I am honored to be serving as a delegate to the CDP along with Ellis Perlman, a Professor Emeritus in political science from the University of Michigan-Flint.  He has been a keen observer of grassroots politics as it relates to this state for the past 100 years, and I asked him to put together some information on it, to serve as a historical perspective for those of us who don’t quite remember the days of Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren.  There’s some very good information here, and it all speaks to the fact that this “people-powered” movement is nothing new, it’s just being adapted for the 21st century.

The report, on the flip…

Grass Roots and Political Change in California  Jan. 21, 2007

Progressivism, building on earlier populist movements, has spurred a variety of grass roots movements during the past hundred years in California.  The state’s political history is encouraging.  It demonstrates that progressive grass roots movements can achieve power and influence public policy.  The examples below illustrate such achievements and influence.

Two factors should be noted.  One is that the movements typically have been rooted in the middle and upper middle class.  The second is that conservatives have had similar successes, especially in the 1960 and beyond.  -Ellis Perlman  January 24, 2007 

The Progressive movement in California was founded by Chester Rowell and Edward Dickson, two journalists who had become disgusted with the Southern Pacific Railroad’s control of the state legislature.  Their efforts ultimately led to formation of the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican League, with clubs forming throughout the state.  This was a grass roots movement, largely from within the Republican Party, to clean up California government, and make it more responsive to Progressive ideals.
Source:  Joseph P. Harris, California Politics (Chandler:  1967), pp. 1-13

Another form of grass roots action and accomplishment in California involved the response of women when they first gained the right to vote.  Women’s suffrage was opposed by the elite in Los Angeles, and especially by the Los Angeles Times.  It was approved by 2000 votes in Los Angeles, and by 3587 votes statewide in a special election on October 10, 1911.  By December, more than 82,000 women had registered in Los Angeles, and more than 90% voted in the mayoral election.  Ironically, the Times, having opposed the women’s vote, congratulated women for their “intelligent voting” in defeating the Socialist mayoral candidate, John Harriman. 
Source:  Jane Apostal, “Why Women Should Not Have the Vote:  Anti-Suffrage Views in the Southland in 1911,”  Southern California Quarterly  70:29-42 (Spring, 1988)

A group of Republicans, mainly liberals, met in August, 1923, to organize a campaign to secure a liberal state legislature, and to oppose Friend W. Richardson, the conservative Republican governor.  They created the Progressive Voters League to contest the 1924 and 1926 elections.  The very conservative Richardson followed two progressive governors, Hiram Johnson and William Stephens.  The Democratic Party was weak, commonly winning no more than a third of the gubernatorial vote.  When Richardson was elected in 1922, conservative Republicans had a majority in the Assembly, and almost a majority in the Senate.  The Voters League was instrumental in electing a Progressive, Clement Young, as Governor.  The League then disbanded, and Conservative James Rolfe was elected governor in 1930.  As with most revolts against dominant political authority in 20th century California, grass roots organization played a major role, and the revolt came from within the  Republican Party.

Source:  Russell Posner, “The Progressive Voters League, 1923-1926,” California Historical Society Quarterly  36:251-261 (September, 1957)

Progressivism is generally considered to have faded as a force in California and nationally by the 1920s-1930s period.  Rosanne  M. Barker demonstrated that Progressivism continued as an active movement during this period, sustained by women’s organizations, particularly in small towns.  She highlights the activity of Pearl Chase and other women activists in Santa Barbara, and notes that progressive women activists were achieving success in other towns, as well.  The types of activities and accomplishments described by Barker did not draw much attention, at the time or later.  It represented, however, substantial grass roots effort and achievement of progressive goals.
Source:  Rosanne M. Barker, “Small Town Progressivism:  Pearl Chase and Female Activism in Santa Barbara,” Southern California Quarterly  79:47-100 (Spring, 1997)

The California Republican Assembly was organized in 1934 as a response to Republican losses in 1932.  Clubs were formed throughout the state.  By 1938, Earl Warren had become the key figure in bringing moderate/progressive Republican leadership to power, to control the state for the next twenty years.  Subsequent grass root movements, beginning with United Republicans of California and the John Birch Society regained conservative control of the Republican Party by the 1960s.
Source:  Richard Harvey, Dynamics of  California Government and Politics  (Wadsworth, 1970) ch. 2

The California Democratic Council, with chapters throughout the state and a peak membership of 66,000, grew out of Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 campaign for President.  The political leader most associated with the CDC was Alan Cranston, State Controller and later U. S. Senator.  The CDC was a grass roots movement, one generated from within the Democratic Party.  Its membership tended to be middle class and suburban, as were the several Republican grass roots movements that fostered progressive reform.
Source:  Clyde E. Jacobs and John F. Gallagher, California Government:  One Among Fifty  (Macmillan, 1966), pp. 102-106

I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did (or perhaps not; I’m a history nerd).  It’s interesting that grassroots movements in this state have traditionally started in the middle and upper-middle classes; not surprising, certainly on the basis of leisure time.  I think our challenge in the netroots is to ensure a multiplicity of voices, to understand and hear from the concerns of the poor and those typically not present in the larger political debate.

