Talking points for the Alabama Dems

The following is cynical, I admit. But it’s not unfair.

This past weekend I attended an impressive campaign school by Democracy for America, a band of “progressive” shock troops for the Democratic Party. I like these people and am even giving them money.

Among the DFA’s many pragmatic teachings is the 27-9-3: a message that is (ideally) no more than 27 words long, delivered in nine seconds, and makes no more than three points. The idea is to impose discipline on one’s political speech, respecting the limited attention that most people feel they can afford to give to politics.

We were encouraged to write a 27-9-3 for our state party. And here is where my troubles began. After some thought I wrote:

The Alabama Democratic Party reconciles America’s dangerous democratic creed with the paternalistic southern tradition of hereditary governance by leading white families. This party keeps reform in check and democracy under control in Alabama, patiently waiting and hoping for the return of single-party rule in the Heart of Dixie.

I do not support, trust, or in any way identify with the Alabama Democratic Party. Of the four new acquaintances I made this weekend, two said the same thing without any prompting from me. In fact, one of them said she didn’t believe she would have signed up if she’d realized this was a Democratic Party organization rather than a nonpartisan one.

This is not to say I hate Democrats. I’ve volunteered for about an equal number of Democratic and independent or third-party candidates, and I admire some of the Democratic members of our (generally ill-starred) Jefferson County delegation to the state legislature.

But the party as a whole, from what I’ve been able to learn, remains committed to its authoritarian past, when the whites-only “Democracy” chose the state’s leaders at private suppers, presenting them to the public for Soviet-style ratification at the polls. Dissent was punished with fraud, intimidation, violence, and deadly force whenever deemed necessary. The party has grudgingly accommodated change: The words “white supremacy” were dropped from its motto in 1968. Black Democrats are now allowed their own fiefdom within the party, and one Montgomery maxim claims that Alabama already has three parties: Republicans, white Democrats, and black Democrats.

In any case, frustrated party activists know who still holds the reins of power. And the byzantine chain of command in this party, to say nothing of the legalized money laundering system we call campaign finance, does much to keep things as they are.

Republicans have been using the Democrats’ Jim Crow past as a weapon. Remember Condoleezza Rice’s words at the 2000 convention that nominated George W. Bush? Her father, she said, became a Republican “because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”

Yet Alabama Democrats have failed to disclaim that legacy. On the contrary, in 2006 they listed outspoken white supremacist Larry Darby as a candidate for attorney general. Party leaders professed to be shocked upon discovering Darby’s views, then said that their hands were tied and they had to keep him on the ballot. Yet the Alabama Libertarian Party, an all-volunteer organization, kicked him out when he tried to run on their ticket four years earlier. So which is it? Are the Democrats less competent than a pack of political amateurs, or does some portion of the party leadership actually sympathize with Darby’s aim to restore “traditional” Democratic values? If party rules prevented officials from kicking Darby off the ticket, why haven’t those rules been changed?

I have other grievances against the party, but that will do for now. Prospects for unseating the old guard don’t look promising. A viable third party is also a long shot. Just another reminder that we have a weak tradition of democracy in Alabama — somewhere behind that of, say, Indonesia.

That press conference

Coverage of tonight’s Obama press conference, as with the health care reform issue in general, has been tediously focused on political tactics and horse trading. Media consumers are being schooled to feel that reform is a prospect to be feared, as it’s bound to be expensive and is likely to make things worse.

They allow that the U.S. health care system is flawed, but the scale and focus of that critique is almost solely on cost — especially costs to businesses — and the consequences for our “competitiveness.” Because this, you see, is how grown-ups talk about public affairs: in terms of profit, loss, growth prospects, and the global marketplace.

Mark Halperin’s post at the Time magazine blog The Page is a study in this kind of trivia and misdirection. It’s a list of “ways that Obama can make news at his Wednesday press conference” — because mature adults should know that the only thing that matters in politics is how an event feeds the news cycle and sets up the next event.

Photo illustration from Mark Halperin’s blog “The Page.” (Credit: Getty)

Like so much blog discourse, the post blends faux seriousness with grade-school humor. Consider the photo illustration (shown here), in which Obama’s head is crudely pasted onto the bodies of the three network news anchors. The image is off-topic, but carries a rather pointed editorial message, implying an identity between the president and news celebrities. It’s impossible to tell, though, how that point is supposed to be directed, as Halperin’s text has nothing to do with the image.

