One year has passed since I attended the College Democrats' kickoff meeting as a bright-eyed, rosy-cheeked freshman, and I can still feel the electric bursts of enthusiasm radiating from the pulpit. Backed by a handful of Technicolor campaign signs, the speakers gave newcomers an animated introduction to the group while proudly touting the Democratic candidates entering the midterm election. Most of the audience responded in kind to the energetic presentation of the candidates. Mention of the names "Falk," "Lawton," or "Doyle" sparked a fervent round of applause, or at the very least, a wholehearted attempt to provoke one.
It was great to see the audience and speakers so involved and energized. At the same time, I couldn't help but wonder why I was clapping. I had never even heard of Rep. Tammy Baldwin before, having lived in her district for less than a week. And while I intended to vote for Mr. Doyle, I didn't feel particularly compelled to send up a rapturous shriek of joy at the very mention of his name. I thought he made a very capable governor and preferred him to Republican candidate Mark Green, but I certainly didn't consider Mr. Doyle perfect.
Unfortunately, the kickoff meeting never fully clarified why the Democrats nominated the best candidates possible, beyond catchy slogans and redundant talking points. The subsequent deluge of e-mails didn't elucidate, and the press releases referred pointedly to Republican ethical missteps. As near as I could tell, the College Democrats wanted its members to supports candidates because a) they were Democrats and b) they weren't Republicans.
It is mind-bogglingly obvious that the College Democrats campaign for members of their own party. But when the College Democrats take this for granted, their support for the Democratic candidates supplants their support for the generally agreed-upon goals of the Democratic Party. Instead of cheering for the candidates' promises for health care reform, a tweaked tax system, or more funding for public education, the College Democrats assume all these things and instead applaud for the candidates themselves. In doing so, they come dangerously close to forgetting the issues they support.
For instance, one of the only protests the College Democrats held last year was to chastise Mr. Green for using campaign money illegally — he had used donations received some years earlier in his campaign for the House of Representatives. Mr. Green had done no harm to health care, welfare or the low, middle, or upper-middle classes. The only offense he committed — and probably unknowingly, at that — was to put himself at a slight advantage over his opponent, the incumbent and Democratic candidate Jim Doyle.
The Republican candidate was the indirect brunt of a legal blunder, and the College Democrats pounced on the issue, organizing one of the few protests they held all year to announce their public condemnations. They also made sure to mention Mr. Green's "dirty money" in nigh-daily press releases.
Meanwhile, issues beyond the candidates themselves were shoved into the periphery.
Granted, it is difficult to run a student organization based on more minor ideological details. More people can call themselves Democrats than can agree on every issue. By lumping broad abstractions together like Play-Doh of similar hues, a political organization can collect a much larger audience and work to change the outsiders who do not accept their shared beliefs. But one should be wary of rallying under a banner without critically examining what it stands for. Otherwise one can wind up trusting the banner — or the candidate — out of habit and assumption, and thus become as moldable as Silly Putty. Differing ideas within a political party — and the opportunity to debate them — prevents the party from being composed of malleable yes-men. Take heed, College Dems, take heed.
Jack Garigliano ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in English.
