By Stephen Dinan
A very interesting
chess match is developing at the progressive edge of the Democratic Party,
far more interesting from a strategic standpoint than debating the minor
differences between the platforms of the two Johns.
The composite "John platform" is a middle-of-the-road Democratic
platform. It is loyal to the existing power structures with just
enough change rhetoric and populist messaging to keep people engaged.
It feeds off the fear of the Anybody But Bush camp and is
poll-driven since it doesn't want to alienate anyone in the middle of
the party. Both Johns seem to be good men but they are also more typical
politicians. Let's call them the Rooks since they are powerful and
linear and represent the existing powers.
The progressive platform is represented by Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Al
Sharpton. This platform is willing to challenge the Iraq war on
fundamentals, argue for much stronger political reforms, champion
universal health care, advocate for gay marriage, and a variety of bolder
changes to the status quo. As the more veteran legislator, Dennis
Kucinich's platform is better developed, but he and Sharpton are mostly
on the same page. Let's call them the Horses since they are great
for surprise maneuvers, long-term strategy, and non-linear positioning.
It was almost uncanny how the two groups paired off during the CNN debate,
with Edwards taking every opportunity he could to touch Kerry on the
shoulder or joke with him while the progressive candidates were shunted to
the back of the table, with Kucinich almost off the set entirely. When
the progressive candidates were given the floor and not merely asked why
in the world they were still in the race, they gave refreshing,
insightful, bold, and even funny answers. There was a palpable camaraderie
between them and Kucinich and Sharpton demonstrated their ability to think
outside-the-box, just like good Horsemen.
A telling moment came when Larry King asked everyone whether they would
support a constitutional amendment to allow non-native citizens to run for
president. Neither John could come up with an answer at first,
saying they hadn't thought about it. Then Sharpton made a great quip.
And Kucinich gave a thoughtful, principled answer. For me,
this was a defining moment, watching how the carefully groomed candidates
couldn't go off script, whereas the progressive end of the table could.
The Rooks could only move straight ahead whereas the Horses could go
off in unique directions.
This confirms what political beat reporters have been saying: it is dull
to cover the Johns, since they are relentlessly on message. You get the
same linear, speech-in-a-box each time. With Kucinich and Sharpton,
you're always going to get a surprise.
Now the Horses would probably not stand a chance of being taken seriously
by the Democratic Grand Masters except that a new piece has been brought
onto the chess board: Nader. Conventional politicos and
Anybody But Bush fanatics are very angry about this and are trying to get
people to ignore him or shame him. But regardless of where we stand, that
chess piece is now on the board. We'll call him a Bishop since he
always moves at diagonals to the status quo.
My sense is that Nader is mainly in this game to leverage as much change
as possible within the Democratic Party. In order to do that,
though, he's got to be willing to torpedo the race entirely. That's
how the power game is played. He wants major change in the system
and it's not going to come through the Republicans. The only way
to break the deathgrip of the two parties on power is to reform the
Democratic Party, bringing more power to progressives within the structure
and then open up the closed system via Instant Run-off Voting.
The way Nader sees it, I imagine, is that two Horses inside the party plus
a rogue Bishop starts to make for a fair strategic fight against the two
Rooks. The Rooks will have to start taking the Horses and the
progressive platform seriously. In this way, Nader gets real
leverage, partially because everyone is so afraid of Bush.
The key person to watch as this chess match develops is Kucinich because
he holds the power to keep much of the progressive base inside the party
walls. Nader said in January that he would not run if Kucinich were
to get the nomination. Although Kucinch has pledged his loyalty to
the Democratic nominee, many of his supporters do not have that same
loyalty. There are a sizable number of them in the ABB camp. But
there are others who may or may not vote for a non-Kucinich nominee,
depending on how much influence the progressive platform has going
forward. These are the progressive swing voters. And there are still
others who are Nobody But Kucinich (NBK). They are disgusted with
the party, have often re-registered from the Green party just to back
Kucinich and will not vote for any of the other Democratic candidates.
Many NBK's are simultaneously supporting the Kucinich campaign and
supporting Nader's efforts.
Try to bracket whatever emotions and judgments you have about the
situation on the chess board for a moment and just analyze it as a game.
This situation may well turn out to be a great boon to the Democratic
Party, which will be forced into some structural and platform changes that
will keep progressives more empowered, respected, and loyal. Otherwise,
if Kerry, Edwards, Larry King, and pundits were left to run the show, the
progressive base would probably just be disrespected in a way that led
them to silently leave the party again.
There is thus a huge opportunity to widen the Democratic tent in a
substantial way. The strategy that can achieve this is to make sure
that Kucinich and his campaign keep potential Naderites within the party
as long as possible, which in itself will keep Nader from getting as much
traction on the ground. The stronger a Kucinich candidacy is, the
more we will see authentic reform and progressive values in the Democratic
party and the more likely the Democratic Party increases the size of the
tent enough to beat Bush.
The problem is the hubris of some of the players, such as Larry King
during the CNN debate. Behavior like his is wedge behavior: by
disrespecting the progressive candidates he drives a wedge between the
progressive base and the rest of the party. King, and all those like
him, are the engine that drives a Nader candidacy. When they act to
disempower or dismiss authentic progressive candidates, they drive them
out of the Democratic Party. Conversely, if they start showing some
real respect, that keeps progressives in. So the Larry Kings of the
world either need to be gagged before they detonate the race entirely or
become a bit more mature about respecting positions and candidates that
are less conventional.
With more respect, media coverage, and votes, Kucinich can ensure that the
progressive base is well represented within the party and fight for the
serious reforms that will give more power to progressive voices. Nader
aids this effort by being the Outside Guy threatening to blow up the race.
Sharpton can lend his quick tongue and wisdom, also within the
party. As he said in the last debate, his role is to keep Kerry and
Edwards honest. With all three working in the same direction for
progressive, meaningful change, we stand a chance of revitalizing the
Democratic party so that its natural constituencies are energized and
galvanized for the fall race.
The way I read it, most of the typical centrist swing voters are not going
to be as strong a factor in the fall: Bush has polarized most people in
dramatic ways. The real battle will be at the progressive edge to
keep them in the party and it is up to the Rooks, the party Grand Masters,
and the media to start playing smarter chess. Unless they ramp up
the coverage, respect, and power of the progressives, they will be the
ones that create another loss to Bush. You can almost hear the
sucking sound of progressives leaving the party every time Larry King and
his ilk open their mouth.
So my suggestion to all the ABB folks out there is that if you really want
to oust Bush, you should vote for Kucinich. It's time to start
playing smarter chess.
Stephen
Dinan stephen@radicalspirit.org is the
author of Radical Spirit (New World Library, 2002), and founder of the
Radical Spirit Community. Stephen directed and helped to create the Esalen
Institute's Center for Theory & Research, a think tank for leading
scholars, researchers, and teachers to explore human potential frontiers.
Currently, he serves as the marketing manager for an HR software company
called Enwisen , campaigns for Dennis Kucinich and runs workshops. Stephen
is developing several new books, including a companion volume to Radical
Spirit entitled Radical Spirit in Action, a memoir set in India called In
Kali's Garden, a collection of poetry and a novel. He graduated from
Stanford University with a degree in human biology and holds a master's in
East-West psychology from the California Institute of Integral Studies.
