Reflections on the CDA
| By vilasrao - Jul 25th, 2005 at 1:21 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog | Reporting from the College Democrats' National Convention |
Concerning JMendelson's post that we, Campus Progress, were too hard on CDA, I must admit that my one post (CDA Madness - The Beginning) was only concerned with my lack of breakfast, bathrooms, and beautiful credentials. I did not write my thoughts on Hillary's or Dean's speeches because, journalist that I am (or am considered), my every thought was bent at the time on CAP's intern vs. staff softball game that afternoon. I guess you could say my priorities are out of order, but you could also say that you're wrong.
Despite being impressed at Hillary's speech and having respect for successfully organizing any sort of political conference, understanding the hard work it takes to put one together, I do believe that Campus Progress's posts on the CDA convention reflected an inner rage and frustration (held not only by CP, but many in the progressive community) with what exactly the CDA does/could be doing.
True, CDA successfully mobilized the one demographic that went Kerry's way, and Hillary and Dean both applauded the audience with cheers of "You did it!". Well, we didn't really do it, but I applaud CDA's tremendous election effort. My concern is that election effort is the only drive I ever see from the CDA. My experience with the Stanford chapter of the College Democrats affirmed this, though I decided to ask the far more dedicated College Democrats behind me when I was sitting waiting to hear from Hillary.
"So what exactly does the CDA do when it's not election season?" I asked a one enthusiastic Dennis Vondran from Pennsylvania.
"Well, elections are the biggest thing of course, but we do a lot of recruitment and fundraising during the rest of the time."
Precisely - fundraising and recruitment so that when election season comes round again, we'll be doing it better.
Indeed, when one speaker (Scott _____) took the podium, he called on the audience to help the CDA all the time, not just every four years, since "there are not off-election years", citing impending elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
That's great, and I appreciate the CDA's committment to the home of the Boss. But there are plenty of other things for the Dems to do other than campaign all the time. College Dems need to reflect on what they believe, especially if campaigning is at the heart of their organization. I find it hard to believe that successful campaigning can be done if you're only reciting talking points and can't speak from the heart.
Asking some veteran College Dems what they would recommend most in the CDA Convention, I heard consistent replies about the Democratic GAIN training. "And what do they train you to do?" I asked. The answer was: canvassing, election organizing, successful campaigning.
The College Democrats are too ingrained into the fabric of politics on campus for them to be solely focused on elections. The CDA needs to promote skills training on issue advocacy, media relations, messaging, etc. I was delighted to hear Hillary say just that:
"Young people were on the front lines of every movement. They are working on Darfur, AIDS, Global Poverty... We need to equip young people to be in the forefront...We want you to be comfortable and confident to stand up for the values of the Democratic Party."
If there is one thing I wish College Democrats could promote, it is that - making College Dems across the country comfortable and confident in ironing out and standing up for what they believe. It will help us in talking to the media, it will help our brand, it will help us campaign, it will help us run for office, as Gov. Dean encouraged us all to do, and the College Democrats of America should be helping students do that.
The anger that perhaps manifested itself as hostility in Campus Progress posts is a frustration with what an organization as pervasive and established as the College Democrats of America could be doing when we see what it is in fact doing. The College Democrats should mobilize students for dreaming up and being the future of the Democratic Party instead of solely getting them to support the present establishment.
Despite being impressed at Hillary's speech and having respect for successfully organizing any sort of political conference, understanding the hard work it takes to put one together, I do believe that Campus Progress's posts on the CDA convention reflected an inner rage and frustration (held not only by CP, but many in the progressive community) with what exactly the CDA does/could be doing.
True, CDA successfully mobilized the one demographic that went Kerry's way, and Hillary and Dean both applauded the audience with cheers of "You did it!". Well, we didn't really do it, but I applaud CDA's tremendous election effort. My concern is that election effort is the only drive I ever see from the CDA. My experience with the Stanford chapter of the College Democrats affirmed this, though I decided to ask the far more dedicated College Democrats behind me when I was sitting waiting to hear from Hillary.
"So what exactly does the CDA do when it's not election season?" I asked a one enthusiastic Dennis Vondran from Pennsylvania.
"Well, elections are the biggest thing of course, but we do a lot of recruitment and fundraising during the rest of the time."
Precisely - fundraising and recruitment so that when election season comes round again, we'll be doing it better.
