I don’t think #DemEnter makes sense, strategically.
The DNC/Dems leverages power from its numbers. It needs constituents. It has also displayed a history of taking its membership for granted, assuming it can do what it wants and disregard the voices of its people, ironically. (It functions as a “small-coalition”) It presents urgency and fear as a medium to clinch compliance, always asking us to defer our own franchise “just until tomorrow” because our fealty is “needed today.”
We progressives need a party with clout that actually represents us and our vision.
There is a potential for mutualism here, but it only works if the DNC/Dems are willing to change. So far, with Wasserman-Schulz maintaining her incumbency and Ellison being challenged by leadership, I am not seeing much difference in their mindset; they are still functioning as a small-coalition body, and we need the Democratic Party to function as a larger-coalition body.
#DemExit empowers the individual at the expense of the collective. If they are unwilling to listen to us when they have our membership, then they are just as bad as when we are not members; Worse, really — since if we are no longer members we can apply our time and energy elsewhere towards actually effecting change, albeit in smaller impacts.
If we do #DemEnter, we silently tell the Democratic Party, as it is, “ok, you abuse us, you don’t listen to us, you take us for granted, but we’ll keep coming back.”
This is not a good way to operate. If they don’t want to change, I will respect their decision, and that’s fine, but I will not be part of it.
If the Democratic party is going to represent the people, it needs to function as a large-coalition organization. Our people need more empowerment within the party, and I’m done waiting for them to respect me.
The party of change can change itself, or we can change parties.