A hard question for state chair candidates
Here’s what he wrote:
Hi Don,
Thank you for the question. How we ensure that our elected officials fulfill the promises they make by running as a Democrat is a major issue we now face. The state party should help to build the local party organizations so that they can elect representatives that reflect their values. Democracy is local. As chair, I would fight against the concentration of decision making power, because dictating from the top-down has harmed progressive advancement.
With regards to Rodney Tom it is important to note that in 2002, he was elected to the state House of Representatives as a Republican and was reelected in 2004, edging out Democratic Party challenger Debi Golden. On March 14, 2006, Tom announced that he was switching to the Democratic Party which was quite controversial because his 2004 Democratic opponent, Debi Golden, had announced that she was running again. In truth, it was the state party that convinced Tom to change to the Democratic Party and Debi was forced out of the race because the state party decided to back their new choice, Rodney Tom. The situation in the 48th is the perfect example of the top-down rule in politics. I do not stand for that.
It was the Democratic Party that chose to support Rodney Tom and I believe it was our loses in 2010 that allowed for the takeover of the senate. We took our eye off the ball and lost very tight races. I think the power that ran the party at the time did not see those races as important since they thought we’d still have the majority. They were wrong.
How the party focuses our resources concerns me greatly and is the reason why I am running for chair. We have a party infrastructure concentrated in King County. It’s the source of much of the heavy fundraising efforts as well as many of our elected leaders, and with 1/3rd of the state’s voters it has a huge role to play in electing state wide candidates like our Governor. We can’t discount its importance. But at the same time we have to recognize that not everyone lives in Seattle or King County. We need to be able to engage voters and elect Democrats in every county, every district. I don’t believe that Seattle should have a monopoly on campaign strategy or candidate recruitment. The best way to build a state level party is by building the local parties, encourage local activists, train local talent and consultants and live up to the idea of both “more” Democrats and “better” Democrats.
We need to be up front with reasonable and enforceable standards that provide local party oversight to the state party providing infrastructure and campaign assistance to candidates running in those local districts. The HDCC and SDCC have huge roles to play in supporting candidates that can keep and grow our majorities in the state House and Senate. But we all have to work towards a common goal, not play games against each other.
Candidates for local office like Kshama are attractive because they are saying what the Democrats have been saying for decades, yet don’t have the perceived baggage of the smoke filled rooms that seem to shadow the state level parties of all stripes and colors. Sometimes it is justified, but often it is just the result of poor communication. I want to open up communications. I want people to believe that their voices mean something, because they do. I believe we can win in any district with a Democrat that supports our values and when backed up by a local organization strong enough, we will do just that.
Again, I thank you for your question. It is certainly a complicated question, and there are no easy answers. At the end of the day, a representative is supposed to do and be just that. He or she is supposed to represent the people in their district and carry their voice up to the government. The work we need to do is to change the hearts and minds of the people. Once we do that, they will fight to have real progressives represent them.
On another issue, I read your report on Sunday’s forum and I wanted to share some of my thoughts.
You mentioned that I ran unsuccessfully against Doc Hastings and while true, the fact is, so did Jay Inslee in 1994. I state this because the reason Democrats lose in the red districts often has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. As I’ve been saying, it takes an infrastructure and a commitment of time and sweat to change an entire culture. We will have to do that to start winning in red areas again. It won’t be short term and it won’t be easy.
You write that I am “pro-gun rights.” I am not sure what you mean by that so I wish to clarify. Had I been elected to Congress I would have had to enforce the law, as a Marine I swore to protect the Constitution and as a citizen I have to follow the law. The Constitution does state that the citizens of this country have a right to keep and bear arms. However, there is nothing in that document that states that we cannot put real regulations on the types of weapons and the types of ammunition that regular citizens can buy, nor does it mean that we cannot have universal background checks.
The first amendment doesn’t mean we can shout “fire” in a theater, therefore the second amendment doesn’t mean that a person should be allowed to have an arsenal of military grade weapons in his closet.
Having stated that, in my opinion the real issue is about communication. When I went door-to-door in my home town, if I started the conversation with the topic of “guns” the door got slammed in my face. That might sound like I am taking a stand, but as you noted, I lost and when Democrats lose, the changes we need to make never happen. So what I always do is start with the things that people can agree on in my area. Once we get a rapport going and once they trust me, then I can move on to the subjects that we disagree on. It’s much easier to make a convincing argument, about a contentious issue, if you have a connection with someone.
Just because the framing and wording is changed, doesn’t mean that we must give an inch on our core Progressive values. Weapon safety legislation needs to happen, we must protect women’s health and reproductive rights, and we must continue to fight for equality and justice for all. These core progressive values are in our platform, and the purpose of our Democratic Party, as you heard, is to make our platform law. I agree with every plank and every resolution in our platform, but we must give candidates the flexibility to highlight which areas of our platform speak to their voters, and allow them to frame those issues in the most effective way possible to elect Progressives.
This got longer than I expected. I hope your question was answered sufficiently, and I hope I was able to express my thoughts on your blog post clearly. Thanks for asking, and thanks for being involved!