Indeed, when one speaker (Scott _____) took the podium, he called on the audience to help the CDA all the time, not just every four years, since "there are not off-election years", citing impending elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
That's great, and I appreciate the CDA's committment to the home of the Boss. But there are plenty of other things for the Dems to do other than campaign all the time. College Dems need to reflect on what they believe, especially if campaigning is at the heart of their organization. I find it hard to believe that successful campaigning can be done if you're only reciting talking points and can't speak from the heart.
Asking some veteran College Dems what they would recommend most in the CDA Convention, I heard consistent replies about the Democratic GAIN training. "And what do they train you to do?" I asked. The answer was: canvassing, election organizing, successful campaigning.
The College Democrats are too ingrained into the fabric of politics on campus for them to be solely focused on elections. The CDA needs to promote skills training on issue advocacy, media relations, messaging, etc. I was delighted to hear Hillary say just that:
"Young people were on the front lines of every movement. They are working on Darfur, AIDS, Global Poverty... We need to equip young people to be in the forefront...We want you to be comfortable and confident to stand up for the values of the Democratic Party."
If there is one thing I wish College Democrats could promote, it is that - making College Dems across the country comfortable and confident in ironing out and standing up for what they believe. It will help us in talking to the media, it will help our brand, it will help us campaign, it will help us run for office, as Gov. Dean encouraged us all to do, and the College Democrats of America should be helping students do that.
The anger that perhaps manifested itself as hostility in Campus Progress posts is a frustration with what an organization as pervasive and established as the College Democrats of America could be doing when we see what it is in fact doing. The College Democrats should mobilize students for dreaming up and being the future of the Democratic Party instead of solely getting them to support the present establishment.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Democrats
since in my biased view, they have done a lot.
(DISLCAIMER: I'm involved in both the SDs and
CDA)
The SDs not only set up a group that ended up
sending about 150 students to Nevada for swing
state work--as well as help a local candidate
who
was outspent by millions--they didn't stop
when
the election was over. Specifically, they
tabled
for various issues such as the filibuster,
social
security and others. The Stanford Democrats
were
the ones who organized the 40+ odd hours of
filibustering on campus, complete with Larry
Diamond participating. The group sponsored an
anti-inaguration protest with various progressive
groups. They also endorsed and publicized
They set up a speaker series that brought
together
older members of the community with college
students so that the older generation could
learn
about the issues that young people care about.
(Incidentally, a state official was informed about
California divestment plan for Darfur and has
since become a supporter of the bill.) We
attempted to get the College Republicans,
Students
for Choice and Students for Life groups
together
for a "culture of life" town hall meeting (due
to
some groups less than enthusiastic efforts we
had
to postpone until next year).
The SDs helped on a local campaign to extend a
parcel tax. The failure of which would have
resulted in the termination of many teachers
and
important school programs. The group has had
members work with local county parties on
other
similar issues.
Next year the SDs are working with the
Peninsula
Young Democrats to have a campaign school that
will help people learn every facet of
campaigning--whether it's for candidates or
ballot
initiatives.
Let's not forget that Roosevelt began as an
offshoot of the SDs, either.
An unfortunate omission from the "coverage" of
the
convention was the presentation given by CDA
president Grant Woodward after the Kerry
speech.
Perhaps no one was listening to that speech
either, or were trying to get in touch with a
CDA
"deep throat" even though CP was allowed in
the
convention with press credentials.
The CDA has increased the number of chapters from
a couple hundred to over 1200. They went from
being in debt to having a strong financial
infrastructure. They developed "eChapters" that
helps college students to organize, and is the
envy of the College Republicans. Part of the money
raised by CDA was used to provide chapter
development packets for the hundreds of new local
chapters, to provide funding for swing-state
trips, amongst other things.
The SDs and the CDA are not exclusive groups
unless people just don't want to get involved. I'd
recommend people get involved if they think the
group doesn't do anything of substance. If they
are not proven wrong, then perhaps they can get
the group doing the things they want.
Also, to clarify, our press credentials were limited to the speeches and a smattering of other events at the CDA '05 convention, but not the voting for CDA execs (the actual "convention"). That was closed to the press, and we were told so well ahead of time. That's why we weren't able to sit in on that aspect of the Convention, and that's why our only connection to what was going on in the Ballroom was text messages from voters.
Clearly, the Stanford Dems, as with many other Dems chapters across the country, have done and continue to do a lot. But let's not kid ourselves: college Dems chapters are not the CDA. That's quite a different animal.
