November
27, 2005
Shava Nerad responds to Roosevelt demand letter
[This
comment by
It is *NOT* a violation of law for Jesse to use the word
"Democrat" -- it is an *alleged* violation according to the state
party. This is a red herring thrown at the Alewife, so to speak...:)
It is within Jesse's rights of political speech to comment
upon the party establishment using their name.
"Democrat" is a word and a title in the generic
sense. There is, for example, a long history of newpapers
in this state called The Bristol Democrat, The Franklin Democrat, The New
England Democrat and so on, dating from at least the 1800s. Would the
state party restrict a newspaper from using the name?
They could not, for example, restrict another state party
organization from being created called, say, the Christian Democrats or Liberal
Democrats, such as exist in the EU.
The state Democratic party does not
have a trademark on the word or title "democratic" nor do they have
any right to restrict political speech commenting on their actions. By
their own definition, a Democrat is a person who registers with the elections
folks as a Democrat. There are no dues.
Although Jesse may *not* present that the Democratic
Scorecard project is an endorsed product of the state Democratic Party, the
party did originally promote the creation of the Scorecard, and then delayed
the project in committee long enough -- according to the story I've heard from
Jesse -- that Jesse produced it himself. I have heard from many local
democrats -- at least one elected official -- that the Scorecard is a great
tool. What is the Scorecard? It's a measure of how elected
Democrats adhere to their own party platform.
Now, the party platform is a chimerical document, and in some
ways not meant for the light of day -- and that, of itself, is sort of a sad
comment on process that is true not just of
I would love to see the state party use the Scorecard as a
teachable moment to educate the public on how a political party actually *works*
-- and maybe then they'd attract more participation on these uncontested seats
throughout the state. Properly, the party organization should be vital
and experiencing a party-building renaissance with the outrage people feel in this state regarding the current
administration. However, they seem to be acting as though they are afraid
of being overwhelmed.
The Scorecard is nothing but a statistical representation of
public data on the actions of our elected Democratic officials. How can
the party presume that such a publication is *illegal*?
I can understand where they could see Jesse as a loose
cannon, as inconvenient, and as not working within their inherently
conservative party structure -- which they are obviously making more
conservative (at *least* in structure) by extending terms.
If there is no contest to posts on the committee (as there is
in much of the state) then there is no incentive to extend terms. If
there is a contest for seats -- as there is in the more progressive and dense
urban areas -- then the extension of terms has the obvious effect of
discouraging contests for incumbents. It's that simple.
I was there as an observer for the vote at the state
convention. I came to this state as a former state committeeperson from
I was shocked and discouraged at the lack of process in the
charter amendment vote. A floor count was refused from the podium for no
justifiable reason I could see. The only justification I could imagine
was that the leadership feared that they had lost quorum with the exodus from
the hall after the main business of the assembly had been accomplished.
It was because a very small proportion of the delegation
remained on the floor for this vote that your state committee people can
express such surprise at the extension of their terms. Most delegates
were long gone by the time the charter -- the "Constitution" of the
state party -- was amended to extend their terms.
It was bad process, and we will continue to pay for it as
long as the process of the party at the state level, right down to the ward
level, is not transparent and open.
In Oregon, we changed a moribund state party system to
something vibrant by making the local party groups into something more like a
properly running nonprofit -- we had well-publicized local meetings.
During election season, we had *weekly* volunteer trainings -- because that's
how many people were interested in getting involved.
This is what you can produce by creating an open
process. We were not overhauled or keelhauled by "new blood,"
as our state party seems to fear. We were re-vitalized.
Perhaps there's a lesson for
The machine politics in this state is moribund. The
party must revitalize and create an open process, or leave room for a real
party system with the energy leant to moderate Republicans and Greens to eat
away at their presumed mandate.
It's time for a sea change in the party,
locally, on the state level, and nationally -- and unless the party
embraces, absorbs -- and works consciously to *enculturate*
-- the next generation of activists, they will be self-obsoleted.It
is *NOT* a violation of law for Jesse to use the word "Democrat" --
it is an *alleged* violation according to the state party. This is a red
herring thrown at the Alewife, so to speak...:)
It is within Jesse's rights of political speech to comment
upon the party establishment using their name.