Last Friday, I had the opportunity to speak to Ashley Anderson, a Wright volunteer who is involved very much in the campaign. I told him that I intended to run an article about Claudia Wright’s difficult chances in Congressional District 2; that article, for the two of you who missed it, ran yesterday with much discussion.
In the interest of fairness, I invited him to write his own counter article. I submitted mine a day before it was published in order to give him a fair amount of time to respond.
And so, for the first time in BiRZ’s history, I have invited a guest writer to discuss his views on a particular issue. And so, here is Ashley Anderson on the Wright campaign (please note that the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Blue in Red Zion or its management) :
—
I would like to thank Curtis for graciously offering me a chance to post on his blog. I may disagree with his opinion about Claudia, but I certainly respect him and call him a friend. The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of Claudia Wright, her campaign or strategy. I am posting here because I think it is crucial that when delegates vote on May 8th, they can do so with the confidence of having an accurate view of what is possible. I hope that my perspective will add to that confidence.
Emphatically declaring that “this is the way things are,” is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what is possible. People deeply embedded in a system often have a hard time imagining the system working any other way. By proclaiming that what he has seen happen is the only thing that could possibly happen, Curtis is asking us to surrender to inevitabilities that simply do not exist.
Curtis points to the 47% of registered voters who actually turn up as a political fact of life rather than a result of the choices voters were given in previous elections. The mass of people who feel unrepresented by the narrow range of choices presented by conventional candidates is further evidenced by the fact that only 36.7% of eligible Utah voters turned up in 2006, the worst turnout in the country. The fact that the large majority of eligible voters don’t show up is one of the reasons that no race is ever impossible to win. Any race is winnable by a candidate who reaches those who feel unrepresented by our political system. Claudia has already shown her ability to do that.
Curtis also accepts the superficial view that the political spectrum is a straight line from liberal to conservative. While convenient for the mainstream media, this analysis ignores the more complicated reality of political views. Currently, the most powerful forces across the political spectrum are disgusted with Washington politics and outraged at the corporate control of our political system. If the Republicans run a career politician like Morgan Philpot and the Dems run Claudia Wright, a high school history teacher, Claudia is the anti-Washington candidate who can appeal to populist rage. Claudia’s cornerstone issue of getting corporate money out of politics has broad appeal for conservatives upset about bank bailouts and handouts to health insurance companies.
At least on the fundraising front, I am encouraged by Curtis’s analysis. I don’t know if he intended his $145k price tag to be intimidating, but it certainly isn’t. Claudia’s unique story of responding to a Craigslist help-wanted ad and going on to take on Matheson at convention has inspired the imagination of the nation. If Claudia gets 60% of the delegates on May 8th, she can easily bring in $145k within two weeks! Remember that when MoveOn decided to bring attention to Bill Halter’s attempt to replace Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln, they helped him raise $1 million within days. PAC’s are watching this race very closely. They are ready to rally, if Utah delegates prove that they are.
As a supporter of Claudia’s campaign, I certainly don’t think that the recent negative campaigning from Matheson supporters is any sort of conspiracy. However, the obvious problem with constantly declaring Claudia “unelectable” is that after next month, we will likely all have to work together to get her elected. Beyond that, it doesn’t seem very healthy for the Democratic Party to try to convince the base that their views cannot possibly be represented in Congress. The “unelectable” mantra promotes the view that we cannot be effective agents of change and that the only role for progressives in our political system is that of victims. Convincing your most passionate allies to give up on their ideals is anything but pragmatic. It is a strategy of self-disempowerment, and it will come back to haunt the whole Democratic ticket in November.
Democrats are the only ones who can make a progressive unelectable. If enough of us join this chorus in proclaiming that progressives can’t win, we will be right. Betting against yourself is always a safe bet. But we would be doing a disservice to ourselves and our allies like Peter Corroon. We have plenty of real opponents who are trying to get us to give up on our goals. We should not be doing their job for them.
