A Blueprint for Taking Back the Democratic Party
May 2001
by TygrBright

Part One: Who's Got It Now?

The aborted election of 2000 left a lot of Democrats angry, apprehensive, and suspicious. We knew, on the gut level, that something was deeply wrong with American democracy. A variety of tempting scapegoats offered themselves—the Electoral College system, low voter turnout, Republican 'dirty tricks,'—even our own candidate's uninspiring, disorganized, and diffuse campaign.

These are all valid causes for concern, and their relationship to the distasteful anticlimax of the national election shows that they are, indeed, symptoms of an ailing democracy. But perhaps even more disturbing than these indications of failure in our two-party system is the aftermath of Election 2000.

Without a clear mandate from the citizenry—indeed, with the most dubious 'mandate' in the history of the Republic—the man anointed by the Supreme Court as Chief Executive has been able to advance a startlingly extremist, partisan agenda. And this without meaningful opposition, without objection or hindrance from the duly-elected representatives of our Party. What went wrong? What is wrong?

Who are these "Democratic" pod people, and how did they end up in positions of power and responsibility? Why do they feel comfortable maintaining the fiction that they are Democrats, while bending over and smiling for the Republican agenda?

And, most importantly, how can we fix the situation?

There is only one answer: We must take back our Party.

"Take it back" from whom?

Who is in control of the Democratic Party in 2001? Workers? Can't be, or our representatives would not be holding still as the GOP trashes workplace safety rules, renders union bidders non-competitive for Federal contracts, and intervenes in labor disputes on behalf of employers.

Classic social-policy do-gooder liberals? We know they're not in charge, or our elected representatives couldn't get away with voting to confirm an extreme right-wing religious fanatic as Attorney General.

Hippie pinko welfare cheats? If they were in charge, you can bet there'd be a hue and cry over the current regime's plans to trash initiatives that benefit poor children.

The 'little guy?' Heck no—the little guy can't be in charge, or our Democratic pols would have formed a solid, effective phalange of opposition to the Bush plan to use spare change to bribe the little guy to look the other way while they trash the economy and make gigantic payoffs to their wealthy friends. Our "Democratic" pols would never have colluded in removing the protection of the bankruptcy rules that benefit the average Joe who gets in over his head.

I won't even mention minorities and tree-huggers. We KNOW they're not in charge here.

Let's see if we can put together some clues—some new, some old—and figure out just who is pulling the strings at Democratic Party headquarters. Here's a few hints:

They're beholden to corporations and the wealthy, who contribute big bucks. So they're pro-NAFTA, and they're looking eagerly forward to supporting the FTAA—measures that will add lots of zeros to the bottom-line figures of business, while effectively trashing worker's rights and reducing their standard of living.

They were dubious about McCain-Feingold, not because it has too many loopholes for PAC money and other toxic political effluvia, but because they worried about their own ability to keep their war chests full of those big corporate soft-money donations.

They label the legacy of FDR "irrelevant," "out-of-date," and "obsolescent," and they call the Great Society programs of the sixties "a failure."

Winning elections has become an end in itself. Rather than promoting the changes that will lead to greater economic and social justice in America , the only promises they're keen to keep seem to involve paying off their current and future campaign donors and funneling government-funded pork to various special interests.

hmmmm.... two, plus two... connect the dots....

Looks like while we were all off having lives, someone snuck in and grabbed our Party. It's not exactly clear if it was stolen from us outright, or if well-intentioned campaign hacks agreed to rent it out. But the result is clear: people power has been replaced by corporate power.

They may call themselves a lot of things... "pragmatist," "worried about an iffy seat in their District," "New Democrats," "DLC," "concerned about bi-partisanship," "Centrist Democrats"—but whatever they claim, e ven the most die-hard Democrat has to wonder if Ralph Nader was right when he said the Democrats and Republicans were no different.

