In terms of national politics at least it’s almost certainly more effective than voting for a third-party candidate who has no feasible path to victory.
If people want to back third-party candidates at the state and local level until one or more of them gets enough organization and momentum to get national office, great. But for now voting Green/Libertarian/whatever for President in 2020 is a meaningless gesture that doesn’t do anything to help anyone.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. With more time to myself, half a mind to attempt the demimonde of a freelance creative career again, and the elections ramping up, I wonder if anything I could say or do would have an impact all considered. That’s probably different from you because from what I can tell you have a way better grasp on strategic thinking and political philosophy. What i do have is a lot of experience with a couple of marginalized communities in the area though, what I lack is… everything else and the sense that I could accomplish anything besides frustrating myself? So I question whether it’s even viable as a thought experiment.
You can spend a lifetime doing this, and it will always feel like you are getting nowhere, but that is an illusion: without this effort the political shift would be relentlessly rightward instead of the ever-so-incrementally leftward movement we’ve actually seen over time.
The Democratic party structure is actually pretty bottom-up, and everyone who shows up to campaign headquarters to work has as much influence over policy as 1000 people who stay at home tweeting. Even more if you are in a very red state, which is why the Party tend to be so progressive in places like Iowa.
I’m actually a Bernie fan, but depending on how the primaries before my state are going I’ll probably vote for Warren if it doesn’t look winnable for old Bern, because I’d rather Warren go up than Biden or some other milquetoast.
We’re not all evil 
I find the idea that they are the same to be a wilfully obtuse deflection employed by centrists to avoid confronting the catastrophic foulness of the Democratic party.
The left criticism of the Democratic party is not, and never has been, the claim that both parties are exactly the same.
But it is entirely possible for two things to be (a) not identical, and (b) both catastrophically bad.
America has two parties, both of which are corrupt, murderous, plutocratic and racist. One of them is subtle and devious, the other is blatant and crude.
Neither of them are forces for good in the world. One party offers a slightly slower and more polished catastrophe than the other, but neither party offers a path that is consistent with justice or long-term survival.
There are harm minimisation arguments in favour of voting for the slower evil, although those arguments are not themselves unassailable. There are also arguments in favour of continuing attempts at reform/subversion within the existing party structures. But those arguments do not imply that it is a wise course to deny the reality of the situation.
Most of the left has not yet abandoned electoralism entirely. But very many people are justifiably on the verge of doing so, and half of the country was already there long before Trump arrived.
Fortunately, electoralism is not the only means of pursuing political change.
I thought it was clear that I was speaking of the party establishment rather than the laity.
is there a companion/ opposite term to “no true scottsman”, like “all true scottsman”? LOL
sorry, We’re gonna have to agree to disagree in large part on this. I don’t love all democrats, the right leaning ones especially. I’m guessing I’m personally more in line with your politics if we really get down to it. I just ain’t ready to abondon ship yet. Especially this early in the primaries. A lot can happen.
I’ve been in the Party for decades and I don’t know what this means. If you mean the titled national leadership, people like Tom Perez and Michael Blake, are corrupt, murderous, plutocratic and racist, then it is patently false. If you mean the state and local leadership, there is no difference between “laity” and “establishment”. The Democratic Party is a grassroots organization, and if you show up and lend a hand there is every possibility you will find yourself with some kind of local job and a ticket to the state convention.
No, it isn’t. But even speaking of the ‘party establishment’, declaring the party leadership “corrupt, murderous, and racist” is factually incorrect. But as you were speaking of the Democratic Party, who you deemed corrupt, murderous, and racist, that’s quite an insult to lots of people.
Eyeroll-inducement attained.
I don’t know what else one could call an organization where anyone can join and where leadership is determined through an upward filter starting in neighborhood groups.
the democratic party is oldest continuous running political party in the world.
i think, while in theory, it could be shaped by the efforts of grassroots organization, it doesn’t exist just to address particular issues or constituencies – but also to maintain its own existence. ( that can be a good thing: like when it mophed from the party supporting slavery and racial segregation to the party it is today. but, it took time. )
the primary ( no pun, i swear ) issue is the dnc. it shapes the party’s platform, fundraising, favored candidates, etc. the dnc does have some 400 elected members, but to be eligible you’d have to work within the framework of its rules and charter. you’re not going to see a radical takeover by some concerted grassroots effort – it’s designed against such efforts.