In these times of political chaos and genuine crises, we need more enlightened thinking than this:
Those who claim that they would prefer a full Republican over a half (or quarter, or whatever) Democrat in office so that we can beat them in two years are either too naive or too comfortable about their own situation. There is simply no other explanation for these thoughts.
Aside from the fact that the above statement misrepresents any actual claims I have seen expressed, it shows a close-minded and destructive disregard for different opinions. Perhaps folks have noticed that Chaffetz and Bishop have had no impact in a Democratically controlled government while Jim Matheson uses his significant influence to first weaken bills like health care and climate legislation, and then votes against them anyway. Perhaps they see a need for more fundamental reforms than the Democratic Party is currently willing to address. Regardless of their reasons, the fact is that a lot of Democrats are willing to risk that seat in an effort to catalyze change. Those are our people, and they should not be belittled as naïve or lavish. If we want them on our side, we need a more respectful attempt to understand their positions.
It has become abundantly clear that getting strong Democratic majorities is not enough to accomplish the progressive reforms this country needs. A realistic pragmatist would see that it takes more than a D after someone’s name to actually move the country in the direction we want it to go. To maintain the sole priority of electing the safest candidate willing to call himself a Democrat is dogmatic partisanship. Our goal as Democrats is to have a healthy, equitable and prosperous country. Pragmatism means doing what is necessary to actually achieve those goals.
I don’t know anyone in Claudia’s campaign who thinks that a victory in November will be easy or is in any way assured. We are supporting Claudia because we know that progress never comes without a struggle or without risking the status quo. We know that every great step forward for our country came not because the odds were in our favor, but because courageous visionaries believed in their power to create a better world.
I heartily support the views expressed by Ashley and am reminded over and over again of the thought expressed by Margaret Mead, (1901 – 1978) ” Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Claudia is the wRIGHT choice for the 2nd District and is electable! I encourage all delegates to the State Convention on May 8th to be aware of the REAL choice they have when casting their vote….be part of the small group of thoughtful, committed citizens as it becomes a ground swell of support for Claudia Wright.
Jim Matheson is a Democrat. Using some ideological purity test to boot him out isn’t going to help elect other Democrats into office in Utah, it will only alienate the mainstream (these “independents” that usually vote R).
You mention Peter Corroon in your article. He is a pretty moderate Democrat as well, and wouldn’t even be competitive if it wasn’t for a Democrat like Matheson who showed Utahns that Democrats aren’t all devil horned crazies. For instance, Corroon doesn’t support gay marriage, which is important to many delegates. Are we going to circle the wagons and fire at him for that? No, we’re going to realize that in Utah, we can only move the political dialogue along in constructive increments that don’t damage our party and damage the potential for more candidates running next cycle for the 4th seat. Running a far-left candidate in a district like UT02 is not constructive towards this goal past the convention.
Now, this may not be the goal of the supporters of CW’s campaign, but that is my perspective on this.
Claudia is not far left, unless the entire State and National Democratic party is “far left”
She is in line with both the state and national platforms. It’s Matheson who is the right wing conservative that does not reflect true Democratic principles.
Your statement saying Peter is not “competitive if not for Matheson” takes away from the great job Peter has and is doing. (not sure where you heard that people in Utah think of Democrats as “devil horned crazies”, but I would move from there and VERY quickly)
The point is with Peter, everyone knows where he stands and there is no question with his statements or where he stands on any given issue.
The tired argument that we “need Matheson” to get other Democrats elected short changes all of the other extremely qualified true Democrats who win whether he is on the ticket or not.
Remember, four years ago, his brother, Scott Matheson JR. did not get elected even thought Jim was at the top of the ticket. That argument is not valid.
I believe the goal of Claudia is to give Utah a real choice between a true Democrat and someone who only talks the talk, yet time and time again (48% of the time) votes with the Republicans.
