archived: 7 - 13 Aug, 2005         Back                 Next

                        NC DEMOCRATIC PARTY – A VISION    

NCDP Chairman Jerry Meek addressed the Progressive Democrats of North Carolina (Greendogs) State Convention last week.   During his speech, Chairman Meek framed his vision of the NC Democratic Party.   

Below are excerpts from Meek’s prepared remarks: 

Political parties represent a collaborative effort. And collaborative efforts often develop in the absence of a common vision. Political parties can be the result of pure logrolling – the coming together of special interest groups, each interested in achieving their own narrow goals with little interest in any larger agenda. Indeed, when politicians accuse each other of “catering to special interests,” they’re implying that their opponents have no vision – that they’re simply courting isolated groups with little regard for the big picture.

To say that a political party needs a vision to win is manifestly untrue. Throughout history, candidates and political parties have won without a vision, by logrolling special interest groups into a winning coalition. So, why should we be a party of vision anyway?

[I]f our party is to endure, it must stand for something that unites not just voters in the present, but also this generation’s voters with future generations of voters. Our sense of vision serves this purpose.

Our party’s long-term viability demands it. And our integrity – literally, our wholeness – as human beings depends upon it.

Unfortunately, I believe that Democrats at the national level have failed us. For too long, we have defined ourselves as what we are against, rather than as what we are for. It’s great that we oppose President Bush’s attempts to slash Medicaid funding. But we should have a positive agenda for universal healthcare. It’s great that we oppose President Bush’s attempts to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But we should have a plan for eliminating oil from the American economy, in favor of alternative, sustainable fuel sources. It’s great that we oppose CAFTA, but we should have a clear plan for increasing America’s competitiveness in this irreversibly global economy.

[T]he truth is that there are multiple visions for our party. To be sure, at some point – as we move from the concrete to the abstract – there will be agreement as to the vision.

To establish one vision for our party, we’ve got to do two things. First, we have to identify that point – on the continuum between the concrete and the abstract – at which the major force of our party feels comfortable. In other words, we have to find a language which is neither too concrete to alienate people within our party, nor too abstract to be meaningless. Second, having identified this point, we as Democrats must speak consistently and unanimously at this level of abstraction.

The truth is that we’ve done neither of these two things and the Republicans have done both.

Who will be in charge of identifying the appropriate level of abstraction? Who, in other words, will create the language we use to define our vision? Unfortunately, it won’t come from our policy-makers. It won’t come, in other words, from the very people who will be asked to express the vision, both in their communications with the public and in their enactment of public policy.

The reason is simple. Policy-makers live in the practical world of day-to-day politics. Their work is hard. They’re bombarded with very specific demands and with the practicalities of running a nation, state, county, or city. And the workload seldom affords them the opportunity to consider how their own work fits into a philosophical framework.

That’s not to say that elected officials are in any way disdainful of the world of ideas. In fact, among those I know, they enjoy the thought that their work doesn’t exist in a vacuum, quarantined from “the big picture.” But herein lies a dilemma. Our elected officials are our primary voice. No vision will be credible without their support. They communicate the vision and, through their policy-making, they make the vision a reality.

They must be allies in the formulation of our vision.

There is a third assumption implicit in the topic I’ve been assigned to speak on. The topic assumes that there is some relationship between strategy and vision. The cynic would argue that the electoral strategy should create the vision. In other words, you say what you have to say in order to get elected. Others would contend that the vision should be independent of the electoral strategy – that there should be no relationship between strategy and vision.

I would take it a step further. I believe the vision should drive the electoral strategy. In other words, what we stand for and how we campaign should be inextricably intertwined.

So I speak to you today with the premise that we should be a party of vision; that it should be one vision, sufficiently abstract to unite but sufficiently concrete to be meaningful; and that our electoral strategy should be the product of, rather than a factor in, our vision.

To me, at the heart of the Democratic vision is the concept of a “democratic community.” In using the term, I use “democratic” to mean open, transparent, and inclusive, in which each member of the community has an equal opportunity for meaningful participation.

The concept of a democratic community is, therefore, fundamentally about opportunity, equality, and responsibility.