( and that’s not even considering the people who’s whole career is dedicated to working with the dnc. there’s internal dynamics which maintain a certain status quo regardless how what some elected chairperson, etc. wants. )
in a way, organizations with rules achieve a life of their own. they can only bend ( or brake ) in certain ways. if it were otherwise, they’d have no staying power as an organization. they really wouldn’t even have enough identifying features so that people could commonly talk about them.
it’s worth trying to change the democratic party. and it will change ( or die. ) but it’s not particularly reflective of grassroots interests. it’s more like a blend between monied interests and popular interests, and the money side has a pretty big thumb on the scale right now.
[ edit: after the trumpocalypse there was this statement:
We are making grassroots organizing part of the fabric of the DNC. The DNC will be restructured with a large mobilization team, full-time organizers on staff to engage directly with grassroots movements across the nation.
This will be the most aggressively unified programs that has ever been attempted. It will become the foundation upon which we will build campaigns of the future.
May 18, 2017 DNC Memo on Restructuring.
so, in theory they are trying. but the proof remains in the pudding. ]
I can only speak from my own limited experience of 50+ years of political activity.
the primary ( no pun, i swear ) issue is the dnc. it shapes the party’s platform, fundraising, favored candidates, etc. the dnc does have some 400 elected members, but to be eligible you’d have to work within the framework of its rules and charter. you’re not going to see a radical takeover by some concerted grassroots effort – it’s designed against such efforts.
The party platform changes every cycle, and is driven by the rank-and-file membership. The candidate selection process has changed frequently over the years, though not always driven by the rank-and-file (as the 1968 reforms were); sometimes, their goal is to solve problems seen in earlier cycles (this is what has been behind the frequent retooling of the superdelegate system).
A large fraction of the “elected DNC members” is chosen from below, ultimately from the district/neighborhood members. In fact, in many districts it is hard not to get sucked into being a representative to the county level, which feeds the state level, which feeds the DNC.
in a way, organizations with rules achieve a life of their own. they can only bend ( or brake ) in certain ways.
This is certainly true, but it doesn’t mean that the party isn’t a grassroots organization. Unlike, say, the Greens (which have variously been an autocracy and a cult of personality, and can choose candidates on a whim), the Democratic Party is subject to the normal inertia of a large representative system with many members.
oh sure… blame us 
i hear you. maybe it’s just that people are so disaffected ( or so busy making ends meet ) that the entrenched direction prevails. but i don’t buy that as a complete answer.
why, for instance, does the party hierarchy still not match the diverse make up of their constituencies? to me, that’s a clear sign that the “in club” is using their club to hold power.
it also seems there’s been a group-think that trending rightward as clinton v1 did was good. that those are the candidates within the dnc and the democratic party as a whole who get funding. despite actual popularity and grassroots efforts. that difference belies actual grassroots organization at the dnc
it’s not to say there’s no responsiveness to local organizing. it’s part of why the democrats are clearly better than the republicans. but there does - to me - seem to be something to the idea of “party elites.” it’s part of why clinton v2’s campaign was able to coordinate with the dnc before she had the nomination. top down selection, rather than bottom up.
If you look at the current set of DNC officers, it is really a pretty diverse bunch.
As for our elected representatives, some of that is an age thing. As our elected representatives and congresslizards retire and/or lose elections, they can and will evolve into a group that is more reflective of our population.
I hear you on this. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and some others on the DNC grossly, grossly violated the trust of her office, and let down every member of the Party, whether Sanders or Clinton supporter, during that election. When someone abuses office like that it is infuriating, and you can certainly blame the organization for not having enough built-in checks on authority, but I think it is reasonable to give the new broom a chance to sweep clean.
Now, there are other major sources of inertia that superficially look like part of the Party, namely the DCCC and the DSCC. These organizations, D-trip especially, keep finding new ways to be despicable, and I can’t understand why anyone who is not a sitting legislator supports either of them in any way. People pretty commonly think they are the same thing as the “party establishment” or “party leadership”, which is one reason I wish the Party would ask them to stop using the “D” in their names.
No transcript yet, but this is worth a listen:
This fills my heart with joy. Or possibly schadenfreude, which I guess is close enough these days.
