Jack Hatch, