Special Interests Controlling Montgomery County Democratic Party Suppress Expansion Of Participation

Posted on January 22, 2010 by Mike Bock

The leadership of the Montgomery County Democratic Party, it appears, is really not much interested in expanding the Party’s membership. It is all about control. It is all about maintaining the status of special interests.

Last night I attended the January meeting of the Montgomery County Democratic Party. I asked our chairperson, Mark Owens, about publicity for the upcoming Reorganization Meeting. His answer — There has been no publicity, so far. Mark said he had sent out one News Release, but, neither the DDN nor any other news media had reported it.

At the December meeting, I made a motion that the Party spend $500 in advertising to attempt to inform Montgomery County Democrats about our big Reorganization Meeting this Spring. My motion went nowhere, but Mark, at that time, indicated that he would take action to publicize this important event. But, nothing.

The deadline for potential delegates to the Reorganization Meeting to file with the Board of Elections is soon upon us — February 18.

I pointed out to Mark that information about this deadline is not even on the Party’s local web-site. Mark indicated, however, that he intended on putting a notice on the web-site very soon. Yesterday, I posted, “To Reform Our ‘Political Class’ System, We Need A Grassroots Movement To Reform Our Political Parties.” The current leadership of the Montgomery County Democratic Party shows no interest in motivating such a grassroots movement.

At the start of the Central Committee Meeting, as people were milling about, I pointed out to Gary Steiger that, likely, most of those present were earning their personal income via their political efforts. There was an unusual number of elected officials in attendance — because the all important Screening Committee, of which they are members, had met prior to the Central Committee Meeting.

Those who might be thought of as “regular Democrats,” last night, I’m guessing, were outnumbered by Democratic elected officials and Democrats who earn their income via patronage jobs provided by the Party. These vested Democrats control the local Democratic party.

Mark Owens, himself, is an elected official, and makes his income as Clerk of Courts. At least one of Mark’s employees, I know, is very active in the County Party organization, and probably more. This seems typical. Employees of elected Democratic officials make up an important part of the local party organization.

The Democrats who control the local Democratic Party organization, it seems, are in one of two special interest groups:

  1. Individuals who make their income via their political connection, with the chair, Mark Owens, the model for this group.
  2. Individuals who feel that because of their longevity and service to the Party, they are entitled to special privilege.

Individuals in both groups are likable and well meaning. But they are mistaken, because they have no interest in the Party operating democratically, no interest in expanding the group to include a lot of “regular Democrats.”

Mark defends the policies and practices of the current leadership and asserts that a majority of Montgomery County Democrats agree with the current leadership. I believe, absolutely, he is wrong. Mark is not taking a chance. He is not using the opportunity of the coming Reorganization Meeting to invite “regular Democrats” to meaningful participation within the local party.

The antidemocratic policies of the current party leadership, that focuses on advancing the special interests of the current leadership, mean that it is impossible for the Party to do a good job. The inertia of the group is overwhelming. The group is stuck in the old ways — including topdown boss management — from 50 years ago.

The internet makes it possible to form active meaningful communities in which individuals are empowered with shared information and empowered to make meaningful participation. But empowering regular Democrats to full participation in the Party seems risky to those individual who already enjoy special privileges — so the Montgomery County Democratic Party falls far short of accomplishing what it should and could accomplish.

The Party’s failure is seen in the fact that it is not advancing good candidates. It has not prepared for the future. It has failed over the years to groom and inspire good candidate prospects. As of last night, there is no Democratic candidate to take on Republican Mike Turner in the 3rd U.S. Congressional District. There are no candidates to challenge Republican Peggy Lehner in the 37th OHD, nor Republican Terry Blair in the 38th OHD.

This lack of good candidates — the lack of any candidates — is pathetic, a missed opportunity. A vigorous Montgomery County Democratic Party would be a community of Democrats encouraging and challenging each other and forging effective leadership as part of that community. But, as it is, nothing.

The only hope for the Party’s future is that the Party begin to act as a meaningful democratic community — infused with new blood, new ideas, new commitment. The requirement written into state law that political parties must organized according to democratic principles, through free elections, is very wise. We simply need to see that this law is effectively followed — regardless that the special interests are now in control of the local party.