In the old days, this kind of behavior—putting campaign money first, deriding the social accomplishments of the New Deal and the Great Society, playing patsy for the Big Business interests—was a dead giveaway for a Good Old Plutocrat—a.k.a., GOP.

---

Part Two: Is it Worth Saving?

Okay, so we've lost control of our Democratic Party. It's in the hands of GOPpie clones, corporate buttkissers, and consiglieri for the International Commerce mob. What are we going to do about it?

There are a number of us—intelligent and well-intentioned folks—who think it's time to give up on the Democratic Party. They argue that a strong third party will either a) attract sufficient support to advance our agenda; or b) put enough of a scare into the Democratic Party to swing it back to its true philosophical roots.

They point to the well-entrenched cabal running the Party, and the seemingly overwhelming power and money backing them. They allude to the repeated failure of "alternative" leaders like Ralph Nader or Jesse Jackson to develop sufficient support within the Party to influence its direction. And they advance the cogent argument that given the great diversity and current diffusion of the Party, the task of developing a consensus would be almost insurmountable. (Especially considering the Party's well-established history of internal dissent!)

Wouldn't it be better, they say, to take our admittedly limited money and our much more abundant energy, and create a powerhouse among our fellow-travelers? Couldn't we have more impact with a small but highly focused effort?

They have a point. The Green Party's efforts to ensure the loss of several key states to the GOP in the 2000 election demonstrated just how much of an impact such efforts can generate. They may have cost the Democrats the election.

And it's certainly more pleasant to be in substantial agreement with the great majority of your party colleagues, because you all fall in the same narrow band of the ideological spectrum and share many of the same priorities and opinions. Much more pleasant than spending hours and hours deadlocked at a Party caucus where a dozen different subgroups and opinions are duking it out.

It's an appealing strategy—nevertheless, it will serve us better in the long run to take back our Party.

Why is it important to take it back?

American democracy is set up as a two-party system. Examine our legislative and executive institutions, and the rules set out in the Constitution (especially the 12th Amendment) for operating them. They are designed to permit the American electorate to choose between two alternatives—parties that have traditionally positioned themselves on the right and the left, ideologically. The checks and balances, give-and-take of creating legislation or enacting policy on the complex national level are predicated on the assumption that at least 51% of the electorate will have an ownership stake in whichever party controls the institution.

And at the bottom line, this is what it is all about—making the system work. The checks and balances, the quids-pro-quo—I'll sign on to your bill if you sign on to mine. I'll carry your water in the legislative assembly, if you support these policies in the executive office. That is how politics works. For a short time, a third party or independent can act as fulcrum or swing vote—but in the long run, the system militates toward the stability of two parties. To make it otherwise would require Constitutional amendment. Anyone want to take a flyer on the chance of such an amendment surviving the 2/3 ratification process?

The concept of political parties in a democratic system was founded on the idea that it would be possible for numbers to offset or overcome the weight of money and power wielded by the few. For Democrats—traditionally the party of the not-rich—numbers are our most powerful tool. To weaken this by splitting the not-rich among several smaller parties almost guarantees that the GOP—the party of the rich and the wannabe-rich (and those they can delude with their propaganda)—will continue to carry disproportionate power in our political system.

In other words, in unity is our strength. We can succeed no other way. That's why, however tempting it may be, we cannot afford to give up on our Democratic Party.

---

Part Three: It's Up To Us

So just who is "we," the people who are going to take back the Democratic Party?

Well, Democrats, of course—but who are we?

We're a diverse lot, and I'm not just talking about physical attributes like color. We have a range of concerns and priorities, as well—a tradition that's been our worst weakness and our greatest strength. For the sake of expediency, let's use a tool from the marketer's kit, and create "segments" which describe the various populations of Democrats who make up the Party's traditional power base—the ones who need to take back the Party.

Necessarily, these conceptual frameworks will involve generalizations and even stereotypes. And we know that there are plenty of us who don't fit any segment—or who fit them all! But we have to start somewhere.

