I voted for Richard Davis for Democratic Party Chair. He did not win. Peter Carroon won. Both were good choices, but Peter is a better choice as a candidate for political office and Richard would have been a shrewd and smart strategic choice as Party chair.
Utah Democrats were foolish for not embracing Mr. Davis' candidacy, even though many party stalwarts may not agree with some of his positions--as I don't.
In listening to comments in the caucases, instead of realizing that Democrats are the minority party in Utah, it appears that the rank and file want Peter Carroon, not because he's good for the party's progress but because, "he's put in his dues," "we need to act like, talk like and be Democrats (whatever that means)," and because he's a BYU Professor and therefore his candacy is "interjecting religion into politics." I also had the feeling that many would not vote for Mr. Davis solely because he is LDS.
So the same wrongheaded thinking that many staunch LDS Republicans have that does not permit them to be Democrats or vote for none-LDS candidates or those who are Democrats--applies to many Democrats. Yet when you are in the minority, you especially need to reach out and attract more participation from a broader electorate. You do not do that by party purges, creating orthodoxy and electing those who have "put in their dues."
Those involved in politics at the grass roots level in both parties tend to include many who are at the polar extremes of the populace. This leaves a lot of people in the middle. And lets face it, in Utah, that middle is filled with many who are LDS who do not feel welcome in the Democratic party and are often made to feel unwelcome.
As a consequence, the Republicans have the luxury in this State of ignoring the independent and potential swing voters. Democrats can accept that for what it is and as the minority party, work with it and court those moderate voices or it can swim against the current.
Therefore, Democrats can decide if they want to continue to have little influence outside of Salt Lake County by sticking to their orthodoxy or they can appeal to a broader base by making bold choices. Such choices would include embracing fellow Democrats who, while clearly fitting within party philosophical parameters, may not share the same positions on a few issues that Democrats consider the litmus test to the parties' supposed orthodoxy.
Richard Davis, as party chair, could have helped exponentially in extending the party's influence beyond Salt Lake County without having had any political power to have threatened the orthodoxy of the party.
Yet, because Democrats have rejected Professor Richard Davis, Republicans can relax and Democrats can now continue to be the party of the Wasatch front.
Loren M. Lambert © April 26, 2014
Utah Democrats were foolish for not embracing Mr. Davis' candidacy, even though many party stalwarts may not agree with some of his positions--as I don't.
In listening to comments in the caucases, instead of realizing that Democrats are the minority party in Utah, it appears that the rank and file want Peter Carroon, not because he's good for the party's progress but because, "he's put in his dues," "we need to act like, talk like and be Democrats (whatever that means)," and because he's a BYU Professor and therefore his candacy is "interjecting religion into politics." I also had the feeling that many would not vote for Mr. Davis solely because he is LDS.
So the same wrongheaded thinking that many staunch LDS Republicans have that does not permit them to be Democrats or vote for none-LDS candidates or those who are Democrats--applies to many Democrats. Yet when you are in the minority, you especially need to reach out and attract more participation from a broader electorate. You do not do that by party purges, creating orthodoxy and electing those who have "put in their dues."
Those involved in politics at the grass roots level in both parties tend to include many who are at the polar extremes of the populace. This leaves a lot of people in the middle. And lets face it, in Utah, that middle is filled with many who are LDS who do not feel welcome in the Democratic party and are often made to feel unwelcome.
As a consequence, the Republicans have the luxury in this State of ignoring the independent and potential swing voters. Democrats can accept that for what it is and as the minority party, work with it and court those moderate voices or it can swim against the current.
Therefore, Democrats can decide if they want to continue to have little influence outside of Salt Lake County by sticking to their orthodoxy or they can appeal to a broader base by making bold choices. Such choices would include embracing fellow Democrats who, while clearly fitting within party philosophical parameters, may not share the same positions on a few issues that Democrats consider the litmus test to the parties' supposed orthodoxy.
Richard Davis, as party chair, could have helped exponentially in extending the party's influence beyond Salt Lake County without having had any political power to have threatened the orthodoxy of the party.
Yet, because Democrats have rejected Professor Richard Davis, Republicans can relax and Democrats can now continue to be the party of the Wasatch front.
Loren M. Lambert © April 26, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment