Remaking the Democratic Party

I’ve been holding onto this article about remaking the Democratic Party for awhile to consider it more but I don’t know that I have that much more to say except that I totally agree. It seems to me that a few weeks after the disastrous election of Trump, liberals are just shrugging their shoulders, which is stupid. There are reasons to put it all in context, yes, absolutely. Harris did less terrible than other candidates from governing parties during the post-pandemic inflation. Yes, we must consider that.

However, we just elected Donald Fucking Trump again and that’s not something to shrug at. What I am seeing a lot of, and that’s very true of a lot of commenters though definitely not all is “fuck the voters, they are stupid, they get what they deserve.” Regardless of the truth of that, it’s politically useless. Far more useful is what this article suggests–rethinking the Democratic Party not as something that just asks for your money like a MLM scheme every election cycle, but as an organization that actually engages with voters on a daily basis. The Democratic Party used to be very good at this, but then we tore down every institution that made it possible (union halls) or alternatively, people just stopped going to them (liberal Protestant churches). I’ve called for reconstructing institutions in a new way on several occasions now and this is the best and most concrete way I have seen to move forward on such an idea.

But one area of inquiry is not getting enough attention in our autopsies of the 2024 election: the civic structure of the Democratic Party. How did the way that our party is organized—the way that its members relate to the party, to each other, and to their local communities—affect Tuesday’s result? And how can we improve the flow of attention, money, leadership development, organizing work, and decision-making power to get better results in the future?

If I could make everyone at Democratic National Committee headquarters read one book, it would be Theda Skocpol’s Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, published in 2003. In the early 20th century, according to Skocpol, civic life was mostly based in mass-membership organizations—religious congregations, unions, fraternal organizations (like the Elks or Rotary clubs), and political groups (think the NAACP or the League of Women Voters). They were made up of local chapters that hosted in-person meetings, managed annual calendars of neighborhood events, fostered friendships between members, and contributed to the places where they were based. These chapters are organized (or “federated”) into state and national conventions and committees. By pairing local participation with centralized coordination, the national leadership and the local membership could communicate ideas, concerns, mandates, and marching orders back and forth.

I have my own problems with Skocpol, largely her refusing to recognize her own staff unionizing, leaving me to quit her organization after trying to get her to just recognize the union. To be fair, she did accept the union election result. In any case the historical point is valid. The article goes into more detail, but let’s think about the present and near future:

Here’s one sketch of how we could begin to turn this around: The 4 Ms of party membership, each symbolic of a necessary mindset shift.

First, Membership Cards. When you join the Labour Party in Britain, you get mailed a welcome packet, complete with a membership card and information about how to get more involved. The Democratic Party could learn from this: It should mean something to join the Democrats. We should track how our membership is doing year-over-year. Local chairs who are successful at increasing membership should be celebrated and invited to help languishing chairs. Fundraising should be done primarily through annual membership dues. Our web infrastructure should drive people toward not just ad hoc volunteer events but sustained membership in their local Democratic committee.

Second, Maps. There should be an accountable Democratic captain for every neighborhood in the country. Captains should be known by their neighbors, because they are so visible organizing for the party all year long (not just during election season). The most persuasive canvassers during a campaign, of course, are the neighbors who already know you and your community.

Third, Meeting Halls. Monthly meetings should be designed with utmost care. Best practices for making meetings, working groups, and annual calendars warm and engaging should be gathered and disseminated. Formal rules and procedures should not be fetishized at the expense of engaging new members. Meetings should be welcoming enough that new members should be unconcerned with telling those they run into around town, “Hope to see you at our next Democratic meeting!” Eventually, each local party should work toward building physical Democratic meeting halls in their district, which can become lively community centers not just for party activities, but also for the party’s broader local coalition of unions and progressive groups. (This could even be a useful place for the party’s donor class to chip in; they could siphon off some of the billions they are pouring into election campaigns into the building of meeting halls instead.)

Finally, Mutual Aid. The party should directly care for members and for the broader community. Democrats should do disaster relief, take on homeless-shelter shifts, cook food when members have a baby, welcome new immigrants to town, and host block parties throughout the year. Effective and inspiring community engagement should be celebrated statewide—and turned into multi-chapter efforts. This is especially important in red districts: Trust is earned not through perfectly targeted messaging in the short run but through in-person care over the long run.

This is all easier dreamed than realized. Fostering a culture of membership is a long-haul project—more like the planting of acorns than the planting of sunflower seeds. It will require a years-long commitment to the fits and starts of civic experimentation. But even a partial transformation to a structure based more in membership would help address many of the party’s challenges. Conflicts within the party could have more accessible venues through which they could be deliberated on and resolved. The party’s ideological vision could be more grounded in the interests of the broad populace (rather than of wealthy donors). Organic party leaders could rise more through their skills at organizing local communities than their ability to navigate and fundraise from elite networks. Media silos and cultural divides could have a shot at being broken through via sustained, real-world interactions at a local level. And, most significantly, apathy and cynicism could be combated as more of the civic creativity and energy of members is unleashed as local Democrats are invited to not only donate and vote but actually create the party together.

So….what do you all think?