2025 MDP Convention: Electing a Chair

Candidates, Networks, and Sources of Power - Part 1

The Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) will hold its biannual leadership elections on February 22nd, 2025. The State Party Chair will be elected. The complete schedule and details (including other important elections) are available in the Call to Convention.

I’m often asked who to vote for. I don’t like to answer. If all of us follow a leader or a friend, we’re reducing our collective intelligence to just those leaders’ intelligence. Collective intelligence and wisdom are far superior, and the larger and more diverse the collective, the better for good decision making. Following a leader, in practical effect, reduces the size and diversity of the decision making group.

This is my honest assessment of the candidate and their networks. In this article, Curtis Hertel. In a subsequent article, Al Williams. These are the only two candidates for Chair remaining in contention, according to the MDP website (scroll down). Please don’t just accept my analysis, that undermines the greatest power democracy has: collective intelligence and wisdom. Evaluate the points I make and come to your own conclusions, relying on verifiable facts and evidence.

Part 1: Curtis Hertel
Let me start out by saying that I like Curtis Hertel. He’s a nice guy. I’ve talked to him for about half an hour on the phone twice, and a few days ago we had a nearly three hour conversation at a coffee shop. I’ve enjoyed every conversation I’ve had with him. Some years ago, he stood up for friends of mine unfairly attacked. He didn’t have to get involved. Verified evidence suggesting his moral compass is pointed in the right direction.

Like I’ve said of establishment¹ folks many times before, most people in the establishment don’t recognize they’re in it, and don’t recognize that they’re doing anything wrong when they do things “the way we’ve always done them”. Most just haven’t thought things through from a (small-d) democratic perspective. And when the problems are pointed out, they too often get defensive and reject any criticism without examining the merits of the claim. No one likes to be told they’re doing something wrong. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to get people to change if you can’t get them to pay attention to the facts and evidence demonstrating they’re a problem.

When we talked, Hertel asked about the lawsuit by the Huwaida campaign. He brought up the reasoning establishment people are using to justify this instance of rule breaking. When I explained the problems with their arguments, he got the point and agreed that, if I was right about what is and isn’t in the rules (I am, I helped write them) - then I was right, the establishment broke the rules.

I commend him for seeing reason.

It isn’t the first or the 500th time an establishment person has seen reason in a conversation with me, and continued doing things “the way they’ve always done them.” For example, Christine Jensen, Executive Director of the MDP since 2019, has told me several times she knows I’m right about the rules. She’s never done anything about it that I know of except facilitate more establishment rule breaking. Nathan Triplett, MDP parliamentarian since before I joined the Party in 2016, and Hertel’s pick for parliamentarian again, is a nice guy - but he consistently facilitates establishment rule breaking.

Tim Hughes, Chair of the MDP Appeals Committee, the committee charged with enforcing the rules, is a nice guy. He spent about 4 hours with me over coffee listening to my concerns about the rules back in 2017. He asked a few clarifying questions, but had no response to the concerns I raised. None. Not one. Even though I asked repeatedly for some response. His body language made it clear he knew I was right, and he knew he wasn’t going to do anything about it, and that appeared to make him very uncomfortable. Hughes has done nothing but rubber stamp whatever the establishment wants since I’ve been in the Party.

Ken Martin, recently elected to Chair the DNC, is a nice guy too. When we lobbied him to support a resolution banning dark money in primaries (not the general election), he said all the right things and we thought he was on board. The DNC Committee refused to even debate the ban. Twice. Martin could have opened debate by seconding the motion. He didn’t.

Every one of these people are both nice people and actively and aggressively undermine grassroots democracy at nearly every opportunity. I don’t think they’re bad people. Barnes and Jensen got pressure from the DNC to “discipline” me for exercising my right to hold up a different sign than other Democrats at the National Convention. I know because my friends who did it with me had trouble from their State Parties. Barnes and Jensen never said a word to me and never gave me any problems. I thanked them both. They aren’t bad people. Why do otherwise nice people repeatedly and egregiously break the rules?

The thread that connects all these people and many others who exhibit similar behavior is their connection to the establishment network. It's a bit like customer service representatives - occasionally, they can make something work out for you, but mostly they’re extremely limited by the parameters of the script established by their supervisors’ supervisors. The script/parameters here are the customer service equivalent of establishment thinking. They’re the stories of what you’re supposed to do, according to the established way of doing things.

In my 8+ years in the Party every single establishment member I’ve met has exactly this same pattern of behavior. Informally, usually one on one, they’re perfectly personable, nice, and often agree with my points about the rules. Then, when they step into their formal roles in the Party, their behavior changes drastically, and they push through whatever the establishment wants, fairness and democracy be damned.