I don't get why you are making this artificial distinction between CDA and its chapters. I also don't get why you think it's such an insidious organization. It's not. And frankly I don't think you have a good enough understanding of what really goes on within CDA to make all these judgements. I'd be happy to discuss it further if you want--and I'd be happy to hear why you have such negative perceptions of it--but I think you should stop while you're ahead making all these comments about it that simply aren't true.
activities the Stanford Democrats has engaged in
this past year.
Though the recent Begala exchange on this site has
made arguing about intentions the last thing I
want
to do, by "My experience with the Stanford
chapter
of the College Democrats affirmed this", I was
referring the fact that the election effort by
the
Stanford Democrats was overwhelmingly more
passionate, better organized and executed than
anything I saw in the rest of the year. I was
not
suggesting that my experience with the
Stanford
Democrats led me to believe that the chapter
didn't do anything.
Thanks for your wisdom Gilbert -
I can say that the college democrats of america
did nothing for the group, as far as I know. The
california college democrats did some very good
stuff, especially in coordination with the
Berkeley chapter, but we had already put together
the funding and logistics for our trip by the time
they had theirs worked out, and so we didn't end
up getting any help at all. As a rule I've found
college democrats higher-ups more eager to take
credit for chapters than to help them. But to be
fair, probably a lot of that is because I'm from a
safe state and a stable chapter, and so resources
are probably better directed to organizing
elsewhere.
In sum: I don't think it's fair to condemn the
college democrats as a program, but I do think the
CDA could do more to help its chapters.
E-chapters, for example, seemed to me like a tool
by which they could make sure all the chapter
members got the (annoying) emails announcing press
releases and public statements by CDA officials. I
decided not to use those tools because they seemed
likely to cause more harm than good to my
membership as far as our mission of recruiting
volunteers and getting democrats elected.
But I didn't feel like College Dems did all that much in the larger scheme of things. I'm pretty down on the organization, since I think that they've seen themselves as an only electoral group.
When I interviewed the outgoing Executive Director of the Montana Dems for a story I just wrote on Brian Schweitzer's victory, he emphasized the importance of grassroots organizing for change as being a model for electoral organizing. It involves more than just canvassing. It involves regular letters to the editor. It involves getting into policy fights.
College Democrats should be taking the lead on their campuses on issues of importance to students. They should not just be the voice of the party on campus, but the voice of campus in the party. They need to stand up and demand lower tuition, better financial aid, affordable housing, improved transportation, and everything else that matters to students.
In some cases, College Dem chapters will be prohibited from making distinctions in primaries. But if College Dems are to be respected on campus, they'll need to be seen as fighting for students, not merely mimicking the muckity-mucks higher up in the party.
One thing that I'd like to make clear about the College Dems is that not all chapters are equivalent. It's true that we have some newer chapters, and some chapters that haven't done much. But we also have many, many chapters that have done a whole lot.
At my own college, the College Dems group that I started registered the most voters on campus of any of the groups--over 350--and we had a massive GOTV program that contributed to a 289% increase in turnout. We also did work closely with Student Government and an independent group that another student started, and we worked as a coalition. Student Government organized shuttles for election day. The other group helped to register voters, and put together a registration concert. But we registered the most out of all the groups and we were the only ones knocking doors (and we canvassed all the dorms) and constantly tabling and going out for registrations. Rock the Vote tabled for a single day on campus and brought in outsiders to do so.
And the work we did would have been a lot harder if not for CDA. I went to last year's convention in Boston and the Democratic GAIN training was invaluable in gaining skills necessary to put together such a successful field program.
Frankly the efforts at any student organization are dependent on the motives and energy of the students behind them. At some schools, these may be the Dems--at others the better leaders may be in other groups--but I think it's unfair to claim we had little to do with turnout when in fact many chapters had gigantic efforts.
By contrast, I have observed that the comments on CP's own conference tended to be overwhelmingly positive: incredibly motivating with hopes for the future of most if not all attendees.
OKAY, or I just may be looking at two overwhelmingly biased POVs.
But still, we are looking at all this from a strategic POV. Is it better for students to be encouraged to think for themselves, believing in the values that they do and acting on them? Or is it better for them to become autonomous foot-soldiers, devoid of any independent thought, spouting talking points like good little HACKS... as the GOP has done with THEIR kids, and WON?
