Tuesday's DNC Journal Entry

Sound Byte: “The other side does not have a monopoly on faith.”

First off, I have to say: It was an absolute treat to hear the Rev. Leah Daughtry speak. She’s a journalist’s dream interviewee — savvy, eloquent, witty, professional but warm, and seriously, the woman speaks in sound bytes. After an interview with her, I feel like an article would all but write itself.

Daughtry has style…but it’s the substance behind the style that makes her such a remarkable woman. Rev. Daughtry has a message, and she’s damn good at sharing it.

I’ve never given much credence to the idea of the Democratic Party as a party of faith. After all, most candidates who ride the donkey cart are pro-choice — a virtual death sentence when it comes to gleaning votes from many religious voters. As something of a lapsed Catholic myself, I remember being religious education teachers encouraging us to vote for pro-life (read: Republican) candidates when we turned 18. Let’s keep in mind, here: There was a time when Catholics were a core component of the Democratic Party’s voting base.

It’s hard to immediately think of the Democratic Party as a party of faith for countless reasons. Our civil rights views often clash with what many major religious sects preach. We’re a party to whom those who practice religions outside of the WASP (emphasis on the “P”) demographic often gravitate, so we aren’t a party of one faith, but of many. But I think, more than anything, Democrats just don’t talk about religion as often as Republicans. Sure, we have our Jesse Jacksons, but for every Jesse Jackson on the left, it seems like there are half a dozen equally vocal Pat Buchanans on the right.

Daughtry was right, though, when (among her many sound bytes) she mentioned that the Republicans don’t hold a monopoly over faith. She expounded, mentioning that folks can read the same religious text she can and jump to the other end of the political spectrum. It’s a question of interpretation, to be sure. Faith is personal, and so are politics — but faith needn’t force someone to a particular end of the political spectrum.

As Daughtry said: Faith is about community. And a community is about wanting the best for the people closest to you. It’s lending neighbors a helping hand, giving them a fair chance, and respecting their independence. And communities of faith across a myriad of denominations hold several crucial concerns in common — poverty, crime, education, health care, to name a brief few.

A basic train of logic:
• The Democratic Party is about communities — keeping them healthy, educated, well-fed, safe from guns and violence, economically secure, privy to fair and equal opportunities:
• Places of faith: Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples — all are communities.
• If the Democratic Party is a party of communities, it must also be a party of faith.

Daughtry even reconciled (albeit briefly) a common problem among Democrats with religious values that often conflict with party stances. Her explanation of how she can reconcile her Pentecostal faith with party stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage was especially eloquent: It’s not her position to judge or dictate the decisions people make. Personal faith is just that: something personal.

Many Democrats already subscribe to Daughtry’s school of thought — that the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion rather than from religion, and that we should embrace the many people of faith who call this party home. I appreciate Daughtry’s efforts to push the party as a whole toward a greater acceptance and encouragement of personal faith.


Daily Reflection: Speakers:

Frankly, I was slightly disappointed with Ricky Kirschner, Executive Producer of the DNC…but then again, he’s a behind the scenes kind of guy. When I sit back and think about orchestrating the production side of a convention, it’s actually pretty awe-inspiring. This is a behemoth task. I just wish he had the fire (or narcissism?) to amp himself up more. He was so modest and shy, you’d think he was the producer of a low-budget local music video.

That said, I was pretty astounded by some of the fun trivia he shared. Never would’ve known the teleprompter went out during Bill Clinton’s speech at the ’92 (or was it ’96?) convention— though I can’t say I’m shocked he didn’t skip a beat when it happened.

A more rage-inducing speech, however, came from our Republican friend, Dr. Bob Lavey. Let me preface: I actually think his “Delaware Plan” isn’t half bad. From my understanding, the plan runs thus:

• 8 weeks of elections, with 10 states voting every 2 weeks.
• The 10 smallest states (by population) vote first, followed by the next 10 smallest, and so on, until the largest states finish voting.
• Anyone can vote, and the candidate list gets paired down after each round of voting, until there are only two left for the 10 largest states to vote between.

It makes sense, really. The smaller states, where candidates have an easier time campaigning face-to-face, get the chance to whittle the list down tot those candidates who’ve most successfully sold themselves on a retail, interpersonal level. As the populations grow, and by necessity, campaigns expand into wholesale efforts, the list of candidates pouring money into the campaign dwindles. The states with the largest populations (apparently, approximately 50% of the population lives in the largest 10 states) make the final call.

The plan is democratic. It does away with caucuses, which I think are categorically awful, undemocratic and archaic. It seems like a relatively diplomatic compromise, giving small states the attention they rarely receive while placing the biggest choice between the two front-runners in the hands of the largest group of voters.

But this plan has serious pitfalls. What happens to the states in the middle? The ones that candidates don’t spend months upon months campaigning in?
Won’t candidates continue to focus on a few, key, ”winnable” states early on, just as the do now?

But here’s my biggest problem:
What happens when a relatively unknown candidate does unexpectedly well in the first “round” of voting? He or she is suave, charismatic, great at grassroots organization…and completely mysterious. She could be a dynamo…but she could also have politically lethal skeletons lurking in her closet. Is 8 weeks really enough time to vet a candidate who gets a big “bounce” after round 1? I sincerely doubt it.

I don’t know how to fix our primary system. I have no doubt that it’s broken, but as far as I’m concerned, we need a system that meets the following requirements:

• No caucuses. Ideally, we’d have primaries in which voters rank their favorite candidates in preferential order.
• A relatively lengthy time span. We need time to vet candidates who come out of nowhere. Likewise, we need enough time for candidates to come out of nowhere in the first place. A national primary is a virtual death sentence for anyone who isn’t a multimillionaire or an extremely well-known party member.
• Some element of change or randomness in the order in which states hold their primaries. One man, one vote is a crucial principal of democracy. If we’re going to commit to democratic primaries, let’s go all out. Spending inordinate amounts of money courting the same two states — New Hampshire and Iowa — year after year is neither fair nor effective. (Personally, I’m a fan of a rotational system.)

My biggest problem with Dr. Lavey’s proposal was his near refusal to offer straightforward answers to legitimate questions. My peers made excellent points, and he dismissed them with a rather closed mind. Was his plan better than most I’ve heard? Absolutely. Was it flawless? No. Perhaps it’s the best one anyone’s ever come up with, but that’s no reason to dismiss legitimate questions — especially not from a group of young students, many of whom are trying to wrap their heads around these kinds of topics for the first time.


New Terms:

Retail politics: Campaigning done on a more personal, face-to-face, hand-shaking, baby-kissing level.

Wholesale politics: Campaigning on a far broader scale — rallies, ad campaigns, public relations spin, etc.