-filled room. ... They're not running for president! They are running for party chair. This is supposed to be a rigged deal. You think the Republicans would do it this way?"  But every attempt to rig the race failed, revealing that the levers of power in the Democratic Party have shifted out of Washington's hands. From the congressional leadership to the governors to the Clintons, top Democrats were all terrified of a Dean victory. They believe he will turn what is essentially a low-key fund-raising and management position into a lightning rod for GOP attacks, eclipsing other voices and emphasizing exactly the elements of the party that weeks of postelection soul-searching had determined the Democrats needed to play down (e.g., its liberal stance on cultural issues and its weakness on national security). And yet none of them could stop him.

In the mid to late 1960's, Goldwater Republicans, the precursor to today's conservatives, launched on outside the Beltway takeover of their party. In the short run it led to a disastrous electoral defeat, but in the long term it set the stage for Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.

If the parallel holds, I think the most interesting question will be if that sort of defeat need be repeated in 2008, or if Kerry's loss in 2004 will serve as a surrogate. Time frames in politics have sped up dramatically since the 1960's, and today's grassroots activists have a tool that quite literally changes the rules of the game - the Internet. More importantly, Goldwater's people managed a revolution at only the candidate level. Here, the grassroots people will have one of their own literally heading the party.

From everything I've heard and read, there are many within the party who think this will be a disaster. At the same time, however, there are some out there who think it may be anything but. Who's right? Only time will tell...

I do have one hunch though. When the Democratic Party does finally rise up and retake power in DC, it will only happen because the people themselves have forced it to do so. New blood, new ideas, new energies are required, and if you ask me, nothing short of a complete transformation of the party will be required. Things like that don't happen from the inside out. They happen, just as in the 60's with Goldwater and the G.O.P., from the outside in. This time around, when it does happen, it will happen in one way: netroots. And who better to make that happen than....

--------