Democratic Party – RI Future

July 21, 2016July 21, 2016

Regunberg leads DNC effort to end superdelegates

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI state Representative Aaron Regunberg is going to the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee on Saturday with a mission: eliminate “superdelegates” in future elections.

“As I have spoken with fellow members of the Rules Committee about ending superdelegates,” said Regunberg, who is a DNC Rules Committee member, “I have been blown away by the passionate response. It is clear that this is an issue that committee members, delegates, and rank-and-file Democratic Party voters across the country care deeply about. I look forward to the debate beginning in earnest in Philadelphia this Saturday, and to voting on this important issue.”

According to Wikipedia, a superdelegate “is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention “pledged” delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party’s presidential nomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate who did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.”

The Rules Committee will meet on Saturday, July 23rd at the Philadelphia Convention Center. If the amendment secures the vote of a majority of the committee it will be sent to the full convention with a recommendation for adoption. If it secures support of just 25 percent of the committee, then a minority report in support of the measure can be offered to the full convention. The amendment already has over 25 percent of the committee signed on as cosponsors.

Fourteen national organizations are supporting the effort, including Center for Popular Democracy, Courage Campaign, Credo, Daily Kos, Demand Progress/Rootstrikers, Democracy for America, MoveOn, National Nurses United, New Democrat Network, The Other 98%, Presente, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, and Social Security Works.

“If we want a Democratic Party that leaves Philadelphia next week as fired up as possible,” said Regunberg, “I can think of no better move than to get rid of superdelegates and prove that we are, in fact, committed to democracy and diversity and that we value the will of the people over the interests of the well-connected few.

“These values are not reflected in our current superdelegate structure. Right now, unpledged delegates – party insiders who can vote however they please, regardless of the will of their state’s voters – have as much weight in our nominating process as the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined!

“That means that in future contests, they could very well overturn the most important political decision our party’s voters get to make. And even when they don’t end up tipping the balance, the mere existence of superdelegates adds to the perception among many voters that the political system is rigged. Why force any nominee to carry that albatross in the future, when the problem can be so easily resolved?”

April 5, 2016April 5, 2016

Rep Coughlin: Democrats ‘pandering’ on marriage equality

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Representative David Coughlin, who represents District 60 in Pawtucket, ran unopposed during his first election, becoming a state rep with just 725 votes during the 2014 Democratic primary. As a first year legislator he has been a reliable vote for Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s agenda. Coughlin voted for the truck tolls, Tiverton gambling and the subpar minimum wage increases passed last year.

So it was with some surprise that I received an email from a reader containing a screenshot of a Facebook post from Coughlin that seemed to indicate a willingness on his part to break ranks with the Democratic Party over marriage equality. Coughlin’s District 60 predecessor, Elaine Coderre, was a co-sponsor of the marriage equality legislation that ultimately became Rhode Island law.

Coughlin shared a link to a Washington Post piece entitled, “Republican National Committee reaffirms its opposition to same-sex marriage” and wrote:

My recollection is my Democratic Party barely squeezed out a majority of the popular vote last November. If the leadership keeps pandering on this issue they may find a conservative element of the party changes allegiances giving the Republicans a very solid majority next time around.”

Coughlin’s post seems to indicate that the Democratic Party position on marriage equality is “pandering” and that conservative Democrats might bolt the party over this issue and become Republicans.

I emailed Coughlin and House Communications Director Larry Berman for clarification. I wanted to know if Coughlin considered himself part of the “conservative element” of the Democratic Party and if he supports marriage equality. One also wonders if Coughlin would be willing to change allegiances and switch to the Republican Party, as did Representative Karen MacBeth last week, over this or other conservative social issues. His Facebook post seems to indicate that he might.

Coughlin and Berman declined to respond to my emails.

March 8, 2016March 9, 2016

When did we become a cautiously optimistic country?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This presidential election cycle has me a bit confused, especially on the Democratic side. It seems that many of our leaders have forgotten that we are a nation of revolutionary ideas.

I’m a millennial who enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2001, emboldened by the fervor of unity that swept our country after the 9/11 attacks. Mix the boundless ego of a Marine with an 18-year-old’s propensity for taking risks and it seemed all things were possible.

But you don’t need to be a Marine to believe that we’re capable of big things. Any entrepreneur worth their salt has pushed the envelope with an almost irrational belief in their capacity to make big things happen. Most of us know what it’s like to be a young child with limitless curiosity, a hunger to explore, and a fearlessness to peer into the unknown.

It is that fearlessness and vision that gave birth to a revolution, one that would shape the future of the world. It was our revolution and it happened not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

The story of America isn’t a fairy tale. The men who created it weren’t gods, they were human. When did we become so timid about big ideas?

We created a self-governing republic that was unlike any other that came before it. This is our history. And the people who led this revolution and the people who fought this revolution were not super human. They were finite, they were flawed, but they were courageous.

