The quadrennial “reorganization” meeting of the Montgomery County Democratic Party scheduled for this June is a big opportunity for county Democrats to plan for the future. On MCDP’s To Do list — goals to accomplish before the next such meeting in 2018 — I’d like to see MCDP commit to working on and accomplishing “big picture” goals, like:

1. Connect Democrats together at the grass roots level and create opportunities for grass roots leadership and service.
2. Inspire and nurture Montgomery County young people to be engaged in the local party organization and to seek to become public servants via elected office.
3. Educate the public about the historical perspective of current public policy issues and give citizens the information they need to analyze these issues.
4. Hold the Republican Assembly and Republican Governor accountable by illuminating and making transparent how their actions impact the general good.

Big goals are seldom discussed and accomplishing such goals are never attempted by the MCDP. The reason? Working to accomplish big goals would require commitment and effort by county Democrats at a level far greater than any level of effort evidenced in recent memory. MCDP lacks the motivated workers needed to accomplish serious and important goals. For an organization is to be successful it must inspire motivation — “the general desire or willingness of someone to do something” — in its members. But, the MCDP is failing to do this.

Organizations commonly use elaborate systems of rewards and punishments as a means of “motivating” their members. Schools, for example, use grades and diplomas to push students. But, although extrinsic motivation works to accomplish minimum levels of compliance, it is the motivation that comes from within — intrinsic motivation arising from one’s values, character, and experiences — that brings the highest achievements. Volunteer organizations who support and empower the intrinsic motivation of their members are more likely to be successful than those who do not.

The power of the traditional political boss system to reward and punish is now much smaller than in previous times. Before progressive reforms, political parties controlled lots and lots of government jobs that today are non-partisan civil service jobs. The hope of getting or keeping those patronage jobs inspired many Democrats to work for the party. Also, political parties at one time had much bigger budgets than now. Today, much of the money previously allocated to political parties goes to Political Action Committees or to individual election campaigns. Resources controlled by the local party organization are relatively meager.

Political party organizations, such as the MCDP, still cling to a top-down system, and, though the group is much diminished compared to a previous age, many of the most active members of the party still hold patronage jobs.  But, it is obvious, to be successful the MCDP needs to greatly expand the membership of its active community. It needs to engage more volunteers. There is a whole group of county Democrats who are waiting to be invited into meaningful action. The current MCDP system is failing to do so.

Volunteer organizations, such as political parties, must find ways to attract volunteers and to inspire, engage and empower volunteers. In Montgomery County, there are about 35,000 Democrats who vote in every Democratic Primary, but only a tiny number of these Democrats are active within the party. If only 10% of these Democrats could become productively involved in their local party, the results would be transformative. The June reorganization meeting is a big opportunity for Montgomery County Democrats to plan for the future. If the MCDP is to become stronger and more effective, delegates at the reorganization meeting must agree on policies, goals, and restructuring that will address this key question: How Can the MCDP motivate more Democrats to make the needed effort?

John Kasich in his “State of the State” explained what drives his actions. “Just about every day,” Kasich said, “I search for what the Lord wants me to do, because I know life is short, and I know that my purpose on this Earth, whether I’m the governor or whether I’m a has-been, is to bring about a healing.”

Yesterday, the Dispatch quoted Kasich as saying, “You know what? I think we ought to get up every day and figure out how to cut taxes.”

Putting these two Kasich declarations together, it must follow, then, that Kasich believes that God wants him to cut Ohio’s taxes, and to cut taxes in a manner that brings “healing.” Fair enough. Our governor deserves the courtesy of  taking him at his word and granting that in his own thinking, Kasich wants to advance public policies that will help build a strong and healthy society.  The problem is, there are many ways to cut taxes and Kasich is advocating a strategy — an “across the board” cut of Ohio’s income tax — that advantages the wealthy and penalizes the poor. We can grant that Kasich is sincere — that he wants to build a strong and healthy society — but the “trickle down” theory of economics that has been used to defend the kind of tax cuts Kasich is advocating is now thoroughly discredited.

Ohio’s tax system already, as a whole, is regressive — as incomes increase the percentage of income paid in Ohio taxes decreases.  The chart below shows that at the lowest income level, almost 12% of the income is paid in Ohio taxes while at the highest level  only 8% of income is paid in Ohio taxes. This fact, that in Ohio those least able to pay are taxed at a higher rate than those more able to pay, would seem to contradict an important principle of “fairness.” I’m thinking that those Ohioans who understand Ohio taxes, if asked, would not choose to make Ohio’s tax system even more unbalanced — more regressive — than it already is.

