Reading OLinda's diary of this afternoon about loneliness among the aged reminded me of an idea I have promoted from time to time, but if I've ever done so here it has no doubt been years. I've realized that this time of great economic need is probably a good time to raise the prospect.
I know that many people hate to talk about things this way, but "Democratic Party" is a brand. Republicans understand this of both their party and ours, and the main thing that Republicans understand better than Democrats is marketing. So if we want to build our brand -- if we want to win elections -- we have to look at what our comparative advantages are compared to Republicans.
Money? No.
Media access? No.
Good ideas? Yes, but because goodness often involves nuance, not necessarily a marketing advantage.
And then I thought of a good one:
We care about other people, we value helping them, and we are willing to volunteer our time to do so.
What we haven't been doing -- and maybe what we should do -- is volunteering as Democrats.
Looking (as I did last night) at the amount of money contributed by Democratic versus Republican celebrities in federal campaigns and causes gives a hint of our advantage here. Barbra Streisand doesn't really get anything from her political donations -- as opposed to many of the business executives who out-donate her -- but she does it anyway out of ideology. She'd still have friends, success, and fame either way. But she's a Democrat -- she's into improving the world.
So, I'll venture, are most of us.
So I'd like you to take a moment to imagine a completely different Democratic Party: one that provides things to people and gives them support at all points in the political cycle. Imagine a party that promotes the Democratic brand, person to person -- a party that gives as well as takes.
Many immigrants want to improve their English. Is there any reason that people who want to tutor them can't do so as part of a formal effort by the Democratic Party?
People will need tax help in the months to come. Is there any reason that people who could provide it can't do so as part of an organized effort by the Democratic Party?
(Party leaders might think about this if I remind them: hey, we could register people there!)
The government, cities and localities, have been canceling their basketball leagues. What prevents the Democratic Party, at its various levels, from bringing people together on playgrounds and at parks to play basketball?
And don't stop at basketball -- why can't the Democratic Party sponsor soccer leagues, especially in immigrant areas?
OLinda's diary notes the loneliness and insularity of many of the elderly. Doesn't that seem like a natural problem for the Democratic Party to address as an institution? Would it not be possible to solicit people to volunteer as Democrats to check in with certain people once a day or once a week, on behalf of the party, and just check in to see if they're well and if they need anything?
You'd do this anyway for your neighbors, given an introduction -- why not do it formally as a Democratic initiative?
With enough volunteers, could the Democratic Party even open a low-cost "Life Alert" system that isn't trying to squeeze dollars out of everyone? Could we set up phone lines for seniors (and others!) to call that would immediately forward to alert to a dozen people if someone could go out there or call 911?
If we did that, would that change how people think about Democrats?
Would that make them feel like we were ignoring them except when pumping them for contributions and votes?
I note that there are some groups who do things like this anyway, but they don't tend to skew Democratic: churches and civic organizations. I think that maybe we need to take a hint from them on how to reach people.
I don't belong to the Elks or the Moose or the Rotarians or Knight of Columbus or the Kiwanas -- although I've been identified more than once as an Odd Fellow -- but I know from those who do that people join such groups not only for the networking, but to channel their volunteerism. These groups do this sort of thing. Effective volunteering builds their brand. Why can't the Democratic Party do the same? People want to volunteer -- why can't we channel their enthusiasm?
In Southern California, I live within a comfortable drive of many evangelical megachurches. One is down the boulevard from my apartment, beyond that is the Crystal Cathedral, then more in Mid- and South OC, including the Saddleback Church of Rick Warren. Some of them have thousands of parishioners each week, and membership rolls probably higher than that. Some fine people volunteer through these churches, seeking no personal gain -- and I salute them. Other people volunteer because they want to network with potential business associates and look good to those around them. But as an institution, the churches and its members recognize that these activities help build the reputation -- or the brand -- of the church.
They do this sort of thing.
We, as Democrats, could do it too.
The Republicans, of course, could do it as well. But they could do it much less easily than we could. They could hire people -- but motivated native forces will generally outperform mercenaries, as people who have done GOTV drives know. The reservoir of Democrats who want to sake for the sake of helping -- and who, of course, may often also benefit from networking with others in their community -- is, I'll guess, far greater than the reservoir of Republicans. We're just less selfish and more willing to consider communal solutions to problems. If insurance issues could be squared away, I'd certainly consider a Democratic-sponsored babysitting cooperative, maybe located after hours at my local union hall. (Wouldn't you?)
Social ties matter -- in our lives and, to be crass, in GOTV and other political activities. Putting our money where our mouths are -- which many of us already do, but without benefiting the Democratic brand -- is one place where we have an advantage.
I can already anticipate one concern: that this sort of volunteerism undercuts the need for government-funded initiatives. All I can say to that is: relax. At our best, we could do little more than scratch the surface of the needs that exist. If we do all of this, we're not going to put government out of business -- although I suppose we might put a slight dent into Life Alert -- but will instead be able to identify and organize around our social needs.
We need, in some ways, to reinvent our Party; we need, in many ways, to improve our brand. Taking advantage of the Goodness Gap -- not the Sanctimony Gap, where we'll never catch up to them, but the Goodness Gap -- between our party and theirs may be one way to do it.
Now we have to figure out how.
More than even usual, I look forward to your thoughts on this.