Established Systems [View all]

[H2O Man]

I think that we can all agree that words have meaning. Linguist John McWhorter points out that, over time, languages change. The Merriam-Webster dictionary frequently adds “new” words, which people my age should avoid attempting to use around our grown children and their friends. We do much better with those words with well established meanings.

“Establish” is one such word. It means to bring into existence, with a goal of creating a long-term thing. If a person opens a restaurant, for example, they hope that it will be successful and remain open for a long time. The Founding Fathers established a new nation, with the same goal.

“Establishment” is yet another interesting word. It means the hierarchy that holds the reins of control of the established group or organization. If we think of a chain of successful restaurants – say, McDonald's – its “establishment” is not the teenager or 62-year old flipping burgers. It's the business's owners.

The Founding Fathers limited the scope of those who could be part of the establishment in the new nation. Briefly, one needed to be a white male. There were some tensions within the Founding Fathers regarding further restrictions for leadership. For sake of making this slightly less tedious reading, let's turn briefly to Clinton family historian Sean Wilentz for two definitions.

The word “republic” comes from the root “res publica”-- meaning a “public thing” where the common good of all would be determined by the most enlightened, educated, and wealthy white men.

“Democracy” comes from the root “demos krateo” – meaning “rule of the people,” where the masses determined what defined that common good. The very though of the less educated, impassioned public having control of government was unpopular with enough of the Founding Fathers that the new country was indeed a republic in it's early years. Over the decades and centuries, it has become a mixture of republican and democratic institutions within the established government.

Some are relatively new, such as the military-industrial complex that Ike warned about sixty years ago. Among the new factors that determine the leadership within the country we find both private and public individuals and groups. We can see, for example, that a corporation has much more “freedom of speech” during political campaigns that do you or I. Likewise, a billionaire does.

Today's republican party has an establishment that tells its members what they think. Because their establishment is rigid, it was relatively easy for Donald Trump to high-jack its reins of control. And so long as it makes money for the opulently wealthy, they convince the base that Trump represents the American dream. Add the “greater than Lincoln,” and you have the alt-right's support.

The Democratic Party is an “establishment,” complete with a hierarchy within it ranks . That structure includes at the national, state, county, city and town levels. As a general rule, that is certainly a good thing, as it is helpful in our achieving election victories at each level. It would be mighty hard to have to create a new structure for each election, in my opinion.

The Democratic Party is not a rigid group, especially when compared to the republican party. The republican leadership tells its members what to think and how to behave. That does not happen in our party. Yet it would be foolish to pretend that there are not tensions within the party, as there always are during presidential primary season. There are times when the party deals with such tensions in a way that results in victories, and times when it fails to.

Different people – good people, Good Democrats – often interpret the causes and effects of these attempts to deal with tensions very differently. This can lead to intelligent, meaningful discussions between people who view events from, say, 1960 to the present in very different ways. That's a good thing. If we make an honest effort to really listen to others in a respectful way, human beings are capable of finding common ground.

It's useful to keep in mind that groups of people recognize three types of “leadership.” There are, of course, variations within and overlap between each group. The first, and oldest, is traditional leadership. This is closely associated with the tribal, “This is how our people have always done it” approach. While far more common before the industrial revolution, there are regions of the globe where it is still practiced.

The second type is “bureaucratic” leadership. This generally began taking root when populations increase. Thus, it first came into practice in China, when social stratification began. It came in force to America with the industrial revolution. Bureaucracy allows the largest number of people with the same problem, to get it resolved to an acceptable level. In modern America, we see how well bureaucracy can be in many areas, though not in the Department of Motor Vehicles if you bring in a unique or rare problem. It also led to the “Gilded Age.”

Within the republican party, the bureaucratic leadership reflects the stratified status of its membership. Good republicans who seek promotions know to wait their turn. The fact that Ivanka Trump has any role in the White House suggests that one need not earn a high rank, or have any talent to justify that position. This, obviously, is an example of stratification.

The Democratic Party's leadership structure is based upon bureaucratic leadership. It is also stratified (national, state, etc). It could not be otherwise, and remain functional

The third type of leadership is “charismatic.” This is rooted in a charismatic leader rising, often from the fringes outside of the bureaucratic structure. Others rise from within the bureaucratic structure, including – in the context of our party – JFK in 1960, RFK in '68, and Barack Obama in 2008. In each of these instances, the charismatic candidate was familiar with the bureaucratic structure. Their movements can create tensions within the Democratic Party.

In general, candidates within the bureaucratic structure run campaigns, while charismatic candidates lead movements. In a situation such as our presidential primaries, a contest that includes a movement competing within a bureaucratic campaign creates added tensions. The more successful a charismatic candidate is in the primaries, the greater the tensions. This has held true in numerous primary contests between 1960 and today,

These types of tensions have both positive and negative potentials. It depends upon how the party's establishment deals with those tensions that determines if the results are good or bad. For that determines how people at the grass roots level respond to what the party leaders have decided.

Among the numerous factors that must be taken into account is appealing to voters who are not members of our party. Doing this can determine the outcome of the 2020 elections. The number of independent voters appears to be growing. Some are definitely former republicans, some are to the left of the Democratic Party, some are young adults, and there are those who simply do not trust either party. Another potential group are those currently not registered, who do not see the connection between “politics” and their day-to-day lives, who could be registered by our party's volunteers

Good people can have different views on which group or groups that we need to appeal to, in order to cement victories in November. While it is very likely that the decision reached will determine the outcome of the presidential election, the truth is that there is not one “right” answer versus other “wrong” opinions. We can only speculate, and base our thoughts on how we interpret that which we consider evidence. That could actually lead to worthwhile discussions at every level of our party.

Peace,
H2O Man