So, last week there was a fracas in the progressive caucus at the New Jersey State Democratic Conference. I wrote it up in Blue Jersey, but I think it really captures the organizing challenges that progressives are facing in Camden and across the state: 

This past week at the New Jersey Democratic State Conference, the progressive caucus opened up the hood for everyone to take a look.

Chairman Currie: “NJ Democrats just showed what a united grassroots movement for progressive change looks like. The energy we saw throughout this event to put this country back in the right direction is unprecedented, and as a party we will be working non-stop to channel it”

— NJ Dems (@NJDSC) September 24, 2018

 

It would be funny if it wasn’t so bizarre. Though Chairman Currie centered “progressive change” in his comments, the actual progressive caucus was fraught with a bizarre conflict. Here at Blue Jersey, we caught it on film:

There’s a lot to discuss here, including the prominent role “the line” played in the conflict, first as an applause line, and later as the fulcrum for a conflict in which Jim Keady interrupted the panel to challenge Chairman Currie on the same issue. Currie responded, “the line is not undemocratic, it’s our system in New Jersey.”

The panel left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth. It was bizarre at best and ugly at worst to have a panel full of women dominated by two men who had already spoken at length at the conference making impromptu appearances and controlling the airtime. It was frustrating for progressives looking to caucus and move forward on issues to be beaten over the head with the “unify” message — too often it seems the very real stakes of mid-term elections are actually being used as a way to silence progressives. And the progressive community was split-at-best about the tactic of yelling down party leadership to make a point about the line — there was real concern that it was counterproductive and let off the hook the two male politicians who shouldn’t have dominated a panel they weren’t a part of, but could instead complain they were the injured party.

Does that sound familiar? People in power that espouse progressive values, but are more interesting in lecturing progressives about how they aren’t unifying fast enough. 

I don’t know if that’s intentional, or just a misunderstanding of the room. I’m not convinced it’s always a strategy to silence progressive voices. But it speaks to a growing divide between a Democratic leadership that truly believes it is being progressive, but also has bad instincts when it comes to actually dealing with progressives. 

In Camden, progressives are constantly faced with an ugly choice along these lines. Support politicians that have histories of not being progressive, that support a local party structure that is undemocratic and retaliatory, and that now is highlighting their progressive values as they fight Trump. Or oppose it to play a longer game, but with potentially devastating short-term consequences as Democrats unite to oppose a dangerous Republican majority. 

It’s not an easy choice, and local progressives don’t take it lightly. 

 

*note: my wife Sue Altman is on the board of South Jersey Women for Progressive Change and was on the panel above. 

Tags: progressives