Political parties are essential to our democracy. For our democracy to have any chance of working, political parties must themselves be democratic. We now have less than four weeks to alert and involve Montgomery County Democrats — before the February 18 deadline.

The application to have your name put on the ballot is simple — it only requires your signature. You can download a copy here. Precinct names have changed and I have the voter list in my computer. Send me an e-mail at mbock@att.net, and I will send you your precinct name and number.

You are invited to join my Dayton Democrats group on Facebook.

Posted in M Bock | Leave a comment

To Reform Our “Political Class” System, We Need A Grassroots Movement To Reform Our Political Parties

Posted on January 21, 2010 by Mike Bock

I’m back.

Martin Gottlieb, writing in today’s DDN, “Massachusetts phenomenon visible early in Dayton,” makes a comparison between the defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts and the defeat of Democrat Rhine McLin in Dayton. Writes Gottlieb, “The city of Dayton is far more Democratic than Massachusetts … Yet a Democratic mayor just fell here…. The discontent with the Democrats was and is clear.”

The defeat of Democrats Coakley and McLin, within heavily concentrated Democratic areas, shows discontent not just with the candidates, but also with the Democratic Party.

Voters slapped down both Coakley and McLin, in part, because both projected a sense of entitlement.

Andrew Romano of Newsweek says that Scott Brown got votes by successfully framing Coakley as an arrogant elitist. Romano writes, “The key moment came in the Jan. 13 debate, when moderator David Gergen referred to ‘Teddy Kennedy’s seat’ and Brown stepped in to correct him. ‘With all due respect,’ Brown said, ‘it’s not the Kennedys’ seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.’”

“It’s the people’s seat,” is a powerful concept at the heart of our representative democracy. Our history rejects the notion that power belongs to an aristocracy, and holds to the idea that power should belong to the people. Voters don’t like politicians who project an air of entitlement and voters increasingly are identifying politicians as a “political class” aristocracy that deserves to be slapped down.

More and more voters are convinced that our democracy is not working. We have a Democratic President, a Democratic congress, yet things still are not being accomplished. The rejection of Coakley and McLin, in part, can be seen as a protest against the dysfunction of the system.

The emergence of a “political class” aristocracy, with its sense of entitlement, I believe, can be rightfully blamed on our clique dominated, antidemocratic political parties. To reform and vitalize our democracy we need to reform and vitalize our political parties.

A Montgomery Country Democratic Party member was recently defending the Party’s antidemocratic policies as, “WE think this, WE want that, etc.” Yes, the clique always thinks they are right. But a political party, by law, cannot simply do whatever it wants. A political party is not free to set its own rules, as if it is a private club. It is not free to organize and operate oligarchically. It must follow the law. And the law says that it must organize and operate democratically, based upon free and open elections.

The reason our Montgomery County Democratic Party operates as a cliquish, antidemocratic group — see articles listed below — is that Montgomery County Democrats have allowed this to happen. In 2006, at the last reorganization meeting, only about 18% of precincts were represented. Creating a vitalized, democratic Montgomery County Democratic Party would simply require more Democrats to become involved in the local party.

if Montgomery County Democrats want a vitalized, local democratic party, a revolution in local politics, they don’t need to storm party headquarters. They simply need to follow the law and elect sufficient reform minded Democrats to the Central Committee. Every four years there is a precinct by precinct election and, now, 2010, this is the year for Montgomery County Democrats to reorganize. The deadline is February 18, 4:00 PM, to get one’s application to the Montgomery County Board of Elections, in order to get one’s name on the ballot. And, this year, all that is required is one’s own signature on this form. (In previous elections, a candidate, was required to get five additional signatures.)

In Dayton, regardless that it was obvious that many Daytonians wanted a replacement for Rhine McLin, the Montgomery County Democratic Party early on gave McLin its wholehearted endorsement and actively suppressed any primary competition to McLin. The endorsement was not an effort to empower Dayton voters, nor was it an effort to help Dayton solve its problems. It was simply an effort by insiders in the Party to keep McLin in power. It was an expression of a sense of entitlement.