How should such a vision inform our public policy?

Let’s start with equality. The most basic form of equality in a democratic society is political equality. Our party should be outspoken supporters of meaningful campaign finance reform. Let’s ban all contributions to candidates and replace them with a system under which each North Carolina voter gets four $5.00 vouchers. Each voter can give all four vouchers to one candidate, or divide them up among several candidates, spanning several offices. The total cost? $107 million, assuming every voter uses all of their vouchers. This is about half of 1% of the State budget.

Political equality also means supporting real lobbying reform, promoting voter verified paper balloting, and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which turns 40 years old today.

Equality means respecting the divine spirit in every human being. It means a mutual respect for our fellow citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, or sexual orientation. It means aggressively enforcing non-discrimination legislation, rather than side-stepping them by under-funding enforcement agencies.

Equality means genuinely respecting the pluralism of a pluralist society. It means respecting diversity of opinion. It means respecting the full range of religious expression, and – importantly – respecting religion itself.

And, yes, opportunity is also driven by business. We must be a pro-business party, encouraging job creation and growth. Sometimes that requires the often unpopular use of tax incentives for relocation of industry to North Carolina. It certainly requires helping the business community shoulder the heavy burden of health insurance premiums. And it certainly requires using tax-payer funds to help train workers for a 21st century economy.

Let’s talk about responsibility. First, responsibility means looking after other people.

Second, it means respecting the rights, and security, of other people.

As Democrats, we believe that we have an obligation towards our fellow Americans, both present and future. That’s why we cannot abandon our opposition to President Bush’s support for the privatization of social security. His plan will not save Social Security. Instead, it will result in the abolition of Social Security, a program that the Republicans opposed from the start.

But we must do more than oppose Bush’s plan. The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund will become insolvent at some point. What do we, as Democrats, propose to do about that? First, we should lift the cap on FICA payments. Second, we should allow the Social Security Trust fund to invest in something other than treasury bonds. Let’s allow the Trust Fund administrators to invest in the market. These two changes alone will ensure the long-term stability of the Trust Fund, without subjecting individual Americans to the insecurities of the market.

Second, we must reconfirm our support for the social safety net.

Responsibility means helping working men and women find day care for their children and ensuring access to quality healthcare for every American.

The concept of “responsibility” also means that we respect the rights of others. And, on this, Democrats must not waiver. We should be the anti-crime party. The notion of “responsibility” demands it. We should insist upon vigorous and full enforcement of the law, with the most intense penalties.

Our vision, to be credible, should be consistent with our electoral strategy. That means that what we do should be consistent with the concept of a “democratic community.” The party’s activities should be open, transparent, and inclusive. And we should embrace all people.

As State Chair, I’ve tried to do that. Recently, I appointed Wayne Goodwin as the Chair of the Platform and Resolutions Committee. Wayne has developed a procedure which is open, transparent, and democratic, by setting up public hearings at locations across the state so that individuals can offer input into the process. He has established a procedure, which I have long hoped for, with full public input into the deliberation of resolutions and the adoption of a platform.

On August 27th, the State Executive Committee will meet to debate resolutions and adopt a long overdue platform for our State Party. 

The promise of a Democratic Party Platform before the end of the year is intriguing.  TPJ will be covering the development of a platform in the coming weeks. 

The General Assembly is wrapping up the budget. As in all budgets there will be “winners” and “losers.”   

For state employees, it appears that State House and Senate negotiators have agreed to a pay raise of 2% or $850.00, whichever is greater, and one additional week of paid vacation.  The State Employees Association has issued a press release criticizing the pay raise and specifically attacking Governor Easley: 

State employees could receive smaller pay raises this year compared to last year, largely due to Gov. Mike Easley’s artificially imposed “spending cap” and veto threat. Reports indicated that Gov. Easley threatened to veto the budget if state employees got anything more than 2 percent, as proposed in his budget. The budget is currently in conference committee and is expected to be finalized next week.

Last year, state employees received 2.5 percent or $1,000 (whichever was greater), but employees will see less in their paychecks this year if the conference committee’s latest proposal passes, even though the state budget will grow by a billion dollars.