America desperately needs a John Adams, a Jefferson. It desperately needs a people so belligerently unaccepting of social injustice that they rise up with their vote, their voice, and their aspirations.

No matter the cause of our sleepy abdication of power, we are still a self-governing republic. No matter the influence of big money, our vote cannot be bought. And there are still big ideas worthy of our history.

Ideas like making healthcare a civil right, converting our energy system from fossil fuels to renewables, and ending a corrupt campaign financing system that reduces our politicians from statesmen to frenetic fundraisers.

We didn’t draft the Declaration of Independence thinking, “Nothing will ever change anyway, why even try.” Men and women didn’t sacrifice everything they had on earth saying to themselves, “Freedom would be really awesome, but it’s not pragmatic or realistic.”

Stop being so cautious America. If there’s anything about who we are as a people that we can agree on, it’s that we’re revolutionary. Start acting like it.

July 22, 2015July 23, 2015

Building an independent left workers’ movement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

James Patin, of Worcester Socialist Alternative and recently returned from Seattle, delivered his impressions of the reelection campaign of socialist city councillor Kshama Sawant as she fights to retain her seat after having been instrumental in passing a $15 minimum wage in that city, something critics claimed could not be done. Patin spoke in the Worcester Public Library at a public discussion on the rise of socialist candidates in the United States and the possible impact of a Bernie Sanders campaign on building an independent left workers’ movement separate from the Democratic Party.

Patin explained that in all of her campaigns, Sawant accepted no corporate donations. The average donation to Sawant runs between $40 and $50, as opposed to an average of more than twice that for other city council candidates in Seattle. Candidate Sawant has the highest number of individual donations in the state of Washington. Sawant has accepted a salary for her elected position of only $40,000 a year, an “average worker’s salary,” and gives the rest to charity.

During her first two years in office Sawant has lead the successful fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 in Seattle, fought to stop evictions and institute rent controls with an eye towards affordable housing for all, and helped pass a resolution to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

For her next term in office Sawant is seeking to bring municipally funded broadband to the entire city, deliver on rent control and increase taxes on the rich. One of her opponents has already spent $60,000, in one week, to beat her. The “two corporate parties” said Patin, are campaigning hard against Sawant, and they seem to have unlimited money to do so.

The two party system is the problem, said Patin, and no one candidate, not Sawant, not Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, and not even socialist-independent turned Democrat Bernie Sanders is going to be able to challenge the system in a meaningful way by themselves. The accomplishments of independent candidates are temporary and limited, said Patin, state and federal forces will overturn or sidestep gains made by independent candidates.

The key to change, Patin believes, is not about electing an individual but about creating a mass movement. Democrats, like Republicans, are owned by the billionaire class. Sanders is calling for a political revolution against the billionaire class, but he’s doing so from within the two party system controlled by billionaires. It seems a recipe for failure.

Kshama_Sawant_at_University_Commons_Groundbreaking — Kshama Sawant (from Wikipedia)

It is the position of Socialist Alternative that Sanders cannot win the Democratic primary. Many in the room foresee a Jesse Jackson moment where Sanders will take his grassroots mass movement and hand it over to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton after the primary. This is one reason why Socialist Alternative is not endorsing Sanders. They want him to run as an independent, free of the two-party system.

Patin was no more hopeful for the prospects of Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Stein, like Sawant, has declined corporate donations (though the Green Party accepts them) but Stein, says, Patin, is “boring.”

[Note: Tony Affigne, of the Green Party of Rhode Island, contests this. He sent me the following note:

“To the contrary, the Green Party does not accept corporate donations, and never has.

“From the Green Party of Rhode Island’s donations page:

“‘The Green Party really is different- we don’t accept corporate money. In Rhode Island, where money seems to dominate politics, the Greens are the only party that accepts no contributions at all from corporations or corporate PACs. We rely entirely on small donations from people like you. Please make a donation today!’

“From the national Green Party’s donations page:

“‘Corporations are not people. The Green Party of the United States and its candidates only accept individual contributions from real people. People like you. Please donate today.'”]

In the discussion that followed Patin’s talk, moderated by Socialist Alternative member Alex Rothfelder, the consensus of the room was that it’s not about the candidate, it’s about the movement. So for now, they are not drinking the Sander’s Kool-Aid. For these socialists, elections are not about effecting political change, they are opportunities for mobilizing large numbers of workers towards the goal of enacting meaningful socialist reforms.

Then again, there’s no denying the force of the personality of Kshama Sawant. As much as it’s “not about the candidate,” Sawant is a powerful speaker who exudes a charisma that makes it very much about her, as much as she might try to deflect it.

