A House Divided will not Prevail

Jock Gill, Aldon Hynes, and Robert Steele

If the Republican party can be said to have fragmented into 1] an evangelical extremist wing aligned for convenience with unregulated corporatism and neo-liberal capitalism, and 2] the rest of the more moderate Republican party that has lost all semblance of influence within its own party, the Democrats can be said to be even further fragmented, to the point of ineffective incoherence.

In control is the “last gasp” of the 20th Century wing of the Democratic party, where big money displaced labor and the grassroots, the caring church, and the intellectuals to craft the Democratic leadership as “Republican Lite,” equally corrupt, but more inept than their counter-parts. They stand for nothing other than incumbency and the power of money over ideas.

As insurgents emergent, we have the Netroots that were first noticed for their support of Howard Dean. In 2003 and 2004, the Netroots wing experimented with “bonding” social capital and micro-cash campaign contributions, but were not able to organize themselves in time to stage a break-out and capture the flag. Although Dean is today the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, his loyalties appear to be split between the new Netroots and the traditional Democratic Grassroots. A house divided cannot stand. In addition, there is every expectation that he will be trumped by the bigger databases and larger bank accounts of the 20th Century wing of the party.

These two groups have left three core constituencies of the Democratic Party, Labor and the traditional Grassroots, the intellectual, and the caring church, grasping at straws and feeling powerless. Labor, the intellectuals, and the caring church have no one in the top ranks of the Democratic Party organization who will listen to them or help them contribute to a restoration of the power of the people.

In our view, the Democratic Party is headed directly for another disaster, as the New York 20th Century gang self-destructs on the twin rocks of financial and ideological warfare, where the Republican Party, under the control of its well-heeled extremists, excels.

The Democrats, however, could work to unite at least these 4 core elements: 1] The traditional grassroots; 2] the new netroots; 3] the intellectual/progressive wing, and, importantly, 4] the caring church. How? By recognizing that the party must nurture the formation of both forms of social capital: Bonding and Bridging. The Wikipedia has this to say:

Bonding and bridging

In his pioneering study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster 2000), Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam wrote: "Henry Ward Beecher's advice a century ago to "multiply picnics" is not entirely ridiculous today. ...

Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: bonding social capital and bridging social capital. The former refers to the value assigned to social networks between homogeneous groups of people and the latter to that of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups. Typical examples are that criminal gangs create bonding social capital, while choirs and bowling clubs (hence the title, as Putnam lamented their decline) create bridging social capital. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of other benefits for societies, governments, individuals, and communities; Putnam likes to note that joining an organization cuts in half an individual's chance of dying within the next year.

The distinction is useful in highlighting how social capital may not always be beneficial for society as a whole (though it is always an asset for those individuals and groups involved). Horizontal networks of individual citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that operate at cross purposes to societal interests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society.

The concept of social capital in a Chinese social context has been closely linked with the concept of guanxi.

There is one issue, one place, one foundation, where the neglected elements of the Democratic Party can make common cause with moderate Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, and all others, and that place is Electoral Reform. Working together as a Citizens Party respecting dual political memberships, they can generate significant bridging capital. Together, they can re-vitalize the notion that we all have challenges we can overcome by working together, but not if we work alone.

Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote in 2000. John Kerry, for all his problems, won a significant portion of the vote in 2004. In our view, the combination of Al Gore and a governor with a nationally recognized track record, working with a Citizens Party, as a non-rival builder of bridging social capital, committed to Electoral Reform as the litmus test issue for every incumbent and challenger in 2006, is a winning proposition.

Who else is better positioned to run against Senator McCain, the Republican’s anti-Bush?

Posted by Jock Gill at May 9, 2006 2:10 PM | TrackBack