| Page 206

The First Allegiance Of Grassroots Tea-Baggers Should Be To Make Our Democracy Work

Posted on April 16, 2009 by Mike Bock

I made it to the big Dayton Tea Party yesterday for part of the Court House Square rally, but left early. I missed the Seth Morgan finale. Big crowd. I finally found a parking spot at Democratic HQ on Wilkerson. A policeman I asked estimated the crowd at 8000 people. To get so many to show up to a rally is impressive.

Kimberly Fletcher, dressed as if for the original tea party.

I heard Kimberly Fletcher’s rousing speech. That has to be fun — giving punch line after punch line to a cheering crowd. She condemned both Democrats and Republicans. (cheer, cheer). She said the people must take back their government (cheer, cheer). She said we hired them and we could also fire them (cheer, cheer) And that was just the warm up. She was interrupted repeatedly with applause. Her speech is a good model of Tea-Bagger thinking and when it is posted on the Dayton Teaparty website, I intend on excerpting it here. The content of her ideas deserves to be discussed. Claims and complaints in her speech are reflected in the signs shown below.

Fletcher is a dynamic speaker and I’m wondering if she has political ambitions. She is founder of a conservative group called Homemakers for America. According to her bio, “Kimberly has been heard on numerous regional and national TV and radio programs including the Sean Hannity Show and her articles have appeared American Thinker and Worldnetdaily. Kimberly and Derek have 8 children and have been homeschooling parents for 9 years. They currently live in Clayton Ohio.”

I also heard an impassioned speech by Kate Burch. Her bio says she is a retired clinical psychologist and aspiring fiber artist, a mother and proud grandmother, and that she, husband and two cats live in Oakwood. Burch spoke rhapsodically about the wonders of the Fair Tax. She started her speech with a litany of questions — each soliciting an audience response: “How would you like to never pay Income Tax ever again?” (Yeah, Yes, cheer, cheer) “How would you like to decide how much tax you will pay?” (Cheer, cheer) “How would you like to get rid of the IRS?” (Yes, Cheer, Cheer)

I found myself getting ever more amused at the acceleration of the absurdity in her questions and found myself chuckling out loud at the thought of what she might say next: “How would you like to live on Sugar Mountain?” Wow. (Cheer, cheer)

This crowd was having fun. You expect a rally to hep people up to new levels of enthusiasm. But, eventually, our huge and complicated problems require rational dialogue. The speeches I heard from Fletcher and Burch were Rah Rah Rah. The underlying, but unasked, question, posed by this rally is: Can we get our democracy to work? Can we have a government of the people, for the people? Can we have a country where average citizens can share in the great prosperity of this country? Getting our democracy to work will requires a process of hard work, with many people committed to building community and to participating in authentic problem solving. Many people who now see themselves as Tea-Baggers, I’m thinking, might be won over to meaningfully participate in the long term process that building our democracy requires.

Fletcher and Burch, and other Tea-Baggers, can have an attitude to raise hell, to ridicule, to threaten. They project an attitude of self righteous assurance that they have the answers, but maybe that attitude came more from the rally setting, than their own dispositions. I heard more than one Howard Beal assertion: “We’re not going to take it anymore.” But after rousing speeches, what, really do the Tea-Baggers have in mind doing? Throwing tantrums? Marching in the streets? What if they find that 70% of Americans simply reject their point of view? Can they accept the verdict of democracy?

At the Tea-Bagger rally I heard the cheer: USA. USA. USA. The USA the Tea-Baggers want is a USA with small government, few regulations, low taxes, free market. I’m wondering if these grassroots activists, who cared enough to show up at a downtown rally, could begin to buy into a different view of the USA? Could they begin to see something more important than low taxes? How about democracy? Isn’t democracy more important than low taxes? The ascendant view of the USA, I believe, I hope, that more and more people will want to support is a view that sees the USA as a place where “the people” work together to build democracy, build community, build dialogue, build the Common Good, a USA in which everyone can lead a secure and prosperous life — not a USA where a 30% minority somehow manages to impose its will on the majority.

I saw some great signs:

Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment

Vic Harris: The Tea-Bagger Tax Protest Lacks Substance, Conservatives Lack Good Ideas

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Mike Bock

Vic Harris sent me this article. Vic’s previous post can be read here.

Conservatives around the country will conduct “Tea-bagger” protest parties on April 15th — Tax-day. Historically, the Boston Tea Party’s central complaint was not just that the British demanded a tax on tea and other goods. The complaint was that taxation was imposed without representation. Because the colonists had no representatives in the British Parliament, these taxes were viewed as tyrannical.

I’ve been wondering what the Tea-Bagger protest is all about. The modern-day Tea-baggers are fully represented in Congress. The only tea-baggers who can complain about taxation without representation are those who live in Washington DC.