I wrote about Kshama Sawant when she spoke ahead of last years climate march here:

Fighting climate change will require radical economic solutions

September 14, 2012September 15, 2012

One Dem Party That Donna Perry Doesn’t Understand

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Logo of the RI Democratic Party

First, right off the bat: anyone who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” is already showing their ignorance of the Democratic Party. You should still read their arguments, but chances are, they’re going to be off-base. And that’s what Donna Perry’s column in GoLocalProv is (the URL says Julia Steiny for some reason).

Ms. Perry tries to set up a scenario of a polarized RI Democratic Party; a “traditional apparatus” Democratic Party under the command of Chairman Ed Pacheco and another “union-social liberal” Democratic party, with NEARI’s Bob Walsh as leader (because, why not, that works). Ms. Perry’s scenario breaks down almost immediately, though she muddles through to the correct conclusion arrived at by the wrong route (that Democratic Primary results “lacking a narrative,” as WPRI’s Ted Nesi put it, are likely to continue). As Ms. Perry points out, there were a number of races where unions and marriage equality supporters worked for different candidates. If Mr. Walsh is to be the head of Ms. Perry’s fictional second Democratic Party, he seems to be doing a piss-poor job of it (no offense meant, Bob, but get your fictional party in line).

Ms. Perry points to two races for Senate; Maryellen Butke vs. Gayle Goldin and Mike McCaffrey vs. Laura Pisaturo. In the interest of space, I’ll focus solely on the former.

In Ms. Perry’s telling, Ms. Butke the marriage equality and education reform “powerhouse” is defeated by Ms. Goldin the union-chosen candidate. This faux narrative completely ignores the fact that Ms. Butke, despite gobs of cash, ran a confusing campaign that both bashed the Democratic Party and retiring Senator Rhoda Perry, and then tried proposing that Ms. Butke was the true “progressive successor” to Rhoda Perry. One mailing had Ms. Butke’s happy campaign on one side, and an attack piece on Ms. Goldin in mock Goldin colors on the other. The attack piece attempted to tie Ms. Goldin to policies she had nothing to do with, citing sources that make zero mention of Ms. Goldin; including one of Mr. Nesi’s blog posts that simply pointed out that the ultimate cost of the $75 million 38 Studios loan guarantee was closer to $112 million.

On top of this, Ms. Perry neglects to mention that Senator-elect Goldin isn’t exactly any kind of right-wing ideologue; she’s worked for an organization that wants to eliminate gender inequity and implement social justice! Oh, the horror! How could liberal Providence East Side Democratic Primary voters dare choose Ms. Goldin? In essence, there wasn’t much difference between the candidates, and Ms. Butke’s semi-negative campaigning was not effective (though she was quite energetic).

Ms. Perry has made the mistake of thinking of groups as monolithic. She’s done well in beginning to not think of the Democratic Party as monolithic. But now she’s gone and begun thinking of her fake “two Democratic Parties” as being monolithic. Or social liberal or union voters as monolithic. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you always vote for the louder marriage equality candidate. Just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean you’re going to vote the way the union tells you.

The Democratic Party in Rhode Island is not really under the control of anyone. It is a large-scale coalition of disparate groups. You can’t make blanket assumptions about any one group within that coalition. They range from various unions (unions often work against one another), environmental groups, farmers, various minority communities, LGBTQ activists, internet freedom activists, anti-poverty crusaders, pro-life activists, education reformers, corporate leaders, lawyers, neoliberals, etc., etc. Heck, even though he lost, ALEC Democrat Jon Brien is still very much part of the Democratic Party of Rhode Island.

If there is a narrative from primary night, it’s that the Democratic Party is shifting left. Unions and marriage-equality supporters didn’t really lose any ground, they only gained it, knocking off a number of their opponents. Yes, they didn’t win everything, but then, no one does. They all won under the Democratic Party banner, which should be pleasing to the Democratic Party (a displeasing result would be a large organized mass of union and/or social liberal candidate running as independents and not participating in the primary). David Cicilline absolutely crushed Anthony Gemma, which should make many Democrats smile. Going into the general election, Democrats are going to have quite an advantage, with higher turnout rates to support President Barack Obama.

So, no, Ms. Perry, as much as you, or I, might wish it, there are not three parties in Rhode Island. There’s one. It’s called the Democratic Party. It runs the state. It’s in charge. It screws up, it succeeds. How powerful is it, you might ask? Well, let’s see why I didn’t count the Republican Party as a party.

Take a look at the first television ads for Barry Hinckley and Brendan Doherty. They’re only 30 seconds each (and rather benign), so it’ll only take about a minute. Notice anything? Both candidates use the phrase “both parties” when talking about who to blame for America’s economic situation. Both fail to make use of the color red, strongly associated with Republicans, instead opting for blue (strongly associated with Democrats). And most damning of all? Neither mention their party affiliation; only Mr. Doherty shows it (barely) onscreen, I assume because of law forcing him to show that the National Republican Committee helped pay for the ad. That should tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in Rhode Island.