Howard Dean's Democracy for America is SO Wrong

I've been a member of the Howard Dean founded group Democracy for America for several years, and I've been consistently impressed with the force, vision and vigour that they add to the political discussion in America. I like their approach of prominently backing strong progressives around the country with a chance to take the fight to Republicans in tough districts, and I'm glad they sometimes challenge the Party establishment to stay honest by raising strategic primary challenges against Democrats who disappoint them. (See Specter, Arlen for an example of how a primary challenge can sometimes go to far - Pat Toomey - but on other occassions just bring the person more comfortably in line with the party mainstream - Joe Sestak.) This is, after all, more or less how Democracy is supposed to work.

But they are spectactularly wrong about health care reform.

I've supported DFA for years - and I've met Governor Dean several times and I think he's an outstanding leader and was exactly the right DNC Chair for the moment. No one is more fervently pro-healthcare reform than I am.


As background, DFA has been lobbying extremely hard for the public option to be included in Health Insurance reform. And well done, too.

But their fundamental position seems to me more based on macho posturing of the "we've given up enough, we want candy now" thinking rather than an honest assessment of what's good and bad in the current bill,. They are currently urging their supporters to call their Senators and demand that they not compromise any further on the public option.

This is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE idea.

Firstly, they seem to take for granted that the bill will pass one way or another. That's just flat out not true. We're still several votes away from the majority we need to get past the filibuster.

Furthermore, an apparently pretty constructive conversation is currently happening in the Senate that isn't just focussing on "Public Option, in or out" but is actually looking at what the public option was designed to achieve and asking whether there are any other approches that could do the same thing. Some of the ideas that are being batted around strike me as not just pointless compromises, but actually substantive policy approaches in their own right. Dare I say, some of them could even be BETTER than the public option.

Consider, for example, the idea of not-for profit insurance plans administered under tight controls from the Office of Personnel and Management. This is one idea that has been floated, and it would closely replicate the way that health care is currently delivered for Federal Government employees. Although not strictly "public" in that it would not be run by the government directly, it would have all the same cost controlling power of the government run public option. Plus, and this is the bit that interests me, it's lower risk in many ways because it replicates an existing program that we know already works.

Or, what about allowing people to buy in to Medicare? What about imposing much tighter cost controls on the private sector? What about expanding the amount of subsidies available to poorer patients? All of these things are being considered - each of them might be at least as effective as the public option. 

Or, they may not. To be sure, the public option - even in its current weakened form - may be the best option we currently have for controlling costs. But the one thing that we know for certain would NOT work is the status quo. And senators who reject a compromise out of some misguided notion of "Public Option or Else" will most likely condemn Americans to decades more of a flat out failed health system, and the Democratic Party to years in the wilderness. Deservedly so, by the way. If we screw this up we don't deserve to lead.

So I'm extremely unimpressed with DFA's current strategy.

They've e-mailed me today to ask me to call my Senator, with the following call to action:

Call your Senators today and tell them where you stand:

America stands with Healthcare Heroes who fight for a public option, not Insurance Industry Senators who care more about the insurance interests who fund their campaigns than providing every American real healthcare reform.

We're done negotiating. Enough is enough. The public option in the current Senate bill is our final compromise.

I sent them this note in their contact form.

You are wrong about this. The public option, while a good idea, is not even close to the most important part of this bill. In fact, in its weakened form, it may actually be a less powerful force for health cover expansion and cost controls than many other options that are now being talked about as "alternatives" to the public option - notably Medicare Expansion, increased subsidies and stronger market regulation. You are doing our joint cause great harm here, and a "victory" for your approach could actually make life worse for many Americans, while failure that results in non-passage of the bill could literally lead to the death of thousands and set our cause and our Party back for a generation.

Please reconsider. I'm begging you.

I'm a liberal Democrat. But am I a Liberal Democrat?

So in America, for years I've been described as a "liberal democrat" by folks who thought that was some sort of crushing insult.

This weekend, I spent a few days in the company of some folks who have gone so far as to join a party CALLED the Liberal Democrats. Who are these raging radicals?

According to Wikipedia:

They support multilateral foreign policy; they opposed British participation in the War in Iraq and support withdrawal of troops from the country, and are the most pro-EU of the three main parties in the UK. The party has strong environmentalist values – favouring renewable energy and commitments to deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Since their foundation, Lib Dems have advocated electoral reform to use proportional representation (a system which would increase their number of seats and those of other minority parties), replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber, and cutting government departments.

They are also, bless their little cotton socks, a collection of fervently keen political geeks. What the brits call "anoraks", and the Guardian describes as the "beards and sandals brigade." Personally, I found them both good company and a credible political force now that the Labour party is desperately demoralised and the Tories are faced with an economic crisis to which they have no solution.

But the weekend was also a constant reminder for me of the fundamental difference in concept between British and American politics. Politics here is much more party centered - with policy debates held at Conferences like this very much forming the basis of what the party will campaign on in the forthcoming general election (whenever it is called).

Obviously, in the States the Democrats and Republicans both have party platforms that are formed in a somewhat similar way - through resolutions passed at local and national level - but to be frank they are widely ignored by Presidential and Congressional candidates. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, obviously from a democratic-with-a-small d perspective it's bad. It would be seem sensible for party members to have some say in the policies of their party. On the other hand, we do have very open and high profile primarie in which the candidates set out their policies, so you could argue (and I probably would argue) that this is when the voters express their policy preferences in their candidate selection.