“It’s infuriating that state employees could once again be mistreated in this year’s budget,” said SEANC Executive Director Dana Cope. “State employees should still receive a better pay raise, even with the so-called ‘spending cap.’ There’s more than enough money, especially if pork barrel spending is cut. The cap is simply an excuse not to take care of the state workforce. Shame on the governor!” State law does not require a spending cap. 

SEANC is correct that state law does not require a spending cap.   

SEANC omits the fact, however, that Republicans in the General Assembly have been unified in opposing ANY increase in taxes.  Democrats are willing to increase revenues for education, health care and jobs, but only cautiously in the existing political climate.  It is same Republican Party that SEANC endorsed their candidate for Governor against Gov. Easley in 2004.  As TPJ noted at the time, SEANC made “A Deal With the Devil.”   We wrote:

SEANC’s endorsement [of Republican Patrick Ballantine] is, in part, the final act of a continuing duel with Gov. Easley.  SEANC may have well “slapped” Gov. Easley with the traditional white glove to initiate the duel and then simply shot itself in the head.  If so, it may be a shot from which SEANC will not recover.

SEANC simply shot its own self in the head politically. 

SEANC’s pointing the finger at Gov. Easley is a bit disingenuous.  First, Democrats could have ignored Easley’s voluntary cap on spending.  Democrats certainly ignored the Governor on other matters; the amount of the cigarette tax being one.  Second, at the end of negotiations, SEANC wanted state employees to receive $1,000.00 or a 2% pay raise, whichever was greater.  Democrats in the General Assembly gave $850.00 and a week of paid vacation.  The week of vacation, even though it is not recurring annually, has a dollar value for every state employee greater than $150.00.   

Shame on who?

                        A TAX? 

Democrats will enact a substantial increase in the cigarette “tax” imposed in North Carolina.  It appears that the State House and Senate have agreed to increase the “tax” from 5 cents to 25 cents this year and to 30 cents next year. 

Democrats can expect that “starve the beast” Republicans will make the increase a major campaign issue in 2006.  Democrats must prepare on this issue. 

Democrats can change the “framing” of the issue by informing voters of the truth.  Smokers (including Junkie) directly cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.   

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in North Carolina, claiming more than 11,900 lives each year and costing the state $2.26 billion annually in health care bills, including $708 million in Medicaid payments alone. – US Newswire           

The cigarette tax, when fully implemented at 30 cents, will raise an expected $153 million.   

Simple math makes the case for Democrats.  Smokers, not non-smokers, will now have to pick up some 22% of the tax burden that smokers directly cost North Carolinians each year.  Is it a “tax” to require smokers to pay for the financial damage that they inflict on all tax payers?  Democrats are merely requiring smokers to assume greater responsibility for their actions.  And that is the “frame” – Democrats are simply requiring smokers to assume a greater share of the tax burden they impose on all tax payers. 

In addition, Democrats should be pointing out these statistics: 

Studies show every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.

In recent years, every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed significant increases in revenue even while reducing cigarette sales.

While North Carolina has made significant progress in reducing youth smoking, 24.8 percent of North Carolina high school students are still current smokers, and 23,700 more kids become regular smokers every year. – US Newswire

 By imposing the cigarette tax, Democrats are not only requiring greater personal responsibility of individuals who smoke but are working to protect the next generation of North Carolina’s youth.  Both are sound public policy.   

                        BETTY JAMES
                        “Check?”                       

Did anyone check the C-Span Pictures while CAFTA vote was being taken?  They might show Chain-Saw Charlie Taylor"s picture.  How do you do this?

______  

Junkie:  Ms. James is referring to Rep. Taylor’s failure to vote on CAFTA, which TPJ featured as a  series of articles noting that his vote could help Democrats pick up a Congressional seat.  TPJ emailed C-Span to see if a recording of the hour long vote could be obtained.  We have not received a response. 

James’ idea is well worth a follow up.  TPJ is publishing her letter with the hopes that a reader with connections to C-Span might be able to do the research.

Last Update: 03/23/2006