Workers

Well, almost everybody works—but this segment refers to the classic backbone of the economy. They include some small business owners, but most work for others. Whether they're phlebotomists in a health care facility, paint specialists in a body shop, shift managers at a fast-food restaurant, or data-entry workers at an insurance company, their working conditions, tasks, and compensation are in the control of their employer. They may have special training, even considerable skill, but they are easily replaced and they know it—how could they not? Their employers never let them forget it.

They have a stake in the system. Many own homes, most own cars. They believe in the American Dream—which they tend to see in economic terms—and feel they are owed a chance to achieve it. They're willing to work hard to make it come true. Their education level is good—high school graduate, some with some college or trade school. The group cuts across all age lines. Their principal political concerns revolve around bread-and-butter issues—especially maximizing their income. They're strivers.

The Marginalized

This group includes both economically and politically marginalized populations—many of whom are ethnic minorities and immigrants. Although some do quite well economically, most identify strongly with their ethnic groups and maintain an us-vs.-them attitude that reflects their marginalization. While most tend to be extremely hard-working, the economic barriers constraining them prevent some from participating in the economy at all, and cause others to give up what appears to be an unwinnable struggle.

They feel little stake in the system, but strongly desire the economic and social benefits of participation (except in the case of the small minority who have 'given up.') They tend to be less educated, but there is a strong entrepreneurial propensity exhibited among many subgroups. Again, the group cuts across all age lines. Their principal political concerns revolve around access to economic and social opportunity, and fighting social systems they perceive as biased against them. They're survivors.

Classic ("Progressive") Liberals

A large group of relatively comfortable middle-class white collar and semi-professional citizens who espouse a range of "classically liberal" ideologies, including vigorous free-speech defense (anti-book-burning,) church/state separation, individual privacy, and strong social/economic justice policies. They tend to be professionally or semi-professionally employed, owners of small professional businesses, or self-employed.

This group tends to be a little older, and quite well educated, often at the college level. They benefit from the status quo and have a relatively strong stake in it, but unless they experience extreme economic threat they are willing to explore change that will redress social inequities and promote economic sharing. Their principal political concerns include a range of general "issues" related to liberal ideology. They're altruists.

Post-Modern ("Green") Liberals

A smaller group, generally composed of younger, less economically-secure individuals who tend to be highly educated. They are passionate ideologues with strong agendas related to modern ecological and economic issues. Many relate their economic or social activities to their ideology, making it a lifestyle as well as a political philosophy. They bring phenomenal energy and dedication to their causes.

They often reject a stake in the status quo and usually have very specific plans for change—sometimes rigorous enough to amount to actual restructuring of the economic and social system. Their principal political concerns revolve around concrete, specific and targeted legislation or regulations that will advance their ideological concerns. They're crusaders.

In the past, the Democratic Party managed to unite all these groups in a power base of tremendous size and effectiveness. While there are differences among them, a common thread of economic justice addresses some of the concerns of each, and this gave the old Democratic Party a powerful tool for uniting us.

But in the last thirty years the GOP has succeeded in sowing dissension among us using a vicious mixture of economic fear-mongering ('there's not enough to go around and if those people get any benefits, you'll lose') and selecting and magnifying critical differences in each group's concerns—the 'gun issue,' the 'eco-nuts-destroying-the-workingman's-livelihood' game, etc.

And our "leadership?" Where have they been during this process? What have they been doing to hold us together and fight this insidiously effective attack?

They've given up on us and gone groveling to the corporate-money interests so that they could win elections "the easy way." Our agendas—the shared and the differing—are barely a blip on their horizon. And so it will remain until we take back our Party.

---

Part Four: Learn From Experience

The first step to taking back our Party is to understand how we lost it. It was a slow and subtle process that combined two forces—internal decay and an external attack that used many tools—subversion, bribery, and propaganda among them. Neither would have succeeded alone—in concert, they are deadly.