In Solidarity,
Jay Clough
Hi Don,
Thank you for the question. How we ensure that our elected officials fulfill the promises they make by running as a Democrat is a major issue we now face. The state party should help to build the local party organizations so that they can elect representatives that reflect their values. Democracy is local. As chair, I would fight against the concentration of decision making power, because dictating from the top-down has harmed progressive advancement.
With regards to Rodney Tom it is important to note that in 2002, he was elected to the state House of Representatives as a Republican and was reelected in 2004, edging out Democratic Party challenger Debi Golden. On March 14, 2006, Tom announced that he was switching to the Democratic Party which was quite controversial because his 2004 Democratic opponent, Debi Golden, had announced that she was running again. In truth, it was the state party that convinced Tom to change to the Democratic Party and Debi was forced out of the race because the state party decided to back their new choice, Rodney Tom. The situation in the 48th is the perfect example of the top-down rule in politics. I do not stand for that.
It was the Democratic Party that chose to support Rodney Tom and I believe it was our loses in 2010 that allowed for the takeover of the senate. We took our eye off the ball and lost very tight races. I think the power that ran the party at the time did not see those races as important since they thought we’d still have the majority. They were wrong.
How the party focuses our resources concerns me greatly and is the reason why I am running for chair. We have a party infrastructure concentrated in King County. It’s the source of much of the heavy fundraising efforts as well as many of our elected leaders, and with 1/3rd of the state’s voters it has a huge role to play in electing state wide candidates like our Governor. We can’t discount its importance. But at the same time we have to recognize that not everyone lives in Seattle or King County. We need to be able to engage voters and elect Democrats in every county, every district. I don’t believe that Seattle should have a monopoly on campaign strategy or candidate recruitment. The best way to build a state level party is by building the local parties, encourage local activists, train local talent and consultants and live up to the idea of both “more” Democrats and “better” Democrats.
We need to be up front with reasonable and enforceable standards that provide local party oversight to the state party providing infrastructure and campaign assistance to candidates running in those local districts. The HDCC and SDCC have huge roles to play in supporting candidates that can keep and grow our majorities in the state House and Senate. But we all have to work towards a common goal, not play games against each other.
Candidates for local office like Kshama are attractive because they are saying what the Democrats have been saying for decades, yet don’t have the perceived baggage of the smoke filled rooms that seem to shadow the state level parties of all stripes and colors. Sometimes it is justified, but often it is just the result of poor communication. I want to open up communications. I want people to believe that their voices mean something, because they do. I believe we can win in any district with a Democrat that supports our values and when backed up by a local organization strong enough, we will do just that.
Again, I thank you for your question. It is certainly a complicated question, and there are no easy answers. At the end of the day, a representative is supposed to do and be just that. He or she is supposed to represent the people in their district and carry their voice up to the government. The work we need to do is to change the hearts and minds of the people. Once we do that, they will fight to have real progressives represent them.
On another issue, I read your report on Sunday’s forum and I wanted to share some of my thoughts.
You mentioned that I ran unsuccessfully against Doc Hastings and while true, the fact is, so did Jay Inslee in 1994. I state this because the reason Democrats lose in the red districts often has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. As I’ve been saying, it takes an infrastructure and a commitment of time and sweat to change an entire culture. We will have to do that to start winning in red areas again. It won’t be short term and it won’t be easy.
You write that I am “pro-gun rights.” I am not sure what you mean by that so I wish to clarify. Had I been elected to Congress I would have had to enforce the law, as a Marine I swore to protect the Constitution and as a citizen I have to follow the law. The Constitution does state that the citizens of this country have a right to keep and bear arms. However, there is nothing in that document that states that we cannot put real regulations on the types of weapons and the types of ammunition that regular citizens can buy, nor does it mean that we cannot have universal background checks.
The first amendment doesn’t mean we can shout “fire” in a theater, therefore the second amendment doesn’t mean that a person should be allowed to have an arsenal of military grade weapons in his closet.
Having stated that, in my opinion the real issue is about communication. When I went door-to-door in my home town, if I started the conversation with the topic of “guns” the door got slammed in my face. That might sound like I am taking a stand, but as you noted, I lost and when Democrats lose, the changes we need to make never happen. So what I always do is start with the things that people can agree on in my area. Once we get a rapport going and once they trust me, then I can move on to the subjects that we disagree on. It’s much easier to make a convincing argument, about a contentious issue, if you have a connection with someone.
Just because the framing and wording is changed, doesn’t mean that we must give an inch on our core Progressive values. Weapon safety legislation needs to happen, we must protect women’s health and reproductive rights, and we must continue to fight for equality and justice for all. These core progressive values are in our platform, and the purpose of our Democratic Party, as you heard, is to make our platform law. I agree with every plank and every resolution in our platform, but we must give candidates the flexibility to highlight which areas of our platform speak to their voters, and allow them to frame those issues in the most effective way possible to elect Progressives.
This got longer than I expected. I hope your question was answered sufficiently, and I hope I was able to express my thoughts on your blog post clearly. Thanks for asking, and thanks for being involved!
In Solidarity,
Jay Clough