- A case can be made that Donald Trump may have irrevocably tainted the Republican Party as a party of exclusion and nativism, permanently alienating Latino, Asian-American, black, and even younger white voters. But as the California example shows, demography is not destiny. Coalitions are built, not born, and they do not come into being overnight. Local activists worked for years to transform nonvoters into voters and California Democrats into a more inclusive party.
Nor, if a newly galvanized Democratic coalition emerges, will its path toward a national congressional majority be smooth. The road from Prop. 187’s passage to the state’s Democratic supermajority in 2012 was littered with losses. There were successful initiatives to ban affirmative action and bilingual education. There was Gov. Gray Davis’s recall and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who had not only supported Prop. 187 but who brought Pete Wilson, the man most associated with the law, into his campaign. Schwarzenegger, now Trump’s replacement as host of The Celebrity Apprentice, won 31 percent of the Latino vote, an early indicator of how celebrity and outsider candidacies can scramble voters’ response to party ID.
What’s more, the Democratic Party in California was starting, in the 1990s, from a stronger position than the national Democratic Party today. By the 1990s, California was no longer solidly under Republican control. Yes, there were still plenty of Republican officeholders in the state, but Bill Clinton won the state in 1992, and the Democratic Party was winning more and more state-level seats. That is not the case with the national Democratic Party today, which, with some exceptions, has been decimated at the local, state, and national level.
Still, the Prop. 187 fight does provide clues for how the Democratic Party can build durable coalitions in the coming years. The focus should be intensely local, with community leaders spearheading efforts in citizenship training, voter registration, and political activism. As in California, that work should focus not just on the biannual ballot box but on organizing those local communities, through sustained activism, around a shared set of values and policy preferences.
And perhaps more relevant: Democrats won in California not by coddling the racial fears and prejudices of white native-born Californians but by building a broader coalition that recognized and responded to Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, and immigrants within the state. That is an important detail, given the debates coursing through the national Democratic Party today about which demographic groups should be courted, and how.
I've been trying to think of a good response to this all day, ever since you pointed this article in my direction. I got nothing. I'm trying so hard to be optimistic about this shit. So, so, so damn hard.
It feels like all we have at this point is $20 in our bank account, some loose change in the couch, rent is a week overdue, and our irresponsible roommates are nowhere to be found.
At this point, I'm pretty much fed up with politics. I'm ready to look for the articles about how to fix things. Progressive, conservative, I don't give a shit. I just some people with real vision and a real goal to positive, healthy, fruitful results. Government or no.
I feel you. I was one of the first thousand signatures on Moveon.org back when it was just a petition.
Things were fine until I volunteered for the Kerry campaign.
It took until Obama's 2nd term before I so much as gave the ACLU my email address again.
I helped get George HW Bush elected; he is the last Republican for President to win the state. I was still in CA at the time. Then I went Perot and was one of the volunetters pounding on doors in SoCal. Missing in that article is any mention of Perot and the "volunteers" who were left all looking at each other when Clinton won. I'm really REALLY interested in how many of those folks turned and worked to get better Democrats elected. Same time frame as well 1992 to 1994. By '94 I was living in my car wondering if I was going to make it to 2000 and dropped out of politics and all I can recall is the Republican take over of Congress, that won everywhere but California. This was the election that got Sonny Bono into Congress and that is all I remember from that time frame.
Im curious what did moveon look like at its orgins? Did is start off as an organic grass roots movement before it got subverted by the democratic establishment (much like the tea party was). Or was it always a party organized movement that came straight from the democratic establishment.
http://web.archive.org/web/19981212015742/http://moveon.org/
Moveon wasn't "subverted by the democratic establishment" it's that it has been, from its very inception, a protest against Republican bullshit.
I honestly don't know how any Democrat who lived through Whitewater and Lewinsky could ever vote Republican.
Ok that's the petition its interesting that started it all. But what about the community and the movement that sprung up around it. By the time I learned about moveon it was already a huge political force campaigning hard for the democrats in the Kerry/Bush election with very vocal public personas endorsing it. It was the super liberal wing of the democratic party at that time much like for a time the Tea part was the super conservative wing of the republicans.
The best info I can find is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org#History which makes it seem like it was started by some well connected silicon valley types. That seems like an incomplete picture though so thats why I'm curious if you have any additional insight on how it grew and developed.
You could have clicked the "main article" link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MoveOn.org
A petition is a mailing list.
You sign the petition; you give them your email. This was MoveOn.org's real genius; they were effectively the first online petition. Now you've got the email addresses of several million people pissed off that despite the public unpopularity, we still had to deal with a fucking Clinton impeachment.
- According to Blades, "Then two weeks after the November 1998 election, Congress went ahead and voted to impeach. When you become active in the system and communicate to your representatives, and they don't vote in accordance with your values, your next responsibility is to support candidates who will. All of a sudden we were signed up until 2000."
So now you've got a group that tried a petition and failed, so it's time to do something else.
- In early 1999, MoveOn continued to pursue bipartisan appeal, recruiting GOP moderate Larry Rockefeller, a New York environmental attorney and heir to the Rockefeller fortune, as the public face of a "Republican Move On" aimed at mobilizing anti-impeachment Republicans. As the 2000 elections neared, however, the organization gravitated toward the Democratic Party.
So now you've got a party that apparently cares fuckall about the largest online protest group so far.
And then you've got the Bush recount. And then you've got Enron. And then you've got Worldcom. And then you've got the Iraq War. And the hits just keep on coming. So it's not like they're an organization of the Democratic Party. It's that the Republicans have been so consistently callous for so long that there's very little point in making a stink.
See, I know you want to think that those evil Democrats subverted the process here or some shit. But listen to me closely:
Nearly everyone who uses a computer is smart enough to figure out that your party exists to empower evil sacks of shit.
- See, I know you want to think that those evil Democrats subverted the process here or some shit. But listen to me closely:
Nearly everyone who uses a computer is smart enough to figure out that your party exists to empower evil sacks of shit.
Let agree to keep personal attacks out of this or lets drop it altogether. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had on how Move-on became the political force it is today and evolved from a petition to a prominent section of a major political party. I think you might have some interesting insight on that. I might have some insight on how the tea party evolved to become a smoldering inferno of BS that i could reciprocate with. If you dont want just want to use this as an opportunity accuse me of supporting the new evil emperor, sorry no dice didn't vote for the guy and live in a state where my presidential vote does not count.
Dude. Three times now you've put forth the notion that obviously MoveOn is a tool of the Democratic Party despite me providing you examples. I mean, they endorsed Bernie Sanders with 72% of the vote. You've also kept insinuating that the Tea Party was never not a dumpster fire. The Tea Party was ostensibly about being pissed off at TARP but the difference between MoveOn and the Tea Party is MoveOn has always been about Reform and the Tea Party has always been about Fox News.
Your party exists to empower evil sacks of shit. If you're taking that personally, you should find another party.