Talkingpointsmemo's Theda Skocpol: True Campaign Reform, Bring People Into Politics

[flpoljunkie]

True Campaign Reform: Bring People into Politics
By Theda Skocpol - June 23, 2008, 9:32AM

Since the Obama campaign announced its intention to stay out of the public financing system for the 2008 general election campaign, there has been a lot of predictable harrumphing from editorial commentators who were strangely silent when the McCain campaign cheated in the existing system during the primaries (using it to guarantee a loan and then backing out so McCain can do unlimited spending until the convention). Most commentators have airly dismissed the Obama argument that using the contributions and energies of millions of modest donors is a better road to political reform than trying to manuever in a broken public system that has many holes and has left Democrats in the past vulnerable to variegated big-money maneuvers by conservatives.

But from my perspective as a scholar who has studied civic and political engagement in America since the 1800s, Obama has discovered the much better route to democratic revitalization. The issue boils down to Mugwumps versus popular mobilizers. A century ago, elite Mugwump reformers decided that the best way to reform U.S. governance was to get money and partisanship out of politics and promote low-key educated discussions. They opposed a nineteenth-century style of electoral and movement politics that, yes, was often corrupted by business money, but was also emotional, stirring, and popularly mobilizing. Most eligible voters turned out for elections, and most public causes were funded by millions of Americans who were supporters or dues-paying members of vast associations. People contributed in small bits to massive national efforts ranging from populism to temperance to fraternal and farmers and labor and women's associations, and they gave their energies as well as their money.

Over the past year, the Obama campaign (building on some earlier party and movement efforts) has started to re-invent classic American ways of building public movements. The Obama campaign uses the latest in Internet technogies, yet it also encourages local and state connections and links people all over the country into concerted efforts. Regular communications to citizens and local and state leaders are crucial to the effort -- just as they were to the federated associations typical of American civic life in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as I documented in my 2003 book DIMINISHED DEMOCRACY: FROM MEMBERSHIP TO MANAGEMENT IN AMERICAN CIVIC LIFE). The Key to making all of this work is to encourage regular, repeated small contributions from a vast network of citizen-supporters, and to encourage contributors to give time and mobilize their friends, too. This is a new style of electoral fund-raising compared to what has prevailed since the 1970s. But it is also a creative revival of the best of long-standing forms of citizen engagement in America.

Mugwump type reformers -- and the current public finance reformers who are their descdenants -- think that the key to good politics in America is getting money out. These reformers (I called them neo-Mugwumps in Diminished Democracy) want minimually financed elections and believe that calm discussions among educated people are the way to go; such reformers have never been interested in expanding popular involvement in politics. But the other model, the popular civic model, realizes that widespread citizen passion and engagement are more important. Getting a lot of people into politics is more important than trying to get money out. And involving millions is worth more than winning a few arguments in the editorial pages of the New York Times.

I suspect that many established elites in BOTH the Democratic and Republican party will be secretly hoping that Obama loses this fall. He is new and different, above all because he is trying to remake and revitalize American democracy. His victory, using a campaign financed by millions rather than the few, and using federated approaches to civic engagement spread across dozens of states, would signal a turning point in U.S. democracy. This victory would not solve all problems in Washington DC. But it would show the value of a classic style of U.S. democracy that energizes the many rather than just the very wealthy or the highly educated few.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/23/true_campaign_reform_bring_peo/

[mod mom]

1. Thanks for posting. As a regular reader of comments posted at TPM Muck, I have found

Ms Skocpol's commentaries to be very informative and insightful.

"established elites in BOTH the Democratic and Republican party will be secretly hoping that Obama loses this fall" This gives an explanation as to Bill and Hillary's attacks upon a fellow Dem that are now being used by the GOP against him.

[genna]

2. I think it is both and not either or

I want free media for all candidates so the little guy (does not necessarily make $100K or less, but can't raise big bucks to even enter the field) can enter into politics and let his unique voice be heard Kuccinch on the DNC side and Huckabee/Ron Paul on the RNC side.


I also want millionaires to be able to run and spend their money so the local and state economies can flourish. Mitt Romney and Mayor Blumberg (sp?) come to mind.


I want independent groups to say their peace especially when they've decided they are going to say the most racially, religiously offensive crap they can think of (I'd also like to see their contributors, donors, and staff names to be listed so we know exactly who believes this crap). That Al Gore construct of Willie Horton that was later expanded by independent Republican groups to the Kitty Dukakais debate question come to mind.


I want politicians to have to defend their contributing donations when it is obvious donors have views which most Americans find loathsome (not because I don't like radical views, but because I don't think someone should be able to pay lip service to unity and then say some of the things that Billy Graham said to Nixon in the White House without scrutiny).



This is one of my more irritating beliefs. Most of all, I want newspaper's editorial boards to have to account for their endorsements for individual candidates in that they give equal time to people who don't agree with their editorial board's candidate. Not because I think newspapers should be quiet. I think they have their place. For the little guy who is unknown and will not get equal time in the opinion or news pages, this space might serve as a way to give them an opportunity to say "hey guys I'm alive...I can be an office holder too."

[Barack_America]

3. Great article. But I've got to give Dean his props for creating this vision as well. nt

[izzybeans]

4. Skocpol is a legendary political sociologist.

"But it is also a creative revival of the best of long-standing forms of citizen engagement in America."

From the 50 state strategy and ownward I hope she's right.

[ErinBerin84]

5. haha, MSNBC just reported that McCain "launched a new web ad"

attacking Obama on public financing, filled with the dramatic "He BROKE HIS WORD!" I'm sure that the MSM will be giving this web video plennntttyy of free time. Is it time for an ad pointing out McCain's hypocricy on this issue? God, the MSM couldn't wait to get the public financing issue back front and center into their talking points. Their top three "MSNBC" stories are the web ad about public financing, Bill Clinton saying he is committed to Obama, and Obama campaign revoking their new seal. So, the seal is more important than Charlie Black, predictably.