1. Perhaps the image is supposed to be a parody of network news for a lack of impartiality.
2. Or perhaps it’s a suggestion that Obama wants to manage the news as if he were the person at each anchor desk.
3. It could be taken as a hint that Obama should aspire to that kind of identity with the media, but that it will never really happen.
4. Or it may imply that it would be ridiculous for Obama to so aspire.

I guess it means whatever you want it to mean. Just gaze, grin, and have your preconceived notions reinforced.

Then scan Halperin’s list of insider-esque predictions, preen yourself over how informed you are, and link to the post from your own blog. See, it’s easy. I just did it myself.

One possibility that is notably absent from Halperin’s list, and from almost everyone else’s: Obama could announce that he is going over the heads of Congress and the health-care industries by appealing directly to the people. After all, he has a formidable tool at his disposal: the largest, most efficient activist network in history, left over from his election campaign. If Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan could campaign against Congress, it’s not hard to see Barack Obama doing it with success.

The major obstacle? As so often, it’s the Democratic Party.

The party is devoted to two cardinal principles: keeping Democrats in office, and beating Republicans. The first principle is more important than the second. So if the party can only beat Republicans by putting incumbent Democrats at risk, it won’t do it. In fact, it will go to the mat to defend its “blue dogs,” even after they bite their president.

So Obama’s only real shot at health care reform on his announced timeline is to campaign against his own party as well as the Republicans. That’s a tall order. Our immature democracy hasn’t developed much of a capacity, compared to its peer states, for responding to the needs and concerns of the governed. What’s more, Americans are far more intimidated by our government than are the citizens of other wealthy democracies.

So even if Obama dared to rouse the public to demand action from Congress — would the public do its part? Or would we succumb to our many and varied fears?

Looking back at the “New” South

The Alabama Archives continues its curiously named “ArchiTreats” lunchtime lecture series, and I really want to drive down to Montgomery and attend the one this Thursday at noon.

For one thing, I’m a fan of the speaker, Marlene Rikard (Samford University). For another, the topic is the inescapable “New South” — a concept that was moth-eaten by 1930, yet lives on in present-day political rhetoric, as if it actually meant something. I expect that Dr. Rikard’s talk, billed as “a social and economic view” of the New South, will give us an idea of what it actually has meant. After all, the “New South” (invented, funnily enough, by some of the same people who cooked up the “Old South”) is well into its second century; in fact, its timespan conforms pretty neatly to that of Birmingham, Alabama. And Birmingham is not a young city, not by American standards anyway.

Bring a lunch, if you want, to the auditorium at 624 Washington Street, Montgomery. Drinks are provided free. Info is at (334) 353-4712 or the website.

There’s a Subway on Dexter Avenue if you want to pick something up on the way.

Radio silence

Family, work, and summer weather have taken their toll this month.

Not that I haven’t been busy elsewhere. I’ve done some commenting on other people’s sites and blogs, and rather more conversing in person. The future of newspapers has been a recurring subject, along with health care reform, the ongoing revelations about American torture (this, for example), municipal elections here in Birmingham, and what not.

I’ve been guiding a visitor from India around our fair city. I’ve also been using a pipe wrench more often than normal. So as an unlicensed plumber, I guess I’m well qualified to shoot off my mouth about national affairs. (OK, that quip is half a year past its sell-by date, I admit it.)

My other big project, besides getting a Ph.D. in history, is to try setting up an Islamic-style lending institution (i.e., one that charges no interest) in Birmingham. I have some notes to type up and distribute on the subject. Seems that a key to the success of this kind of institution is to convince people with large surplus incomes to invest some of it where they do not expect to reap a personal profit or tax advantage of any kind. Muslims call it “purification of wealth” through benevolent spending. What a radical idea!

There are quite a number of innovative ideas that have been proposed to transform, from the ground up, this crony-capitalist bubble bath that we call an advanced economy into a system of exchange that actually promotes the security and prosperity of households and neighborhoods. The Islamic system has an advantage over most of these alternatives: It has actually been practiced for centuries, in a wide range of historical contexts. What I find exciting about this subject is the prospect of an economy that is guided by simple ethical principles, that is adaptable and not centrally managed, and that encourages creative economic behavior — what we call “entrepreneurship.” So why settle for mere capitalism or socialism?