There are two main symptoms of the internal decay that affects our Party, and to understand the causes we must examine those symptoms. The first symptom is the steady falling-off of participation in Party activities, committees, and leadership at the local levels.

Time was in any major U.S. city (and many, many small towns and rural communities) that the Democratic Party functioned as much like a social club as a political entity. Party members attended meetings in large numbers, held picnics and get-togethers, organized youth activities, and performed volunteer and community service under the Democratic Party sponsorship.

They also ran for local Party offices—committee chairs, treasurers, representatives to higher-level committees, etc. The structure used to be much more "bottom up" than it is today. Local committees fed leadership to regional committees, regional committees to state committees. The state committees fed leadership to the national Party organization, and the national Party organization relied on the state leaders to deliver the nuts and bolts of Party power—votes and volunteers.

The second symptom of internal decay is the large numbers of states switching from a caucus/convention nominating process to a primary election nominating process. While appearing to be a "populist" move, the net effect of this change has been to give the Democratic voter the illusion of control while taking away the substance.

The pathology responsible for both of these symptoms is an unavoidable side effect of true populism—but rather than coming to terms with this reality and working to provide the remedies needed, the Democratic Party has chosen to let the disease run its course.

What is this "pathology?"

Anyone who still lives in a caucus/convention state—or anyone old enough to remember the process from before their state's change—can probably recall grueling marathons of deadlock, ideological harangue, and vicious political maneuvering that sent the average Party member home with a migraine, reeling and vowing, 'never again!'

Republicans rarely experienced such painful sessions, relying on more hierarchical leadership and more restrictive rules. "Populist" Democrats were petrified of being charged with denying some group or faction the fullest possible participation in the process, with the consequent laissez-faire meeting structures enabling special interests within the Party to hold an entire caucus or convention hostage until a war of attrition finally decided the issue.

It would appear to be a Catch-22—to have real populist leadership of our Party, we must rely on a structure that requires some decidedly un-populist rules in order to be effective. Nevertheless, even with such rules (debate limits, platform committees empowered to aggregate resolutions, etc.) a caucus/convention system gives Party members real control of their Party and their nominees/elected representatives.

However, it demands in return a much greater commitment from the Party members—the attendance of meetings, the service on committees, and other time-consuming and sometimes frustrating chores of a truly empowered citizen. Thus the move to "Democracy Lite," in which you can salve your conscience thinking that 90 seconds in a primary election voting booth, means exercising meaningful control of your party and fulfilling your responsibility to participate in democratic self-government.

And we've seen where that leads. Straight to the current mess of pseudo-Democrats who control our Party today.

The external attack bears many faces: the propaganda used to set one segment of our Party against another, the corporate bribery that enables Party leadership to groom candidates and win elections without paying more than lip service to the membership, and internal subversion by anti-populist special interest groups hostile to the Party's traditional philosophies and ideology, to name just a few. They are all damaging, but without the abrogation of responsibility by Party members, they would not have proceeded to weaken the Party to its present hollow shell.

---

Part Five: Learn From the Opposition

We didn't lose our Party overnight. It wasn't the action of one person, or even one small group. And we won't re-take our Party quickly or easily. It will take years, numbers, and persistence.

We can learn from another recent episode in American political history—the takeover of the GOP by fundamentalist "Christian" fruitbats. Those of us with long enough memories remember the start of this most recent infestation (they're a perennial specimen in the political zoo, alternating periods of semi-hibernation with periods of intense predation.)

While the various causes were complex and multifarious (backlash against civil rights, the 60's social revolution and the anti-war movement, the growing feminist consciousness, etc.,) what really crystallized the supersaturated solution of conservative "Christianity" was Roe v. Wade. After the Supreme Court confirmed American women's right to make certain health care choices in private, the Bibles really started to throb like jungle drums.

I remember it vividly because in my state, they made the Democratic Party their first target, rendering every post-Roe caucus and convention a hideous nightmare of serial filibustering until the meetings were deserted by everyone except for those who cared passionately one way or the other on that issue, and that issue only.