Since Kasich has framed his actions as Ohio’s governor as those of a sincere believer seeking to do God’s will, it seems fair that Kasich should be expected to explain why he’s concluded that, at this time in Ohio’s history, regardless of the apparent unfairness of such an action, God wants Kasich to advance a change in Ohio’s tax system that will make the system more regressive. Kasich needs to explain how changing Ohio’s income tax to further advantage the wealthy will promote the “healing” he seeks.

Although Ohio’s income tax is “progressive” — those taxpayer with more income pay income tax at a higher rate (dark blue) — Ohio’s total tax is regressive. In Ohio, taxpayers with smaller income pay a bigger share of their income in total Ohio taxes than those taxpayers with larger incomes.

An “across the board” cut in Ohio’s income tax system, such as Kasich is advocating, will decrease the progressiveness of the system by the same percentage as the percentage of the “across the board” cut.  See this 2008 post that analyzes Ohio’s 2005 “across the board” income tax cut of 21%:  Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law Diminished, By 21%, The Progressivity of Ohio’s Tax Code.

In response to my article,  The Dayton Daily News Cut Fifty Words From The Heart Of My Article, where I suggest that MCDP needs to be transformed, Stan Hirtle asked a good question — Can I provide any model of a local political party that has accomplished such transformation?  The answer is “No. Not yet — but here is a start on a two part strategy by which such a model might be developed”

Stan, the problem you cite — “imagining a political party being anything other than bosses and insiders raising money, handing out jobs and advancing and protecting themselves” — is exactly the problem that needs to be solved.

The problem of imagining what a transformed political party may look like is a systems’ problem, and, as readers of this blog know, I like to apply W. Edwards Deming’s insights concerning systems whenever possible. To imagine a transformed system, we need to remember that every effective system has two key aspects:

1. a well defined mission and
2. an organizational structure thoughtfully designed to best accomplish that mission.

Political parties are so focused on producing winning candidates that winning seems their entire mission. The “political bosses and insiders raising money, handing out jobs and advancing and protecting themselves” is defended as a structure that works to produce winning candidates. Boss centered, hierarchical organizations are defended as being effective in reducing internal conflict, and effective in conserving scarce resources. The argument is that winning an election takes effort and discipline and that a party that is organized as a anti-democratic hierarchy is much more likely to win elections than a party that is organized as a pro-democracy deliberative assembly.

A politics of winning at any cost has led to a big increase in the distrust, cynicism and apathy within the electorate. The resulting decrease in the number of citizens who are voting has benefited the Republicans. The response of political parties to growing voter cynicism has been to sharpen and expand their marketing efforts. This further increases voter cynicism. It’s an ever accelerating cycle.

The challenge for the Democratic Party is to break this cycle by consciously transforming itself. The Democratic Party is a huge organization. It is a huge system. Every successful organization is guided by a mission that inspires and motivates. A local church, for example, does not define its mission as constructing buildings and raising a lot of money. The effort to construct buildings and raise an ever larger budget is inspired by a bigger purpose that motivates its members.

The purpose that should animate the Democratic Party must be one that transcends simply winning elections. Here is one suggestion for how the purpose / mission for the MCDP should be stated: To empower democracy to work in all aspects of Montgomery County. 

To accomplish such a mission, the MCDP would encourage the growth of grass roots democratic structures throughout the county. Brainstorming what such structures might look like is the next step. For one thing, the MCDP itself should be structured as a model of a democracy empowering organization. As I said in my DDN letter, “Democrats now are looking for a 21st century organization that is democratic and inclusive, and that welcomes them into a meaningful and connected community.” Not only Democrats would support such a transformed party, but such a party would have wide appeal to many who currently are disengaged from the whole political process.

Success for the MCDP ultimately would still be measured in terms of how many elections are won by Democrats. My premise is that an engaged, connected, empowered and informed electorate is much more likely to vote Democratic, rather than Republican and so winning elections would be a side-effect of pursuing the mission of empowering democracy to work. Here is the analogy: The mission of General Motors is to produce quality automobiles.  Making a profit for its shareholders is by-product of accomplishing this mission. The MCDP needs to focus on making democracy work — winning elections will be a by-product of such effort.

This notion that MCDP should be seen as a system guided by a mission and empowered by an organizational structure that advances the mission should provide a platform for thoughtful discussion — a good structure for imagining what a transformed political party may look like. The devil, as usual, is in the details. To help inspire discussion, I intend on continuing this line of thought with further analysis and development.