Deja vu all over again.

(The Brilliant and Beautiful Bride of Upper Left sez "That's a long one, isn't it?" Well, yes. And a pretty good one, I think. Maybe it helps to think of it as something other than a blog post. A manifesto of sorts, perhaps...)

After a few decades in Democratic Party politics, post-defeat recriminations leading to intra-Party civil war shouldn't surprise me. I am a little off balance, though, when I realize that this time my sympathies don't rest as securely with the insurgent faction as they have in the past. After all, my primary candidates - Kennedy, Hart, Jackson, Brown, Bradley - haven't fared so well, so I've generally been on the "I told you so" side.

No such excuses this time. I thought John Kerry was our best choice for 2004 all along, and started actively campaigning for him early in 2003. I still think I was right. After all, the Kerry campaign raised more money and got more votes than any Democratic candidate in history, while espousing the most liberal agenda a nominee has offered in, well, in my not so short memory.

Of course, in the process of securing the nomination, he had to take some folks out, and in doing so left behind a healthy contigent of potential "told you so's." Just as I've often been unable to resist in the past, some of them are succumbing to that temptation now.

They've been coalescing around the banner of reform, with Markos Zuniga, a leading voice in the factionalization of the Party, marking the distinction between...

"...The status quo Democrats, who have given us nothing but losing, or the Reform Democrats, who realize things must change to revitalize our party."

Kos, of course, plants his banner firmly in the 'Reform' camp.

I think Kos oversimplifies. There are more than two factions in the Party. There always have been. We really are a big tent. And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't "realize things must change..." After all, we all want to win, and we aren't winning near enough. In fact, I agree with Kos that...

"It's clear that the status quo is untenable. It's time to try something else..."

Something else, surely, perhaps many things, but I fall a bit short of endorsing the idea that we should try, as he goes on, "Anything else." or that

...those implicated in the current regime should be ridden out of town in disgrace, not rewarded with yet another turn at the wheel."

I'm not at all sure that we need some kind of comprehensive purge, although Kos has a ready ally in MoveOn's Eli Pariser, who wrote a mass email declaring that

..."For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

The problem I have with the analysis is that first, what Kos and Pariser are attacking doesn't have any resemblance to the Party leadership that I've worked with, and from time to time been part of, since before either of them were eligible to vote. And if losing Presidential elections is grounds for a purge, we're going to have some trouble assembling campaign teams on the Democratic side. After all, Joe Trippi, the darling of Deanism, has worked damn near as many losing efforts as Bob Shrum, the sourge of the 'Reform' faction. Even Kos, although he's been at the Democratic consulting game for a relatively short while (yes, even the uber-blogger has a day job), made up for some lost time by working two losing Presidential campaigns in a single season, having had a role in both the Clark and Dean camps.

I'm generally sympathetic, though, to both the ideological positions and political goals of both Kos and Pariser. So why does their argument sound so alien to me? I think Nick Confessore pins it in a post at TAPPED...

...the most consequential split in the Democratic Party going forward is not liberals versus centrists. The key split is not really ideological at all, when you get down into it. Here's how I see the fight shaping up. On the one side are the rump Democratic establishment of consultants, pollsters, and senior members of Congress, people who span the ideological continuum but who share in common an inability to adapt to the Republican ascendancy and recognize it for what it is. Many of them would like Democrats to win more often, but they are not ready to give up the Beltway fiefdoms and influence they still possess in order to achieve it. On the other side are party reformers of left and right, who tend towards ideological ecumenism but are determined to change the way the Democratic Party is organized and funded.

What Confessore describes as the "rump Democratic establishment" is what the 'reformers' think of as the Party leadership, but I think that betrays their relative lack of engagement in the actual structure and activity of the Party itself. It also explains why so much emphasis is being placed on who will be the next Chair of the Democratic National Committee. The choice will be interesting, and will create some short term buzz, but it's actually one of the less influential positions in the Democratic Party.

The Chair, after all, is more hired help than Party leader. The DNC Chair doesn't set the Party agenda. The Convention does that via the platform. The DNC Chair doesn't select the national ticket, and is in fact under considerable pressure to avoid any appearance of even influencing that choice. He's the referee, not the quarterback, come primary time.

There is, in fact, a faction that the 'reformers' tend to overlook, the real Party leaders who rise from the grassroots base and are generally relatively anonymous folks with titles like District or County Chair, County or State Committeperson, and the currently celebrated State Chairs.

In fact, as the State Chairs meet in Florida with the national Chair election on their mind, it's been interesting to observe the online reactions of a couple of prominent 'reform' bloggers. Matt Stoller of BOPnews seems somewhat non-plussed to discover that these stalwarts of the Democratic establishment are

"...basically, well, normal people."

noting that they're...

"... practical, sensible, and well, normal. No DC-speak here."

Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, also on hand in Orlando, seems similarly shocked to discover that these Party leaders are...

"...more a group of `ordinary democrats' from different states, than a group of power-tripped endorsees looking for a candidate. But they are looking, and there is power."

With the focus on the selection of a new DNC Chair, Stoller finds, to his further amazement, that Terry McAuliffe is...

"...considered a great Chairman by many DNC members."

While that's bound to surprise many in the reform faction, who've made the Chair one of their principal bogeymen, an up front and personal look leads Stoller to the judgement that...

"My sense of the man is that he's not a particularly good or bad guy - he's just relentlessly disciplined, hardworking, aggressive, and on message. He is the perfect embodiment of old school media politicking, focused on money and TV message."

Which, of course, is exactly what he was hired to be and do. Which is exactly what the next Chair will be hired to be and do. McAuliffe has, in fact, been better at it than most.

Meanwhile, Stoller looks at the factions in play at the meeting, and finds a distinction that's a bit more useful, and in some ways a bit more hopeful than the 'reform vs. status quo' formulation, which is the split between Party insiders and outsiders, noting that...

"It's not that the insiders are keeping people out, or that outsiders are refusing to respect those in the party. It's a mix of both. Everyone knows that the big challenge is to bridge the divide, but it's not clear how that's going to happen. Democratic Party Meetups are dead or dying, DFA people are suspicious of local parties, and it's still not clear what new recruits can deliver."

Actually, what the new recruits can deliver is exactly what the old hands know we need - change. But a change that includes us all, respects us all and doesn't require either unrestricted praise for or a wreckless purge of what's come before.

A couple of steps down in the rhetoric would be a good start, along with those of us who might be considered 'inside' making a real effort to reach out and those who find themselves 'outside' suspending judgement enough for a hop, if not a full leap, of faith into the circle. We really are on the same side to a degree neither faction fully recognizes, I suspect, and we've got a critical election cycle in 2006.

We've had this fight before. It hasn't helped. We just don't have time for it now.