But we also have a very different political context in the USA. All three British political parties in the US would fit pretty comfortably within the US Democratic party. So a lot of the policies and approaches of the Democratic party in individual states are going to differ from each other. Therefore national policy setting at a party level isn't really going to be meaningful to folks in Utah or New York.

Anyway - it's all very interesting. A good Conference, and worthy addition to my own political education, for sure (next, I'd like to try some Labour party events...). My major complaint is the hideous, hideous yellow branding. I get that the other two primary colours were already taken, and that the Greens have a claim on the best non-primary alternative but seriously guys, against a yellow backdrop everyone looks jaundiced.

As a side note, one of the stars of the conference was our own Howard Dean, who gave a well received lunchtime keynote address. Dean and I had actually met at a drinks reception a couple days before and he was telling me his thoughts about the LibDem party ("They have a problem that is a lot like the problem my campaign had - their supporters are typically young, highly educated middle class kids. How to you reach beyond that?"). Most interesting, but to forestall any wild rumors I should clarify that the scandalous pictures posted here do not signal a change of orientation.

You can watch his speech online here.

Howard Dean in London - Photos!

As I mentioned earlier - DNC Chair Howard Dean made a real impression on his London audience earlier today. And now hot off the presses - here are a few snaps from the event.

Here he is waiting to be introduced:
















Here's our Democrats Abroad International Chair Christine Marques - fresh off the plane from Geneva - introducing the Governor:
















Here are a couple shots of him giving his speech and answering questions:




































My favorite thing about seeing Governor Dean? Well, what he said was all great stuff but I got a special kick out of his 50-state tie.

And you notice they're all blue...

Howard Dean Addresses Democrats Abroad

Today I had the rare pleasure of seeing DNC Chair and former Governor Howard Dean at an event for Democrats Abroad here in London.

Addressing a packed house of (I'm estimating) over 200 fired up US Voters, Dean was characteristically smart and passionate - a combination that is going to do our party a lot of good come November.

He spoke in his initial remarks about the importance of bringing the party together, and reminded us all that those people who supported Senator Clinton are feeling deeply hurt and personally insulted - not because their candidate lost which, as he said, we have all experienced and moved on from, but because things were said in the media that were sexist and that many women understandably took as a personal attack on themselves.

Moving into the general election, however, he convinced me that this Party has never been more ready for action than it is today. Dean's 50-state strategy has already started to pay dividends with earlier victories in statewide Secretary of State elections across the country that are going to ensure that ALL our votes are counted.

He also talked about our now fully up and running voter database that is able to target voters with detailed consumer information, and an amazing GPS system that the Obama campaign has now adopted from the DNC, that identifies target addresses in the immediate neighborhood of a potential volunteer so that our activists can maximise their effectiveness in thier local communities.

And so much more. Dean is an outstanding leader of this party, and doubly impressive to me because he has truly understood the crucial role of the voter group he was addressing today - Americans Abroad.

I've got pictures from the event, which I'll process over the next couple days so keep your eyes peeled for those.

Howard Dean Event in London - June 22nd

While I am posting about upcoming events, I should also mention a couple of other really wonderful events that are coming up, hosted by Democrats Abroad here in the UK.

1. Governor Howard Dean - DNC Chair and 50 state strategy genius - will be in London and speaking at Imperial College for Democrats Abroad on Sunday 22nd of June. Don't miss this rare opportunity to see the head of our party and find out first hand what's in across the land.
2. July 4th Picnic - Democrats Abroad's annual picnic in Regents Park will be held (slightly inaccurately) on Saturday July 5th. Don't miss this wonderful opportunity to celebrate Independence with your fellow Democrats.

And by the way, if you haven't already joined Democrats Abroad, I highly recommend that you do so - not only is it a phenomenal organisation full of wonderful people, but it also does amazing voter registration work, hosts exciting events, and will keep you informed during this crucial election cycle.

And I'm not just saying that because I'm on the Executive Committee.

Obama Bans Lobbyist & PAC Donations to the DNC

Yesterday, Barack Obama and Chairman Dean announced a bold new policy for the Democratic National Committee. In line with the restrictions he has imposed on his own campaign, as the new leader of the Democratic Party Obama has new declared that special interest money is not welcome at the DNC.

There are two important and impressive factors to note in this decision:

1) Obama has quickly and decisively set his mark on the Democratic Party. Traditionally, the Presidential Nominee becomes the de facto leader of the party, and remains so either until defeat or through the Presidency. That Obama has moved so quickly after seizing the nomination to make a significant change within the DNC shows that he is completely ready to take charge. On the other hand, he is not making change just for the sake of it - he has also indicated that he is happy for Dean to remain as Chairman, something that makes a lot of sense given the synergies between Dean's 50-State strategy and Obama's own plan to compete in a much broader swathe of the country.

2) With this move, partly a symbolic sacrifice (lobyists only contribute a very small part of the DNC's funding) and partly real pain (PACs are large givers to the party) Obama has made it clear that his expects the Party to reflect his core message - a new kind of politics, strong ethical standards and a move away from Washington insiders. He has also innoculated himself against accusations of hypocracy later on - since the DNC will provide major support to the campaign, if he had not imposed this rule Republicans could have claimed he was having it both ways.

This is an impressive start. But remember, without lobbyist and PAC donations to rely on that only leaves Barack with one remaining source of funds. You. Don't let him down.