Similarly, two years ago, the Montgomery County Democratic Party for the 40th OHD, to replace Fred Strahorn, endorsed Roland Winburn. Because of the Republican gerrymandering, the 40th OHD regularly votes 70% Democratic. A small clique of Dayton Democrats leaders showed a big sense of entitlement to the right to name Fred’s successor, rather than allowing an honest and open Primary. This small clique pushed Roland Winburn, and justified their actions by saying that Winburn was entitled to the position.

The rejection of Coakley and McLin may deliver the message that voters are sick of the sense of entitlement projected by a political aristocracy, it may deliver the message that voters want a vitalized democracy.

But the current cliques in control in either political party probably won’t hear that message. What is needed are citizens who hear the wake-up call for reform. We need a grassroots movement centered on reforming our political parties. We are empowered by law. Between now and February 18, I plan on working to help grassroots Montgomery County Democrats hear the message.

  1. The Montgomery Democrats Decide to Suppress Democracy — Just Like the Republicans (December 14, 2007)
  2. Victor Harris: Surprised That Local Democratic Party Wanted To Suppress Primary Competition (February 25, 2008)
  3. How Gerrymandering Defeated An Outstanding Candidate And Sent a Weak Candidate To Columbus (March 5, 2008)
  4. How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”? (February 5, 2009)
  5. Mark Owens Says Most Montgomery Dems Approve The Party’s Suppression Of Primary Participation (April 8, 2009)
Posted in Special Reports | 3 Comments

“Avatar” Delivers This Message: The Limit And Hope Of Humanity Is Not In Our Science But In Ourselves

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Mike Bock

“Avatar” takes place 4.3 light years from Earth, in the year 2154.  Here is a description of the key premise of the movie from a review:

Intelligent life, called Na’vi, has been found on the moon called Pandora.  Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic Marine from Earth, volunteers to take his recently deceased brother’s place in the Avatar program, which will shift his consciousness into a genetically engineered copy of an inhabitant of the planet.

In other words, the premise of the movie is that within a very short time — only 145 years into the future — technology and science will have made huge advances.  The avatar is grown as if a clone, fully formed, an then the consciousness of Jake Sully, and his cohort, Signoorney Weaver, are periodically placed into these living beings.  The spaceship transporting Jake and hundreds of mercenary type soldiers travels 4.3 light years — 4.3 light years ! — in order to get to the planet Pandora.

Is it reasonable to think that it is in the potential of humanity to accomplish such a huge leap in science?  I’ve got to wonder if this movie defies not only what the limits of science presently are, here in 2009, but what the limits of science will be, ever.  Will science ever understand consciousness enough that it could actually shift one’s consciousness from one being into another being?  It’s mind boggling to suppose such science could exist.  Such science, 145 years in the future, would require a magnitude of change in scientific capacity many many more times than the great change in science humanity has actually accomplished in the recent 145 years, already passed, starting in 1864.

The change in science from 1864 to today has been immense, but the “Avatar” movie predicts that the change in science 145 years in the future, in 2154, will be awesomely greater.  The premise of “Avatar” is that, in time, there will be no limit to man’s control over his physical universe, no limit to the growth of mankind’s science.  But, the truth is this premise is dead wrong.

There is a huge limit to scientific progress and that limit is humanity itself.  Even if science has the potential for such a huge magnitude of growth, suggested in this movie, developing such science would require a stable and prosperous earth.  Science and everything else will come to a halt if we blow ourselves up or if we despoil the earth, to the point that human life is eradicated.

The science demonstrated in “Avatar” — traveling 4.3 light years! — will only be possible if humanity itself profoundly changes.  Only an enlightened humanity can have an enlightened future.

The contradiction in the movie “Avatar” is that the human characters depicted in the movie are right out of the stereotype of Hollywood casting.  They are not enlightened  or improved humans and some are even cartoonish is their human failings of ego, hatred, self-centeredness, and avarice.  The humans in this movie are hopelessly anachronistic.  Of the far-fetched concepts in the film, the concept that the present version of humanity can arrive at such a glorious technological future is among the most far-fetched. The present version of humanity is on its way to disaster, and better technology is only hastening the inevitable end.

Humanity’s ongoing scientific revolution can save us or it can destroy us.  The limit and hope of humanity is not in our science but in ourselves. Only an enlightened humanity can avoid the certain disaster looming before it.

Posted in M Bock | 1 Comment