The modern day “Tea-baggers” are not protesting their lack of representation. They are protesting taxes in general. Tax protest is always “red-meat” for conservatives, but, the fact is, President Obama and the Democrats have just passed the largest middle-class tax-cut in history. Let me write that again: the largest middle-class tax-cut in history. Most Tea-Baggers, I imagine, have incomes of less than $250,000 a year, so most Tea-baggers, therefore, are protesting high taxes even though President Obama and the Democrats just cut their taxes. For the rich conservatives who will watch the protests at home on the “Fair and Balanced” Fox “News,” a network that has been shamelessly promoting the events, their taxes will go up in 2010, but will still be 10 percentage points lower than they were under their Patron Saint Ronald Reagan.

Tea- baggers also protest what they see as a spread of dreaded Socialism. Conservative leaders, evidently, hope that their followers will not be able to distinguish socialism from communism. I guess they know their audience. At a Tea-Bagger rally, I can hear someone shout out the question, “Who hates Socialism?” And I can hear the Tea-Baggers predictably roar, “We Do!!!” But, I doubt any Tea-bagger will tear up their Social Security card, or refuse government Medicare payments to their grandma. These government programs, initially condemned as socialistic, are hugely popular and beneficial — even for protesters.

Tea-Baggers are also protesting government deficit spending. Conservative leaders have been carping about spending for months because of the price of the President’s Stimulus Package. But where was their protest when former President Bush took a $1 trillion surplus bequeathed him from President Clinton, and turned it into a $1 trillion deficit? Two trillion dollars gone. The dollars vanished on tax-cuts for the wealthy, expensive wars of choice and huge pay outs to drug companies. Yes, to be fair, I’m concerned about our growing national debt, but, I was also concerned about the huge debts run up by Bush. Conservatives who now talk about fiscal principles, but when they had the chance, failed to hold Bush accountable to those principles, hardly seem credible.

It seems to me that forces behind the Tea-Baggers are not really so concerned about high taxes, high spending, or the deficit. The truth is, conservatives and the Republicans who lead them have no ideas. Their message is simply one of fear. It’s a fail-safe technique: scare the hell out of the fringe in the base, spread the fear to rest of the base, and bring enough moderates along to make a majority.

But, the country has changed. The scare-tactics that worked so well for so many years are less effective in a country tired of war and uncertain of its economic future. This is a time to encourage hope and to appeal to the best in each of us. This is not a time to fear-monger or to appeal to our darkest instincts. Conservatives only chance to gain the support of the American people is to craft a message of hope, based on valid ideas. Until they can present solid ideas people can embrace, conservatives can symbolically fill all our nation’s waterways with tea and it won’t matter.

Posted in M Bock | 4 Comments

Mark Owens Says Most Montgomery Dems Approve The Party’s Suppression Of Primary Participation

Posted on April 8, 2009 by Mike Bock

Mark Owens

Mark Owens, Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Party, was the guest speaker this evening at the South of Dayton Democratic Club meeting. We had about seventeen members in attendance. Mark gave a nice analysis of elections in Montgomery County and challenges for Montgomery County Democrats in coming elections.

This past year, I’ve disagreed with the County Party’s efforts to suppress primary participation. I’ve expressed my views in Central Committee and Executive Committee meetings and offered motions to change the Party’s endorsement practices. I’ve made several posts concerning the Party’s antidemocratic actions. (See here, here, and here.)

I wanted to be polite to Mark, our guest, but I also thought it important to ask the County Chairman directly to respond to issues that, I feel, long time, loyal Democrats — as those in attendance at this Democratic Club meeting — need to be aware of, and need to discuss. In the question period this evening, in answer to my questions, Mark was unrelenting in his defense of the endorsement actions of the County Party. I was surprised to hear that in his opinion that in the matter of endorsements, the majority of county Democrats, if asked, would approve of County Party’s actions.

I said that I, personally, am very disappointed in the Montgomery County Democratic Party because of its antidemocratic actions, and that in 2010’s Party Reorganization Meeting, I would be looking to elect a Chairman who would change some of the party’s established endorsement practices.

I asked Mark if he would mind reviewing with the Club the the primary race in the 40th Ohio House District — an open seat because of Fred Strahorn reaching his term limit — between two well qualified Democrats, Roland Winburn and Victor Harris. The Selection Committee, consisting of about 25 people, urged that Roland Winburn receive the official endorsement of the Montgomery County Democratic Party. And the Central Committee, rubber stamp that it is, agreed to make the official endorsement. The Party subsequently printed handbills that were given to Democrats everywhere, including to early voters, and, at the polls on election day, showing that Winburn was the officially endorsed candidate of the Montgomery County Democratic Party. Harris made a good race, but Winburn won 56% to 44%.

