Throw Them A Party, II

My last post provoked a larger response than I was expecting. Most of the feedback I got was positive, but a lot of people had valid questions or concerns regarding my proposal for rebuilding Democratic strength. It made me think the topic merited another post with more detail and a few clarifications.

But first, if you haven’t already read the proposal, see below:

What follows is some additional thoughts in no particular order.

1.) Something in the Air

I’d like to start with the most heartening reaction my post received: a lot of people messaged me to say that they have already been thinking along similar lines. In fact, in a strange coincidence, two other writers published essays with remarkably similar theses on the very same morning that I fired off my proposal.

Over at Good Authority, Henry Farrell wrote a post about what he calls “partyism,” or the view that “what went wrong in the Obama administration (and in other Democratic administrations) is that Democratic leaders did not focus enough on building grassroots organizations that would connect politicians to voters and vice versa.” Meanwhile, The Nation ran an essay by Pete Davis arguing that the Democratic Party should “move toward a local-membership model that would help to rejuvenate civic life across the country.”

Both pieces are well worth reading: Farrell’s for where the theme of party organization fits into theoretical debates over Democrats’ failure to lock Trump out of power, and Davis’s for some practical advice on how Democrats could build up that organization.

As much as it would be nice to claim sole credit for the thesis of my last post, I was delighted to see Farrell and Davis advance similar arguments on the same day. It suggests that something is in the air, and maybe—just maybe—we might begin to see people put some of these ideas into action.

2.) How Are You Going to Pay For That?

One of the most common objections to my proposal was that it would require a lot of money. Who would pay for all of this civic infrastructure?

There are a few possible answers. The first and most obvious one is the Democratic Party: both the national organ and the various state parties. You could imagine some wealthy Democratic donors and foundations throwing cash at this proposal as well. Exactly how much cash became available for this project would do a lot to determine its character.

For example, I suggested in my last post that some party-funded community centers could offer free childcare. As several people have pointed out, this would be among the most expensive things these centers could do, by a significant margin. So without a substantial investment, it may be off the table in most or all regions where Democrats attempt to build up some sort of civic infrastructure.

But there are plenty of other, less costly forms that this civic infrastructure could take. Organizing a weekly picnic, for example, isn’t anywhere near as expensive. But that would still be an important step in the right direction.

3.) Claiming Credit

A less serious objection I’ve heard is that Trump will simply claim credit for any Democratic-funded civic infrastructure. I’m not even sure how this would work: the community centers I’m proposing would be privately administered and branded. How is Trump supposed to hoard credit for a project emblazoned with the logo of the local Democratic Party?

It’s a bit like suggesting someone besides me could easily claim authorship of this newsletter. Sure, I suppose technically they could. But my byline is at the top of the post.

4.) This Is About Power

A few people have suggested that there is something unsavory, or even blatantly unethical, about my proposal to focus on building up this civic infrastructure in swing districts. Shouldn’t the Democrats build it up everywhere, or at least where it would have the most benefit for residents?

To be clear, I would love to see more robust civic infrastructure everywhere in the country. But given finite resources, funders and state parties will need to prioritize; in my view, they should do so with the goal of capturing and retaining national power in mind. What I am proposing is not a charitable endeavor but a political strategy.

Of course, I’m not talking about power as its own end. The goal of capturing power is to use it. Providing, for example, universal free childcare is a role for the federal government, not private actors; but in order to make something like that happen, you need to have control over the federal government in the first places.

Some readers appear to have misread my proposal as an alternative to public policy: instead of expanding the social safety net, Democrats should just throw pizza parties. That’s getting my argument backward. Civic infrastructure is not an alternative to public policy, but a tool you use to gain control over the levels of policy.

5.) Security Concerns

A few people have said that any attempt to build Democratic party strength in swing districts will be vulnerable to attack, either from right-wing vigilantes or from MAGA lawfare. I take the first concern very seriously, and would encourage people interested in pursuing something like the civic infrastructure strategy to avoid unnecessary risks. But I would also note that any public-facing political strategy inherently involves a certain amount of exposure. Pro-democracy activists need to be willing to tolerate at least some small amount of risk, because the alternative is ceding the entire public sphere to fascists.

As for the concerns regarding MAGA lawfare, those lead me to a more general point: There’s no virtue in preemptive surrender. If a Matt Gaetz-led Department of Justice wants to shut down community centers across the country, let it try, and fight those efforts every step of the way.

Don’t cede an inch of ground to the Trump administration. Even if they’re able to shut down much of the civic infrastructure that Democrats try to establish, there’s significant advantage in forcing Trump’s people to burn through political capital, staff capacity and their finite time before the next election cycle. At a minimum, those are resources they won’t be putting toward accomplishing their substantive policy goals.

6.) No Quid Pro Quo

A few of you have asked me: Isn’t this just an illegal vote-buying scheme?

Well, no, it’s not. Under my proposal, no one would be buying anything from voters; there would be absolutely no quid pro quo. In fact, my last post advised the people running my proposed civic infrastructure to avoid explicit campaigning or organizing at community events. Any sort of “ask” attached to those events will undermine the larger goal of building something like a convivial, non-transactional relationship with voters.

7.) Next Steps

The most important question I’ve gotten is: What can we do?

If you work for the Democratic National Committee, one of the state parties, or a progressive foundation, the answer should be fairly obvious. My hope is that influential members of the party and the larger anti-MAGA coalition in the United States will dedicate more focus and resources to party-building over the next few years.

If you’re just some guy (in the gender neutral sense), you can still contact your state party—and your state and local Democrat electeds—and ask that they work on building up civic infrastructure. Tell them that you would happily volunteer your time to this project if they choose to take it up.

Lastly, you can take matters into your own hands. Again, building a full-blown community center and offering full-time services like childcare is expensive and logistically difficult. But throwing a monthly block party or happy hour is totally achievable. This is a long-term project, and we have to start somewhere.