I'm proud of my Party, though—they got nowhere with us, and eventually they sought out the more congenial habitat of the GOP. (Although they left plenty of scorched earth behind them.) By that time, too, they had taken the time to plan a co-ordinated, long-term strategy that was to reap them great benefits.

It's got to be easier, of course, when you can cite Divine authority for getting people to attend meeting after meeting, run endless campaigns for apparently penny-ante local office, volunteer long hours in the trenches, man phone trees 24 hours/day, write countless Letters to the Editor, show up at the Capitol steps at the drop of a hat, etc. I admit to a twinge of envy—but then I look at the Sacred Thought Police and know that we're better off without them, regardless of the loss of efficiency.

How did they do it?

Beginning in the 70's, this comparatively small group of dedicated ideologues carried out a relentless bottom-up program of taking over the GOP, based on the long-established but little-publicized political truism that the Party is run by those who show up.

It's that simple. In a democracy, money only goes so far. (Though it's going farther every day—a warning sign that we ignore to our peril.) Political parties are still composed of living, breathing human beings, who attend meetings, vote on decisions, and carry out the Party's business.

Our blueprint for taking back the Democratic Party, then, begins with just that: showing up.

Here's a warning, though: The people who are already there are not going to a) hail you as a savior and sage the instant you walk in the door; or b) instantly resign the power they've been exercising over the past 20 years to your newly-impassioned, energetic hands. You will have to pay dues. It's not a quick process, but, on the other hand, considering how desperately short of personpower the Party is these days, the timeline is shortening all the time.

The money and the special interests are far too firmly entrenched at the national level to be vulnerable to any direct action. They control the propaganda machine, such as it is, and they have established the quids-pro-quo with our elected pols and high-profile leaders. They are only vulnerable to the ultimate threat—change from within, from below, from the grass roots.

That is how we can do it.

---

Part Six: Inspiration and Perspiration

Margaret Mead said, "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have."

There is always an avant-garde. Long before the swell of numbers makes the world sit up and take notice, small corps of visionaries begin the process by battering at the stone walls of injustice, folly, and indifference with nothing more than their unprotected fists and skulls. (Occupational hazard: Loss of peripheral vision and depth perception, slight concussion... extreme cases end up being avoided at parties except by fellow-sufferers.)

The avant-garde includes the martyrs, philosophers, gadflies, muckrakers and organizers who develop the ideological and strategic framework for change. It's a thankless task with a high casualty rate, but no major change can happen without them. Our first task is to create a network of this avant-garde, and to facilitate communication amongst them and with the greater populist constituency.

Caveat: Exchange of ideas and lively debate is critical—but there is a difference between purposeful communication, and the stultifying repetition of grievance. One involves the careful, almost scientific, exploitation of discontent, which eventually produces action. The other, by providing the harmless "safety valve" of expression, or by using poorly-calculated hyperbole that produces too much cognitive dissonance, can actually delay or derail action.

When the rough framework for change is laid out, the next task of the avant-garde is to identify those who will have a vested self-interest in change, and to begin the marketing process that will refine the concept and produce strong investment among these constituencies. This is roughly the stage we are currently at—we have some rough idea of what we want, whom it will benefit, and how. We must now identify those constituencies and begin to foster their investment in change.

Who's invited to the (P)arty?

This is no easy task. The "segments" described earlier (Workers, The Marginalized, Classic Liberals, Post-Modern Liberals) constitute the core groups that receive the clearest primary benefit from a revitalized, populist-controlled Democratic Part. But in the long run, the benefits of a more equitable democracy will affect virtually all Americans.

In order to be effective we must build a base broad enough to reach all our core constituencies, but sufficiently focused to mobilize efficiently. We need participation from each segment, without allowing any one segment to co-opt the entire change process (which would result in the alienation of the other segments and the subsequent loss of effectiveness.)