The other factor is that our opposition is just as equipped to pull this off, so we must be smarter, and grow larger, and continue to innovate to maintain any kind of advantage.  We also must keep an eye on our legislators in Sacramento, as the “clean up government” mantra has bounced back and forth between the parties over the years.

I’m going to try and get Ellis to write a little more for the site, if you have any specific areas of interest, please put them in the comments.

(I wanted to bump dday’s post on this back up. If you are running, put a comment in on the thread. In some of the big districts, there will be plenty of competition. In others, not so much. Also, if you are in one of those districts, go attend and support your fellow Calitics readers! – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I am running to be part of the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) in the 41st Assembly District of California.  The election’s in ten days, and yesterday I joined with 11 other Democrats to agree to run as a bloc called the Progressive Slate.  The goal is to make the California Democratic Party (CDP) more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in the state.  And the Progressive Caucus is at the center of efforts to reform the state party in California.

I want to explain the reasons why I’m running, and a little back of background about this race, and finally how you can help.

I’ve lived in California for the last eight years.  I’m a fairly active and engaged citizen, one who has attended plenty of Democratic Club meetings, who has lived in the most heavily Democratic areas of the state in both the North and South, who has volunteered and aided the CDP and Democratic candidates from California during election time, who (you would think) would be the most likely candidate for outreach from that party to help them in their efforts to build a lasting majority.  But in actuality, the California Democratic Party means absolutely nothing to me.  Neither do its endorsements.  The amount of people who aren’t online and aren’t in grassroots meetings everyday who share this feeling, I’d peg at about 95% of the electorate. 

I mean, I’m a part of both those worlds, and I have no connection to the state party.  I should be someone that the CDP is reaching out to get involved.  They don’t.  The only time I ever know that the CDP exists is three weeks before the election when they pay for a bunch of ads.  The other 23 months of the year they are a nonentity to the vast majority of the populace.

And this has a tremendous impact.  The state of California is hardly deep blue.  It’s had Republican governors for 80 out of the past 100 years.  The last time the Democratic Party meant anything to California’s citizens was in the time of Alan Cranston and Pat Brown in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Democratic Club movement began, and when the state party was most involved with the grassroots.  At the time, the party was committed to progressive values and offered a real politics of contrast to move the Democratic brand in the state forward.  This has receded in the past 30 years.

This is the only reason that I’m running as a delegate; because I want the CDP to be something more than an occasional admaker.  I want to have a state party that is not as in thrall to big money.  I want a state party that isn’t involved in laundering $4 million dollars in corporate money from AT&T to the speaker of the State Assembly as payback for getting a cable and video deregulation bill passed.  I want a state party that actually gets behind Clean Money instead of officially remaining neutral on the legislation because they don’t want to upset their big-money donors.  I want a state party that spends more money on voter outreach and contacts than on a couple ads.  I want a state party that contests everywhere rather than trying to get out the vote in their traditional enclaves.  I want a state party chairman that actually fulfills this agenda instead of paying lip service to it.  I want the CDP to send me an email once in a while, and act like an entity that can make a difference in people’s lives, instead of an umbrella organization for incumbency protection.

The problem is that this is going to be an uphill battle.  The way the CDP works is that its delegates come from three separate sources.  There are the Assembly District caucuses, where 12 Democrats (6 men, 6 women) are chosen to serve as delegates.  That accounts for about one-third of the total delegates.  Another third comes from the County Committees, which is weighted by population for each county.  The final third comes from elected officials in California and nominees for state offices, as well as their appointees.

Obviously, a lot of these are insider positions.  And the only process for adding delegates that’s open to the public, the AD caucuses, is a deliberately closed process.  In fact, the rules have changed.  In 2005, progressives were very successful in gaining seats through the caucuses and becoming delegates.  In response, the CDP completely changed the process.  In 2005, any registered Democrat who showed up at the caucus could stand as a candidate.  Now, you must apply in writing beforehand.  In 2005, the caucus was open to the public.  Now, there’s a $5 POLL TAX to “defray costs of the caucus.”  In 2005, voters heard all the speeches from the various candidates before voting.  Now, they can come to the polling place, vote and leave.  Never mind that practically nobody knows about these elections unless they seek out the information.  That wasn’t good enough.  The new rules set up barriers to entry and make it easier for machine-type political forces to shuttle their voters in for five minutes and ensure their victory.  This is why we are running as a progressive slate; to multiply our power by 12, by ensuring that the people we get out to vote cast their ballot for the entire slate instead of individual candidates.

Only two Democrats in the entire state of California were able to defeat incumbents last November: Debra Bowen and Jerry McNerney.  Both of them harnessed the power of the grassroots and used it to carry them to victory.  They also stuck to their principles and created a real contrast with their opponents on core issues.  The only way that the California Democratic Party can retain some relevance in the state, and not remain a secretive, cloistered money factory that enriches its elected officials with lobbyist money and does nothing to build the Democratic brand, is by building from the bottom up and not the top down.  By becoming more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in its strategy, we can ensure that California stays blue, which is not a given.  This is a long-term process that is in its third year, and will not happen overnight.  But it’s crucial that we continue and keep the pressure on.