Why is that?

Barnes, Jensen, Triplett, Hughes, and Martin are career political operatives. They’ve been in the establishment for decades and rely on their relationships in that network for their livelihoods. The pressure to maintain those relationships ensuring future opportunities is very strong. In a loyalty network like the establishment, it’s very important to keep being a team player, because once the network starts buzzing about disloyalty, your opportunities start to dry up - you’re on notice that you better come back to the fold or your establishment relationships will become increasingly sour. The “Blue No Matter Who” faction of the Party is one very overt example of establishment loyalty enforcement. Most are more subtle - opportunities drying up, people less open to working with you, even when you agree on an issue. Once you’ve been “tainted” by whiffs of disloyalty, fewer people reach out, and others are less receptive when you reach out.

Hertel is a career politician. I asked Hertel how he’d make a living if the establishment blacklisted him. He could hardly imagine such a thing. He eventually agreed it was possible, but only in the sense that anything is possible, and sometimes you’re wrong even when you can’t imagine being wrong. He didn’t have an answer to the question. It just wasn’t something he’d considered.

We have recent examples of establishment blacklists against reformers like Hertel says he wants to be. We have an example of what happens when reformers takes control of a state Democratic Party. When DSA-endorsed Judith Whitmer won her party chair race in Nevada, between the election and the transfer of power the establishment people wrote themselves big severance checks and drained the Party’s accounts of $450,000 before leaving, sending it to the DNC, and then setting up their own separate operation. Then the DNC gave the new enterprise, run by the losers of the state Party election, all the support normally only given to the State Party. The membership of the Nevada Democratic Party voted for Whitmer’s team to operate their State Party, and the establishment said, nah, democracy doesn’t matter - we’re giving everything to the leadership team the Nevada Democratic Party membership rejected. The membership can control the name of the Party, the establishment controls the resources. Doesn’t matter what the members voted for.

Any reformer running for a State Party Chair position needs to be prepared for establishment pushback. It won’t be the same in each state, because each state has its own circumstances and personalities in positions of power. But reformers will get pushback, and if they persist with reforms, the pushback will escalate.

Hertel didn’t know about Judith Whitmer and the Nevada Democratic Party. He doesn’t think he can be blacklisted. He isn’t prepared for pushback from the establishment.

The establishment network isn’t just a network of people and organizations. It’s a network of stories, ways of thinking about the world, and ways of doing things. Hertel can hardly imagine the possibility of being blacklisted even though he’d heard of the recent blacklisting. He’s the son of a State Senator, and grew up with privileged access to the establishment network because of his family. He doesn’t believe it can happen to him. The same way many people didn’t believe fascism could happen in the USA - but it's happening.

He also isn’t aware of his own level of reflexive establishment thinking.

For example, Hertel reached out to the People’s Coalition to bring a Palestinian onto his team, but he didn’t give the Coalition their choice of representative. To actually include a constituency in a democratic big tent coalition means giving the constituency their choice of representative. Not just one they’d accept under threat of getting nothing, their choice.

This is the difference between solidarity and unity, between progressives and the establishment.

When I asked Hertel about it, he explained that he gave the People’s Coalition a seat at the table because he wanted their support. He smiled like he thought I was nuts when I said I didn’t think picking for them was a good play. He doesn’t recognize the authoritarianism inherent in his actions.

The above authoritarianism is all perfectly normal “democracy” in Hertel’s experience.

That’s perfectly understandable, that’s how the establishment operates. It’s Hertel reflexively doing things “the way we’ve always done them.” His establishment friends all have the same establishment reflexes. This helps make it possible to blacklist people, even people with strong relationships. “Blue No Matter Who” thinking is just one example of reflexive establishment thinking driving people out of the Party because they weren’t sufficiently loyal.

Again, I’m not saying Hertel is a bad person trying to be authoritarian. Like the vast majority in the establishment, I don’t believe he recognizes the authoritarian nature of his actions.

This is an example of the establishment wielding power it cannot win in a fair and democratic system. In a fair and democratic system, Hertel could not veto the outcome of their choice process. He would get the candidate the People’s Coalition wanted. Period.

The question is, now it’s been made clear above, will he do anything about it?

Will he give the People’s Coalition their choice, or will he continue to insist on his choice? There’s plenty of time for their choice to be added to the ballot; those positions will be elected at a State Central Committee meeting a month or more after the Convention.

This is no criticism of the People’s Coalition. The establishment uses these tactics because vulnerable and marginalized people like the good folks in the People’s Coalition often feel they have no choice in order to be heard at all. And I commend the candidate Hertel picked for taking up such a fraught position. It’s not an easy job. They aren’t at any fault here. At my first MDP Convention, my coalition faced a similar situation - make a deal and get something, or don’t, and get nothing. The coalition took the deal (I was intentionally not present for the vote). I was their candidate. In both these situations, the establishment used its power to get more power than they could win in a free and fair democratic system.

