by J Scott Christianson, Columbia Daily Tribune Columnist
In a 2005 New York Times editorial, Bill Bradley compared the structure of the Republican and Democratic parties to pyramids. The Republican Party’s pyramid starts with a broad, solid base built of organizations and think tanks that generate funding, ideas, policies and talking points. Conservative commentators and networks that spread the message of the party form the next level.
“At the very top of the pyramid, you’ll find the president,” Bradley wrote. “Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it, and it works fine.”
Bradley continued: “To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate. Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on.”
In 2004, Democrats suffered from their dependency on the presidential candidate. The Kerry campaign was for a Washington insider run by Washington insiders. This top-down operation gauged its progress on the number of phone calls placed to voters, not on the quality of the relationship the party had with voters. When they pulled out of Missouri within days of the election, the pyramid crumbled, and Republicans gained seats throughout state government. The local party then had to deal with the backlash from voters who had been called and canvassed so many times that they ended up feeling harassed.
Since 2004, Democrats have been working to change this structure and build their party on a solid foundation. At the national level, Howard Dean has been pushing a 50-state strategy, creating a viable party organization in every state. This runs against the traditional beltway strategy of focusing on only those few races that seem easiest to win, but it is the best way to build a strong base that can endure changes in candidates and campaigns.
Taking a cue from the Republicans, the Democrats are reaching beyond the party itself and the “usual suspects” of Democratic activists to build the pyramid. Several new organizations have sprung up in Mid-Missouri that are aligned with the party but are not part of the party.
Democracy for Missouri – www.democracyformo.com – is one good example. A local chapter of the national Democracy for America, DFM recently held its statewide convention in Columbia. While some Democrats view organizations such as DFM as competing with the party proper, they are really more complementary than competitive.
Groups such as DFA can do things the local party organization can’t or won’t do, such as endorsing a primary challenger instead of the incumbent. Such things need to be done from time to time so that the candidate with the best chance of winning in the general election emerges. Recent examples include Gaylin Carver’s win over Bill Tackett in the Cole County primary for county prosecutor and the overanalyzed defeat of Joe Lieberman by Ned Lamont.
Into the Blue – www.intotheblue.org – is a Columbia-based organization whose sole purpose is to build progressive and democratic infrastructure in Missouri. Rather than focusing on candidates or particular issues, the emphasis is on creating a solid foundation.
What makes these organizations different is that they are composed of people who believe in democratic ideals, not just people who are part of the organization because of their own political ambition or because of one particular issue they are for or against. The Democratic Party has had a longstanding problem with single-issue activists who have used the party to force various litmus tests on candidates as well as candidates who manipulate the party to benefit their run for office.
I have had a front-row seat to much of the building process here in Boone County, and while it is building slowly and steadily, it still has a long way to go. Bradley estimated it would take at least a decade to build the type of infrastructure the Republicans have in place. This fall will be the initial test of the stability of the Democratic Party’s new structure.
In a 2005 New York Times editorial, Bill Bradley compared the structure of the Republican and Democratic parties to pyramids. The Republican Party’s pyramid starts with a broad, solid base built of organizations and think tanks that generate funding, ideas, policies and talking points. Conservative commentators and networks that spread the message of the party form the next level.
“At the very top of the pyramid, you’ll find the president,” Bradley wrote. “Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it, and it works fine.”
Bradley continued: “To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate. Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on.”
In 2004, Democrats suffered from their dependency on the presidential candidate. The Kerry campaign was for a Washington insider run by Washington insiders. This top-down operation gauged its progress on the number of phone calls placed to voters, not on the quality of the relationship the party had with voters. When they pulled out of Missouri within days of the election, the pyramid crumbled, and Republicans gained seats throughout state government. The local party then had to deal with the backlash from voters who had been called and canvassed so many times that they ended up feeling harassed.
Since 2004, Democrats have been working to change this structure and build their party on a solid foundation. At the national level, Howard Dean has been pushing a 50-state strategy, creating a viable party organization in every state. This runs against the traditional beltway strategy of focusing on only those few races that seem easiest to win, but it is the best way to build a strong base that can endure changes in candidates and campaigns.
Taking a cue from the Republicans, the Democrats are reaching beyond the party itself and the “usual suspects” of Democratic activists to build the pyramid. Several new organizations have sprung up in Mid-Missouri that are aligned with the party but are not part of the party.
Democracy for Missouri – www.democracyformo.com – is one good example. A local chapter of the national Democracy for America, DFM recently held its statewide convention in Columbia. While some Democrats view organizations such as DFM as competing with the party proper, they are really more complementary than competitive.
Groups such as DFA can do things the local party organization can’t or won’t do, such as endorsing a primary challenger instead of the incumbent. Such things need to be done from time to time so that the candidate with the best chance of winning in the general election emerges. Recent examples include Gaylin Carver’s win over Bill Tackett in the Cole County primary for county prosecutor and the overanalyzed defeat of Joe Lieberman by Ned Lamont.
Into the Blue – www.intotheblue.org – is a Columbia-based organization whose sole purpose is to build progressive and democratic infrastructure in Missouri. Rather than focusing on candidates or particular issues, the emphasis is on creating a solid foundation.
What makes these organizations different is that they are composed of people who believe in democratic ideals, not just people who are part of the organization because of their own political ambition or because of one particular issue they are for or against. The Democratic Party has had a longstanding problem with single-issue activists who have used the party to force various litmus tests on candidates as well as candidates who manipulate the party to benefit their run for office.
I have had a front-row seat to much of the building process here in Boone County, and while it is building slowly and steadily, it still has a long way to go. Bradley estimated it would take at least a decade to build the type of infrastructure the Republicans have in place. This fall will be the initial test of the stability of the Democratic Party’s new structure.