$1,000,000 Proposition for Democratic Campaigns

ILLUSTRATED: $2,000 x 5 months x 100 campaign offices = $1,000,000 (and 300 electoral votes guaranteed!)

I started this blog because I think the weakest link in the Democratic machine is our ability to speak our agenda in a simple way that resonates with people. But I also care a lot about party building. Two years ago I wrote about if I was DNC Chair for a day.

I have been to many campaign offices in at least three states. What strikes me is how there is a lack of management in these offices, by all accounts, Republican field offices are better run. I hate to say it.

The going rate for a campaign manager/field office director is about $2,000-$2,500 per month. Now there are some talented people who do work for that, especially at the presidential level. But imagine the level of management talent you would get for $4,000 - $4,500 per month. You could induce professional program managers from industry to do jobs that are mostly...program management. A $2,000 raise in 100 strategic offices in the 5 months before the would dramatically improve the performance and organization of Democratic GOTV operations. These days for a presidential candidate, $1,000,000 is a drop in the bucket.

For a second drop in the bucket, you could focus on the same 100 precincts, pay 10 students, $10 per hour, to work 100 hours each. That's 1,000 person-hours in each precinct. Think of the number of registrations and vote switches that could happen. I would say two per hour equaling 200,000 more votes in these key precincts.

Blackwater, Diebold and the privatization of governance

ILLUSTRATED: Scandals with government contractors play into our themes of good government and governing in the public interest. Functions that are inherently governmental, need to be controlled by public officials, not private contractors.

After Hurricane Katrina, several stories appeared of large companies stepping up with a tremendous logistical effort. The civilian government seemingly was not as coordinated to help its own people, therefore it had to be supplemented by corporate generosity. That is only one example of the problem.

Government can contract some functions to private businesses. Food services, certain administrative functions, as well as certain type of consulting expertise. However, with main line activities, the executive decisions need to be done by people who are accountable to the public.

Force protection in a war zone, and counting votes are perfect examples on inherently government activities that need to be run by people organically in government agencies. This Blackwater mass killing is a tragedy. But since the Army is too small, military functions are sent to a business that is outside any legal apparatus or status of forces agreement. This type of incident was bound to happen without a proper accounting.

As for voting, finally there is a backlash against Diebold voting machines, and their secret software. One company had too much control over our election system.

The list goes on and on: Vouchers for schools, private prisons, etc. The GOP is hurting the democracy, because if more of these functions are run by companies, the voting public loses power.

Democrats need to use these examples to tie into a central theme that government needs to work in the public interest. For those weary of big government, turn it around and let them know that these important functions being run by "people accountable to you, not out to make a buck."

Future of military operations

ILLUSTRATED: A peek into the military operations of the future. Democrats ought to campaign on promoting this change in the military.

A New York Times article out today lays a blueprint for how the Army and Marines ought to operate in the future. It describes integrating anthropologists with civil affairs and special forces doing nation building. This is the essence:

Tracy, who asked that her surname not be used for security reasons, is a member of the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her team’s ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations — in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe — has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.

Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with the anthropologists here, said that the unit’s combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the scientists arrived in February, and that the soldiers were now able to focus more on improving security, health care and education for the population.

“We’re looking at this from a human perspective, from a social scientist’s perspective,” he said. “We’re not focused on the enemy. We’re focused on bringing governance down to the people.”

People talk about "boots on the ground" as being the most important thing. That is the most important military component. Ultimately, war is about geopolitics, and governing requires the trust of the people with the authorities. That needs to be understood in the future by the military and State department.
I hope Democratic Presidential candidates start proposing this as a model as I have suggested here, here, and here.

SCHIP: A Hammer against Blue state Republicans

ILLUSTRATED: Ironically, Democrats can illustrate a need for government involvement because they are often coming form a position of wealth.

In an earlier post, I described some of the ironies that some from the fact the Democrats often represent wealthier locales, and higher cost of living locales than Republicans. This is even though Democrats generally support government's hand in helping those left out of capitalist system. Additionally, I defined the real meaning of "All politics is local", the most misused phrase in politics. Thus, members of Congress will be influenced by the wealth of their power base, even though their personal ideology may be for more or less government.

With this SCHIP vote, states would be supported by the feds for supporting children's health insurance factored on the uniform federal poverty level. As we all know, a dollar stretches further in certain parts of the country than others. So as Tom Curry described, a lot of Republicans from wealthy blue areas like New York City, have to vote with Democrats to expand health insurance to families making over $60,000.

Let's be honest, these issues are touchy and one can sound flippant when discussing them. But if there is a Republican candidate (at any level) running in a high cost of living area, we need to hammer them on this issue.