Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee at the recent hearing at Merrimack College. I have included an extended version of my remarks below.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen,

My name is Patrick Abegg. I am a resident of Gloucester and a member of the Ward 2 Gloucester Democratic Committee. I would like to speak tonight about several concerns that I have about the Democratic Party in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as the hopes I have for improving the party and its ability to attract citizens.

As you are aware, we in the Democratic Party are in a very curious situation. At the grass roots, we are, in effect, the only statewide party. For many offices, the only way we can lose the election is by running a candidate tainted by scandal. And yet, we are unable to elect a Democratic governor, for the last four elections.

Look at the numbers. In the 1998 general election, about 1.2 million people voted Democratic, out of 1.9 million people who voted, and 3.4 million registered voters. The 1.2 million was the number of votes received by the Democratic candidates for Treasurer, Secretary, Attorney General, and Auditor, as well as the combined total for the Councilors, and our Congressional candidates topped 1.3 million. Unfortunately, Scott Harshbarger, the candidate for Governor only received 900,000 votes, or about 75% of the core Democratic vote. The 2002 election results are, as we know, similar.

Yet I would argue that the long-term trends are even more significant. We are losing the base of the party, and this trend will continue unless an effort is made to reverse it. Every year, fewer and fewer citizens identify themselves strongly as members of the Democratic party. The rise of the independent voter is the mechanism here; the Republicans are in worse shape than us and the minor parties are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, not a part of the electoral process in this state.

We have both a problem and an opportunity. A problem, because it will only get worse if nothing is done. An opportunity, because we can do something about this. So where are these opportunities? I would focus on policies, people, and party.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with the core message of the Democratic Party. We need to hear that more often, if only to remind ourselves that it is true. There are many people on the left and on the right who try to tell us that our message is wrong and we need to move in their direction. I believe that the terms that they both use are “We need to get back to the roots of the party.” The simple reality is that they are both wrong. The moderate message of the Democratic Party appeals to the ordinary citizen. There is very little question about that. Once we peel away the emotional tinge that is placed on the issues by right-wing or left-wing commentators, people agree with what we have to say. We believe in:

• being open-minded to others with different beliefs,
• maximizing the opportunities for all members of our society to succeed,
• taking care of the members of our American family who need our help, and
• building a strong community of interdependent members.

Frankly, when it comes to the issues, James Carville has the message. We’re right, and they’re wrong. This is a message that more voters need to hear. Is there anyone in this room who honestly believes that if the last gubernatorial election had been run on the issues that Mr. Romney would be governor today? If you don’t believe me, ask the Republicans.

So where have we lost the voters? I would argue that the average citizen has an increasingly hard time identifying with our elected officials, and more critically, with our candidates. There is too great a gap between the voter and the people who we are putting out as candidates for elected office.

A few examples from the recent campaign should suffice. First of all, Steve Grossman ran for Governor on a platform largely based on being a successful party insider and a successful big businessman. And exactly why was the average voter expected to think that Mr. Grossman would represent her interests over the interests of the rich and well-connected? The mere fact that a significant part of the party encouraged this run indicates that something is very wrong.

The role of money cannot be overstated in the party. There were times when I felt that all that most campaigns wanted from me was my checkbook. At the same time, much of that money was spent on television advertising that served two purposes: it put the candidates’ names in front of the voters, and it annoyed the TV viewers no end. I have very little doubt that Shannon O’Brien won the primary in large part due to the fact that her name was on television the most. At the same time, I found that people who had actually paid attention to the ads, strong Democrats and independents alike, became less likely to support her. The only truly effective ad of the campaign was Romney’s “Gang of Three” ad, which was best known for its dishonesty. (And the ad campaigns in Massachusetts never even dipped to the lows found in other states, including all those New Hampshire ads.)

How much of the press coverage focused on money issues? I would guess that the primary coverage was closely tied to money, and that Bob Reich’s campaign was not taken seriously because of the money situation (remember all those stories about how we wasn’t spending his own money?). Also, how much of the press coverage of Warren Tolman was about his use of the public financing, not about the issues involved in his campaign. The press has become used to rich men and women running for office, as if their money makes them better than the rest of us. As the Kennedy clan has proved, we can have excellent representation by wealthy Democrats, but it’s not the major qualification for public office.

We need to realize that much of our trouble is self-inflicted. The most fundamental negative that ordinary people have with the Democratic Party is the extreme concentration of power in the hands of a few people. Specifically, the behavior of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives by delegating almost all authority to the Speaker has been a major factor in the belief that the Democrats can’t be trusted with broad authority in the state. After all, as dishonest as the “Gang of Three” ad was, it would not have worked if the voters couldn’t believe that what Romney said might be true.

I recognize the advantage that the setup in the House brings to individual members. Our local state rep was even quoted in the Boston Globe to the effect that as long as they’re blaming Finneran, the heat is off of us. He’s right; few in Gloucester blame Tony Verga for the mess on Beacon Hill, even though he’s gone along with the system as it is.

We must recognize the need to change and bring more citizens back into the process. After all, the core Democratic vote described above is barely a third of the registered voters. There are very many people out there who agree with us on the issues but don’t even bother to vote. We need to address this at the local level, because clearly the mass media campaigns we have today are not successful. We need more open and honest debate about the policies that govern our state. The Finneran/Travaglini agenda may be much preferable to the Romney agenda, but the rank and file of the Democratic party doesn't even know what that agenda is (and I would argue that neither do the state reps and senators).

I have publicly supported many Democratic candidates over the years. Some of them I truly believed in as both persons and as leaders. Some of them I disliked but supported for their policies. And some I have supported simply because their Republican opponent was so awful. What characterizes a successful campaign out of all of those things is a willingness to bring people together. This should be our mission as Democrats. People need to learn who the Democratic leaders are in their own communities, and we need to build outward to those communities.

We will only be successful when people trust us. People will only trust us when they know us and respect us. It should be our goal to have the leadership of the Democratic party known and respected, at the local and state level.

Patrick Abegg
33 Maplewood Ave.
Unit 210
Gloucester, MA 01930-6201
978-281-7819