These questions are hard to answer. I'm just thankful that CAP is here and thinking long-term.
Currently, Dean is adopting a locally-oriented grass-roots strategy with his state chairmen. I personally saw the merits of this strategy when I attended several Downing St. parties this weekend. It remains to see what the fruits of our labors (and labors, and labors) may behold.
The question remains, however - think for ourselves and act on our views, or become automated foot soldiers? Whatever the case, we must do it consistently and continuously.
No party has a monopoly on this or that.
But at least at my school, the CR's are more open to serious debates on policy and ideology than the CD's. Which is, in a word, sad to say.
An organization that has a "We're right, and now all we have to do is go win elections" mentality is a sad thing to behold.
And regarding AndrewGarib's posts, I would get the same impression if I took his posts as fact. But frankly he has already published a lot of inaccuracies and demonstrated misperceptions and what happens within CDA, what its organization is like, how it runs, how it interacts with the chapters, and ultimately what it does and how it contributes to students nationwide. If you talk to actual College Dems who have been involved in this, you would probably get a completely different perception.
In the runup to the war with Iraq, Judith Miller published a lot of stories with information from Ahmed Chalabi about all the WMDs that were to be found there. But just because it was published, it didn't mean it was true. And we have the same thing here.
Once again, I ask you, which inaccuracies are you refering to? One is reminded of the echo chamber on the right: the more you say that I published inaccuate information, the more credibility is afforded to your words by the unthinking reader. I would appreciate clarification about how the views I reflected in my posts from your College Democrats were somehow not true. Can you conclusively claim that your fellow College Democrats did not have those opinions?
I am satisfied from my interviews that what I posted did, in fact, reflect what very many College Dems think about the political world around them. I am not satisfied with your attack on my journalistic integrity.
First off, regarding Dennis' comments: there are three levels of College Dems: the national group, CDA; the state feds; and the local chapters. While it may be true that CDA and some of the state feds are raising money, this is certainly not the only aspect of what goes on. For the state feds--I'm also involved in the PA fed--and my job involves coordinating speakers around the state, and other political activity--even though it's an off year.
And regarding chapters--the chapters do not spend the bulk of their time fundraising. The fundraising that they do partake in generally supports their own activities, and they put together events like one chapter that advocated against Bush's privatization scheme with a Celebrity Poker event at one college where campus celebrities gambled away their Social Security.
Also, you say "The College Democrats are too ingrained into the fabric of politics on campus for them to be solely focused on elections. The CDA needs to promote skills training on issue advocacy, media relations, messaging, etc." CDA did in fact have training sessions on messaging and media. And there was nothing specifically terms of issue advocacy--but a lot of politics is about issue advocacy, and the core skills they trained us in could be applied in such a way--so could you be more specific in terms of what you would have liked to see?
Finally, regarding your frustration with what has been going on with CDA: could you please elaborate on what specifically you would like to see? And also, might I ask, have you joined your College Dems chapter and pushed it toward your own vision? If not, why not? You should be the change you would like to see.
One final thought--I have at times been on the outside of organizations and I've seen problems with them. I've seen problems with a group only to discover that the group's leaders and members were aware of it and were doing what they could to address it, but that the problem was more complex and tougher to fix than I realized. A lot of this is a matter of perspective.
is coming from--it is by now
widely accepted that Democrats
have been lacking the
institutions for intellectual
debate and development which
have been so beneficial to our
young Republican colleagues
since the 1970s. Organizations
such as Campus Progress have
come in to fill this need, and
not a moment to soon. But
let's keep things in
perspective here: the CDA IS
NOT a think tank and should
never work as a think tank;
that is the job of
organizations such as this
one, where ideas are debated
and sorted out. The CDA does
not function as a platform for
intellectual debate, but
rather as unifying
organization meant to DOWNPLAY
our differences within the
party. Let's remember that
even though conservatives have
successfully established youth
oriented think tanks, they
still continue to rely on the
RNC and the College
Republicans to assure party
unity and focus on campaigns.
Similarly, the DNC will
never--and should never-- work
as a center for intellectual
debate because it is the
public face of our party. It
should instead adopt the ideas
discussed in non-affiliated
progressive organizations and
present a unified front to the
country. Ideas are an
essential component of a
successful party, but the
Donna Braziles and Ken
Mehlmans of this world are
also quite necessary to get
the message out. --Jose (The
guy sitting next to Dennis
Vondran when he gave you that
quote)