I am the treasurer for Claudia Wright’s campaign and am the one who submitted its quarterly report — and i cannot, for the life of me, imagine where the writer got his information about the campaign’s bank balance! Claudia Wright was a few hundred dollars “in the hole” after spending her own money to print her very first campaign materials, but she has been repaid, and we have been paying our bills — immediately — with donated money, ever since. That money has come mostly in $10-100 increments, which shows we have lots of support out there! We have plenty of money for the coming convention and know there are many donors just waiting to see what happens there. Once Claudia takes the convention, they will be ready with their checkbooks. Money will not be a problem, and we are ready to work hard to let the voters of District 2 know all about Claudia and her ideas.
Just wanted to set the record straight!
Judy Lord
Elizabeth, this article is doesn’t even hint at an ideological purity test. It talks about the most realistic way of achieving our goals. What are you replying to?
Don’t sell the party short. The Democratic gains in Utah came from the hard work of a lot of people speaking out against right-wing nonsense and educating their neighbors, not from Matheson. Remember how his brother lost the governor race while Jim won with big margins? That’s because Jim isn’t actually bringing people into our party, he’s moving into theirs. He’s moving the political dialogue to the right, making it harder for even those in the moderate left to stand by their views.
If we’re serious about strengthening the Democratic Party, we need a candidate who can excite the base and bring new people into politics. Claudia Wright is clearly that candidate. Carroon’s job gets a lot harder with Matheson inspiring Democrats to stay home.
I understand where you might have gathered your sentiments, Elizabeth, since Utah is a state where Bob Bennett is considered a “moderate” who is “not conservative enough” to do his party justice… but the facts are as such: Jim Matheson is not a true Democrat. I’m not saying he’s a Republican–although his voting record is more closely aligned with the agenda of the Republican party than any other Democrat in the U.S. What I am saying is that Matheson’s politics belong to a lot of big, ugly, monied vested interests.
Matheson is completely bought and paid for, and that is why his policies and voting record illustrate that he is a “Democrat in name only.” He has absolutely no loyalty or obligation to the folks who entrust him with their support, and their vote. None whatsoever.
Claudia Wright might be a little further left than your average Democrat, but her values are clearly aligned with those of the party. Most importantly, to my mind and to most of her supporters’ minds, party affiliations aside, Wright is candidate who will answer solely to THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED HER, not to the corporations who purchased her behind closed doors.
This is pretty much a reconstruction of the same argument that I kept hearing for the Green Party in the 2000 presidential election. How did that one turn out again? Oh, right.
This feel good attitude is unrealistic. Yes CD2 is big and extends to a lot of Utah. The problem is that a vote in Grand County doesn’t really have any sway on the vote. Whoever runs has to win big in SL, Ut and Washington county. Claudia’s strategy to maintain a die hard left stance is a suicide run. With national outrage against the Democrats, running a candidate who is more left than our current isn’t logical.
It’s isn’t fear mongering to say she can’t be elected. It’s being real about national trends, Utah politics, and actual numbers.
If Claudia wins the party nomination but fails to win the election… we’e lost a seat in Congress. This is BIG. If we believe in what Obama is trying and has done, then we need to make sure to go after the electable candidate. Having Mr. Hell No from Ohio will be ten times worse then your “wrongs” from Matheson.
In response to Guy’s post. I am not sure the people of Wayne county would agree that their vote has no sway. Utah county has a total of 14 delegates and the area of that county in the second district is minuscule.
Claudia has amazing support in Washington County and in case you did not hear, Matheson was booed at numerous mass meetings in Salt Lake County.
We need to get every Democrat out to the polls in November and Matheson will not and has not done that in the past.
The number of Republicans needed to put Mr. Hell No in the Speaker’s chair is a numerical impossibility.
And again I ask, what good is a Democrat in name only who votes AGAINST the Presidents agenda? Matheson’s 58% voting record with Republicans does nothing to move Obama’s agenda forward.
Just a correction on the county I named. I meant “Grand” in response to Guy’s post, but to say anyones vote, either in Wayne, Grand Salt Lake or any county, has no sway is discounting the voter and basically telling them to stay home.
And again, she is not a “die hard leftest” as Guy states, she is in line with the Democratic platforms of both the State and National Parties.