Unfortunately, our Party doesn't have the best history of welcoming the traditionally disenfranchised into our decision-making councils. We've often been happier working "for" them than "with" them. (And many of us still refer to "them" rather than "us.") Oh, we're alright with "them" showing up to phone-bank or doorknock. But "they" often get a distinctly chilly reception if they start thinking they're entitled to do any agenda-setting. While we are exponentially better than the GOP at inclusivity, we have a lot of room for improvement.

The first concerted effort must be to market the idea to all of our traditional constituencies. We must pass the word. Success requires all of us.

Spread the word in the cities—churches, community centers, neighborhood gathering places. Make a friend or two, find a place, bring a carton of coffee and start having discussions.

Spread the word through organizations that already serve our constituencies—get involved with them if you can. Talk with unions, farmers' co-ops, migrant workers' organizations, advocacy groups. Reach out to them and make them feel the possibilities. They need to know three things:

1. Their only hope for empowerment in American politics rests in the re-taking of the Democratic Party;

2. They will not be alone in their efforts—there is strength in numbers, and with a common vision we can prevail; and

3. There will be help and support in the difficult process of restoring democracy to the Democratic Party. It won't be a "quick fix," but it is possible—especially with their help.

---

Part Seven: Laying Foundations

Remember, the only "easy" way to get anything done in politics is to buy it. And that is the root of our current problem. We let money substitute for hard work, and behold, now our Party belongs to money. It will require twice and three times the hard work to take it back.

Step One:

Start attending your local Party committee meetings. They are in the phone book; if not, you can locate them through your State Party organization. Bring your friends. Spend the first few meetings listening rather than talking, it's very important to get to know what you're dealing with.

Local Party groups are almost always appreciative of more participation, especially when it comes to pitching in and doing the work—manning the phone tree to schedule meetings, getting out mailings, arranging and volunteering at local events and fundraisers for your elected pols and wannabes. If you offer willing hands and precious time, you will pile up some valuable points and pay some important dues.

Step Two:

Paying dues is the name of the game at this point. Most of the people who are already involved with your local Party organization have paid theirs. They have attended hour upon hour of dreary meeting, they have done their share of scutwork, they have been treated like peons by the State Party organization (this always happens—they tell you how valuable you are from one side of the mouth and gripe at you for something from the other side. Don't take it personally, it's the nature of the beast. You can pledge to do better someday.)

In other words, they'll welcome your work but you can't walk right in as the "savior of the Democratic Party" and expect them to hand over the reins of control. In some places, they may even have corporate-style GOP-lookalike agendas—remember, the Party's become a very friendly place for those folks over the past fifteen years. If that is the case, pushing your agenda right off the bat will be counterproductive.

Pay your dues. Work. Keep any opposition you have to the prevailing local leadership's agenda on the mild side. Find some particular area when you can be valuable to the Party organization. Donate money if you have it, donate a useful skill, above all donate time. Remember the part about the Party being run by those who show up? Try never to miss a meeting no matter how boring and/or counterproductive they seem.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Invite your friends to Party meetings and events. Start building your own coalition of populists.

Step Three: Knowledge is Power

Study the state Party platform. What does it say about how your state Party's agenda conforms with the pro- Big Business national agenda? What are the best elements of the platform? Where are the traditional Democratic strengths? How well do your state and local pols represent the platform? Are there any obvious inconsistencies? (A Democratic governor who is anti-choice, for instance, in a state that has a pro-choice plank in its platform.) Familiarize yourself with the problems and the strengths revealed.

Study the Party Constitution in your state. This is critical. You must know how the Party works. How is the platform compiled? How is it adopted? How are candidates endorsed? How are Party decisions about financial support made? How is local Party leadership chosen? How is state Party leadership chosen? You can learn all this from the Party Constitution in your state. Have a study group, you and your progressive, populist friends. Get to know your local and state Party leadership—who are they? How did they get where they are? Who and what do they support?

