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)

Howard’s Dean’s assessment of the Senate’s health care bill is so negative, if he were a U.S. Senator, Dean says, he would vote against the bill. If Howard Dean were actually a U.S. senator, it’s hard to think that he would really stand against Sanders and Feingold, and other senators of integrity, and actually cause the Senate health bill to fail. A person with no actual power can make easy boasts.

But what Dean is accusing is disturbing, because Dean is an expert about health care and, I believe, has good motives.  Dean is obviously upset by what he sees as a big failure of the Democratic Party to craft better health care legislation. Dean’s analysis of the health bill is disheartening because what he says makes so much sense.

Dean writes, “I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.”

U. S. Senator Paul G. Kirk from Massachusetts, the replacement for Ted Kennedy, disputes Howard Dean’s stance and outlines the reasons why he will vote for the Senate health legislation.

Senator Kirk writes, “The bill before the Senate is not the bill I would write, and it’s not the bill Chairman Dean would write. It is neither perfect, nor is it the final product. But make no mistake. It is real reform, and it will provide enormous benefits to American workers, American seniors, American small businesses and American families.”

Senator Kirk outlines seven reasons to justify the claim that the Senate bill has “real reform.”

1. Real reform would create competition in insurance markets. The Senate bill does precisely that by establishing insurance exchanges that will create competition for enrollees, and by requiring that all insurers provide standardized information to consumers so that they can comparison shop for the best insurance product available at the most affordable price.
2. Real reform would redirect funds from administrative expenses to investment in quality health care benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has already found that the insurance exchanges created by the Senate bill will lower administrative costs. In addition, the Senate bill will force any insurance company that doesn’t spend enough of its premium dollars providing benefits to rebate the difference to its customers.
3. Real reform would significantly lower costs. Here too, the CBO has found that the Senate bill will reduce existing premiums for the insured, and reduce the deficit by cutting federal spending on health care. One way it achieves these savings is by finally focusing our health system so that it rewards the quality and value of outcomes instead of the quantity and volume of tests and procedures provided.
4. Real reform would improve the delivery of health care. The Senate bill contains delivery system reforms that the Business Roundtable has concluded could save up to $3,000 per employee.
5. Real reform would give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. That is precisely what the health insurance exchanges created by the Senate Bill are designed to do. These exchanges will provide competitive options to people who today have no health insurance choices.
6. Real reform would eliminate discrimination against those needing insurance based on their preexisting medical conditions. The Senate bill does precisely that, and it also eliminates insurance company policies designed to end or decrease coverage when a customer gets sick.
7. Real reform would bring transparency and accountability to the health care system when it comes to excessive salaries and insurance company profits. The Senate bill requires insurance companies to publicly report and justify how much they are spending on administrative costs relative to medical care. Insurance companies that cannot justify their premium charges will not be allowed to offer their plan in the exchange.

Sen. Kirk disputes Dean’s claim that few Americans will see any benefit under this bill until 2014, and produces a list of benefits that will kick in as early as 2010:

* Establish a high-risk pool that will give uninsured Americans with a pre-existing condition access to coverage;
* Prohibit insurance companies from dropping coverage for Americans because they get sick;
* Prohibit the imposition of lifetime limits on coverage;
* Require insurance companies to report the percentage of premium revenues that they spend on medical benefits for their enrollees, and force them to rebate any excessive costs or profits;
* Require insurance companies to provide free preventive services;
* Require insurance companies to cover dependents up to age 26;
* Provide a discount on drug costs to seniors who fall into the Medicare Part D doughnut hole.
* Provide a tax credit to small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees.

Senator Kirk concludes, “I am old enough to recall the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Each of those pieces of legislation was incomplete. There was always more to do. But each of those bills was a landmark that began the march of progress toward equality under our laws. And each created an environment in which we could continue to move forward so that our country’s laws better fit our national character and the principle of equal justice. The same is true of this bill. …”