Mark was gracious and said that he was glad to discuss the matter and that, in his judgment, the County Party’s endorsement of Winburn over Harris, in fact, was not an antidemocratic action — because the Selection Committee and the Central Committee were chosen democratically and made their decisions democratically. Truly, a breathtaking defense. I pointed out that in the old Soviet Union, the Politburo also decided issues by voting. But the members of the Politburo didn’t pretend their privilege to vote had anything to do with democracy. Their vote was all about who had the power and who had the right.

Mark agreed that Vic Harris is well qualified to represent the 40th OHD in the State Assembly, but, Mark said that the Selection Committee members resented the fact that Vic was a newcomer, who hadn’t paid his dues to the party; they felt Vic hadn’t worked his way up in the organization, but, felt, on the other hand, that Winburn deserved endorsement because he had contributed a lot to the local party.

I didn’t point out what is obvious. There was another big reason Harris was snubbed. Other than Winburn, the one person who gained the most by the Party making such an absurd endorsement, was Fred Strahorn, and Strahorn has a lot of pull in the party — particularly on issues dealing with OHD 40. Vic Harris was threatening to compete on Strahorn’s turf, and whereas Winburn is of an older generation, soon to be retired, Harris is the same age as Strahorn.

I’ve argued with Mark that the Democratic Party would become stronger the more it encourages democratic processes. Let the Republican Party be seen as the party of exclusion, the party of secret groups, the party of cliques, the party of hierarchy. The Democratic Party needs to stand for democracy.

The 40th OHD reliably goes 70% Democratic. Voters in this District really only have one opportunity to choose their state representative and that is in the Democratic Primary. But long time members of the County Selection Committee want to be able to make the choice of who, in this strong Democratic District, will be elected. They want only one name on the Democratic Primary ballot. These wheelers and dealers in local politics want to be able to pay back favors, reward loyal service, and punish disloyalty.

The Party has an effective technique used to suppress Democratic Primary participation. To suppress participation, the Party makes its endorsements before the deadline for submitting petitions to the Board of Elections. Potential candidates, who have already gathered enough signatures to qualify their name on the ballot, almost always withdraw when they don’t get the Party’s official endorsement. They don’t want to run against the Party, for fear that will not only lose, but that in the future, the Party will retaliate. The end result is that usually only one name is left on the Democratic Primary ballot — the endorsed candidate. Vic Harris bucked the Party and kept his name on the ballot and ran a great campaign — but he proved the rule that, even a highly qualified and dynamic candidate, finds it is very difficult to win against the officially endorsed Party candidate.

I pointed out to Mark that because Winburn got the Party’s official endorsement, Democrats in the 40th OHD were cheated of an opportunity to experience a meaningful campaign. Assured of a primary win because of the County Party’s official endorsement, Winburn refused to debate Harris. Winburn refused to have joint appearances with Harris. Why should he? The fix was in. The opportunity to elevate the process to engage Democrats in the 40th District into a meaningful discussion of issues was lost. The chance to give 40th District Democrats a meaningful choice was lost.

An official policy of discouraging candidates from running in your own party’s primary, I feel, is a despicable antidemocratic action. Obviously, others disagree. In this meeting, Mark surprised me by defending the Party’s action in the Harris / Winburn matter and by asserting that, in his judgment, the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s actions concerning primary endorsements, would be approved by most Democrats in the county. I think Mark’s idea that County Democrats would defend such practice is flat wrong. I feel that if Democrats understood the antidemocratic practices of their County Party, most would strongly object. But, at our South of Dayton Democratic Club meeting this evening, it was obvious that the group was divided about this issue.

Every four years, Montgomery County Democrats have a chance to remake their party. Every four years a new Central Committee for the Montgomery County Democratic Party is elected, and then this new Central Committee elects a new county chairperson. This happens again in May, 2010. I failed to ask Mark if he would seek reelection to the office of County Chair, but I’m thinking he probably will.

Democrats voting in the Democratic Primary in each of Montgomery County’s 548 precincts are eligible to elect one member from their precinct to membership on the Central Committee. Most precincts positions, however, go unfilled. In 2006 when Dennis Lieberman was reelected chairperson, only about 105 Central Committee members showed up at the key Reorganization Meeting to vote. (After a year, or so, Dennis resigned and Mark was chosen by the Central Committee as the new County Chairperson.)

Before the Reorganization Meeting in May 2010, the issue of whether Montgomery County Democrats should suppress Primary participation should be discussed by County Democrats. I think it is a key issue that potential candidates for the office of County Chair should address.

I became a member of the Central Committee in 2006. The first meeting I attended was the Reorganization Meeting and I was flabbergasted by the stampede to reelect Lieberman — no opposition, no discussion, no questions, no speeches. But in 2010 I hope things will be different.

As this report indicates, I probably talked too much at the Club meeting this evening. After the meeting, I greeted Mark. I told him that though I strongly disagree with his positions, I don’t want to be uncivil. Mark seems a likeable, well meaning person. But, as long as Mark holds his antidemocratic positions, I will oppose his reelection to the position of Party Chairman.