Guy, we’ve got plenty of D’s in Congress, but Obama still hasn’t been able to push his agenda through. The Blue Dogs are the ones who were standing in the way. Mr. Hell No has been irrelevant (which is probably why he pouts like a child in a need of some attention.)
The argument that having as many Dems (even in name only) as possible will help Obama could have made sense two years ago. But now we know that it is not true. To try the same thing when we know it doesn’t work is insanity.
Remember that the people who started this initiative were not politicians. We were activists working on pushing progressive issues, and we all ran into the same problem that was standing in the way of progress. This was not idealogical but entirely pragmatic. Those of us who work on things outside of politics see that not only CAN politics as usual change, but they MUST.
This biggest whole in Anderson’s argument (and again remember I’m saying this as someone who agrees with everything I read on the Wright campaign page) is that “populist rage” is for the most part another word for “tea parties” and “tea parties” are another word for “angry Republicans.”
Any populist rage that exists in UT-2 is primarily on that side, and will break for Wright in margin of about… oh, 0%.
I have waited years for a primary to happen in this race.
I had hoped when it happened, it would consider practical realities, as well as possibilities.
This race only hands Matheson every justification he needs to continue voting as he’s done. “Look at what those SLC Libruls are doing to me!” Unfortunate. Someone just a “little” more left could have pushed him left, or even realistically challenged Philpot in the GE.
Take a look at the % of this district that went for Obama in 2008, and Matheson’s own margin of victory. Use those as indicators of possibilities, not what we’d all like to have happen.
I only WISH that Utah was ready to support a candidate like Claudia. But pretending they are ignores a pragmatic approach that is equally as important in winning elections as the idealism of what’s possible.
@Dorothy, passion like yours is exactly what drove us to start this campaign. I am happy to tell you that the “handful of thoughtful citizens” has already turned into a “groundswell of support”! Months ago, people came out of every area of the District to attend their mass meetings. The movement is underway!
Cynical folks like Mike (above) think that Claudia Wright’s campaign is a spoiler, but they haven’t been on the phone with delegates for days, like we have. Delegates are smart, politically-aware people who don’t appreciate being told by party leaders that they have to settle for less than they want. They aren’t a vocal minority, like the green party or any other party. They are Democrats who believe in the platform of the Party. They are the majority. And they are willing to knock on doors and volunteer their time to send Claudia Wright to Washington DC.
Philpot is dead in the water – don’t think he’ll get past the conventions. He’s out of money, hasn’t shown the ability to raise any, and his support is dropping like flies. It will be interesting to see how Claudia does against Jim (Which i think she has a real chance – voters are somewhat disenchanted with Jim right now). I don’t see how her campaign is a spoiler in any way. Claudia’s skill set and knowledge give her as good of opportunity to win as anyone right now – especially noting the source of all of Matheson’s campaign money. I kind of feel like he is being bought.
MIKE: “This is pretty much a reconstruction of the same argument that I kept hearing for the Green Party in the 2000 presidential election. How did that one turn out again? Oh, right.”
Mike, it turned out pretty well. The Green Party showed there is strong demand for a progressive slate in this country. While Bush won – and his victory has zero to do with Ralph Nader, but if you want to blame Nader rather than your own party for a horrendously run campaign, be my guest.
As an independent that loathes the Republican stranglehold on this state, you all are crazy if you think Claudia can win.
Her website is bush-league, her ideas are simply the rehashed Obama platform (which I tend to agree with) that the country (see: Utah) is “rebelling” against, she lacks charisma, her campaign has not shown they can put boots on the ground, her fundraising is dismal (you think Matheson has been able to hold onto that seat cheaply?), and frankly, I doubt I would turn out to vote for her (and I’m the Democrat-leaning/voting independent you Utah Democrats need to target).
If you boot Matheson, you’ve handed the seat to Philpot. It’s that simple.
You’ve given Matheson a scare. Get some sort of ideological promise out of him for the primary, and then hand him back the reigns until you can come up with a candidate that can keep Seat 2 blue.