Did Gore subvert the democratic process? (from dailyKos) - worth reading

[pruner]

by kos
Tue Dec 9th, 2003 at 04:44:54 UTC

Gore endorses Dean. Fans of the Vermont governor exhulted. Most everyone else recognized it as yet another major step toward a Dean nomination.

And a small group have loudly complained that Gore has somehow subverted the democratic process.

Which is, of course, ludicrous.

To begin with, the presidential primaries are never a truly democratic process. The people of Iowa, NH, and the restof the February states have had a disproportionate level of influence. Illinois' legions of good Democrats have zero say in the election of our nominee. Neither do those in Minnessota. Or Massachussets.

Or do they?

In the past, they wouldn't have had a say. They didn't in 2000 (did anyone?). But technology has changed all that.

Dean built his support not on the back of the "establishment", but despite it. That they are all lining up behind him now is testament to what Dean has built -- a massive army of supporters hailing from the entire nation, from Alaska to Atlanta. Those supporters have driven the campaign, providing it not only with money, but with committed evangelizers, spreading the word about Dean in a way that could never be replicated in a 30-second spot -- personally. Face to face, or via an email from a friend, at the family dinner table, or around the watercooler. They have canvassed. Set up tables at farmers markets and college campuses. Marched in parades. Done whatever it took to spread the word and build support for their guy.

AFSCME and SEIU told us Dean worked hardest for their support. He offered the right message at the right time. He took unpopular positions because they were right, not because they were politically expedient. And people flocked to his campaign. Hundreds of thousands of them.

A mere four years ago, an Alabama Democrat would've had no say whatsoever in our party's nominee. But today, Democrats in Alabama have helped spread the word about Dean, donated to his campaign, attended meetups, wrote letters to Iowans, Granite staters, and Al Gore.

So it's true, no votes have been cast. But that doesn't mean we haven't seen democracy in action the past year. 2003 was a clinic in how technology could be used to build a movement, how bytes on a screen could be transformed into off-line activities in pursuit of a cause.

We have been seeing true participatory democracy. Some campaigns got it. Others did not. And yet others simply got in the game too late. Movements aren't built overnight.

I reject the notion that democracy isn't being served. At the end of the day, we'll still have elections to select delegates. Each candidate still has to get his (or her) supporters to the polls. Dean's nomination isn't a done deal. But he sure is in the best position to receive it.

Dean is where he is because of hundreds of thousands of supporters. That is the essence of democracy. The system didn't give most of them a meaningful vote, and yet it didn't matter. They voted (and continue to vote) with their money and hard work.

Nothing precluded the other candidates from following this same path. That they didn't isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing in their inability to harness the power of the people.

Gore simply recognized the power of Dean's movement. Any of the other candidates would've killed for the endorsement, but they didn't earn it. Dean worked hardest for it, and that he got it isn't commentary on our political system.

No matter how much sour grapes would have it be otherwise.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/9/44454/1082