This is the repeated, consistent pattern of behavior from establishment figures. Everyone relies on their professional network for good job opportunities. Hertel’s professional network is the establishment network. That makes him especially vulnerable to establishment pressure. Without strong relationships in the establishment network, Hertel doesn’t have much to offer lobbying firms or well-funded non-profits. Getting another $100k/year job is a lot easier if you have strong relationships in a powerful network. The value he’s built over his career takes a big hit if those relationships sour.

Right now, Hertel has maximum leverage over the establishment. The establishment either picks him, or they get someone they don’t have the same kind of power over, and fear will do exactly what Hertel is promising. They’d rather have Hertel - maybe even with a few reforms - than the alternative. Al Williams is not an establishment loyalist. He built a business to ensure his financial future, and a fundraising and professional network outside the establishment. Williams isn’t reliant on the establishment network for his livelihood. They can’t blacklist Williams because they don’t have the pull in the network he built, and he doesn’t need their jobs or money.

Will Hertel use the leverage he has now?
Will he break with “the way we’ve always done it?”

For example, by going back to the People’s Coalition, apologize for not recognizing the anti-democratic way he insisted on picking for them, and letting them have their choice of representative?

I doubt it. Zionists in the Party and on the big donor list likely didn’t want any Palestinian participation and were only barely on board with it because the People’s Coalition wasn’t allowed their choice. Hertel won’t want to harm his relationships with those powerful people in the Party. So he’ll follow through with the authoritarianism. I don’t expect Hertel to go against the Zionist faction in the Party any more than Harris did when she couldn’t think of anything she’d do differently than Biden on genocide. Nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong.

Will Hertel re-evaluate his pick for parliamentarian, recognize the egregious pattern of rampant rule breaking Triplett has facilitated cycle after cycle, and pick someone else? Again, I doubt it, but I’m very happy to be proved wrong. I doubt he’ll do these things because Triplett has strong relationships in the establishment, and Hertel won’t want to upset them.

I have deep doubts about Curtis Hertel. Not because he’s a bad person. Because he runs in a network that has a deep history of consistently corrupting good people to do bad things.

Between now and the February 22nd Convention, Hertel has maximum leverage. The opportunity to demonstrate one way or the other if he actually has enough power in and/or autonomy from the establishment network to be a serious reformer.

He can correct his authoritarian mistake with the People’s Coalition, he can reject Triplett for parliamentarian. He could publicly endorse the Party reforms we discussed and agreed on. He could publicly announce he won’t be re-appointing Hughes to the Appeals Committee and suggest some alternatives. He could look into the rules and publish his thoughts on the points I’ve made on the Huwaida campaign’s case. If he agrees the establishment broke the rules, he could promise, if elected, to admit the MDP’s fault and settle the case. Maybe the Huwaida campaign would settle for making sure we have fair rules fairly enforced, with some way to monitor and verify. If Hertel wants fair rules fairly enforced, a detailed settlement of that kind could provide a transparent and democratic framework for making that happen. It would be a positive way to resolve a problem and build a foundation for trust and growth at the same time.

Right now, Hertel has maximum leverage over the establishment. If he isn’t willing and able to do the above now, why should anyone believe he’ll have enough power in, or autonomy from, the establishment to do anything he’s promising if elected? The answer is simple: if he isn’t prepared to do actual grassroots democracy now, with maximum leverage over the establishment, then we have no good reason to believe he'll ever have the power/autonomy to do what he’s promised.

I like Hertel personally.
This election isn’t about Hertel personally.
This election is about establishment control of the Party.

Depending on what he does over the next few weeks, we’ll all know how much power and autonomy Hertel has in the establishment, or doesn’t have.
//

1. What is an establishment?
An establishment is a network of people, organizations, and stories about how things are supposed to work that abuses, bends, or breaks the rules to make it easier for those already in power to remain in power. Incumbents always have some advantage that arises from name recognition, their record in office, and so on. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about things like packing State Central, gerrymandering Party elections, seating proxies ahead of alternates, and so on. Their positions give elected Party officials the power to make choices about how to do things, how to interpret rules, how to set up and run elections, and so on. An establishment uses that power to abuse, bend, and break the rules to give themselves powers they did not and cannot win in a fair and democratic election. If they get the chance, they’ll even re-write the rules to the advantage of those already in power, as in the proxy problem linked above. The unfair and undemocratic rules – always to the benefit of those already in power – are the unmistakable tracks of an establishment cemented in power