I strongly, strongly recommend that you more or less "sit out" at least one local or state election cycle as hard-working Party drones before actively pushing your agenda. It's the best way to get a handle on "how things work," and it's essential to know that before you begin the actual work of re-taking the Party. There is so much to learn. Volunteer to be on a convention committee, especially the ones that deal with how the convention is conducted (rules, parliamentary procedure, etc.) and how the platform is created and adopted.

And all this time, stay in touch with the avant-garde, continue marketing the Party to our traditional constituencies, recruit friends and fellow-travelers, build your coalition.

---

Part Eight: Making It Happen

It is easy to get impatient with the process of working up from the local level. Nevertheless, as the GOP learned from the Religious Right, this painstaking approach of laying foundations at the local level first is the only way to bring about substantive, long term change. It goes back to the venerable words "All politics is local politics"—uttered by—who else?—a Democrat.

Because we have made it so easy for most Americans to ignore politics except for the quadrennial circus that decides our Chief Executive, we often forget just where the real center of Party political power lies. In spite of the toxic pollution of corporate money and the unprincipled corporate clones infesting our Party's "leadership," we are still the Democratic Party. When the membership chooses to take action, control still rests ultimately with us. And membership is made at the local level.

Where do we start?

Once you and (hopefully) your little band of populists have become active participants in the local Party, it is time to get serious about local politics. After all, the core issues of populism are often controlled right in our own backyards. Public education, land use, law enforcement, a whole range of taxation issues, and the "rules of the game" for local politics are all settled right there in your town or county or region.

First, organize your populist coalition. Begin to make yourselves felt and heard on local issues. Begin to participate and provide feedback to local pols, elected officials and leadership. Communications are key—phone trees and e-mail lists are critical tools for rapid response. Rapid response (say, when local officials propose some appalling land use measure) can be effective. If you can mobilize your friends to attend the next meeting of the local officials to speak against it, if you can immediately issue a coherent press release opposing it, you have well and truly begun the populist re-taking of the Democratic Party. This is also why it's important to note publicly that you are Democrats in all your actions.

Do not be discouraged if you are ignored at first, even repudiated by GOP pie -wannabes and limp "Democratic centrists." It's to be expected—and one way to gauge the effectiveness of your action is by the strength of the reaction. Never descend to hostility, retaliation, or opposition for its own sake, but stay positive and focused on your agenda and make it clear that you represent a viable, active, and involved sector of the Democratic Party, working within the Party to return it to its real populist roots.

Then, begin standing for Party offices. Careful study of your state's Party Constitution will show you the opportunities as they arise. Are Party officials chosen at conventions during an election year? Are they nominated by local committees or at local caucuses? Explore the mechanism and begin the process. Stand for Committee chair, vice chair, treasurer. Get selected delegate to the next level Committee.

Groom a populist candidate or two for local office. Don't be discouraged if you don't win the first few times—politics, even at the local level, is above all dependent on name recognition and the best way to build it is to run, run, run. Even if you have little real hope against better-funded candidates from the GOP or the corporate interests in our Party , you can make solid gains in a campaign just by using it as an opportunity to listen to your neighbors, to engage them in the political process, and to talk about populist issues and positions.

What about timelines?

These will vary widely depending on what you find in your local and state Democratic Parties when you begin. It will probably not be fast enough to suit you, but it may seem blindingly fast to the current leadership. Remember that the duration of a change is very often a function of how well and carefully it is planned and executed, and that means time. The people who have felt excluded from political participation, even in the Democratic Party, are not going to flock back to it overnight. It will take many small successes to build a critical mass of momentum.

The objective is not to get revenge, it is not to defeat the pseudo-Democrats , it is not to humiliate them, it is not to drive anyone away from our Party. The objective is to advance our own agenda, to swell the ranks of our Party by re-igniting the participation of our traditional base, and to demonstrate that we can work within the Party framework to build a stronger, more effective Party based on populist principles.

It is worth the extra time to do it right.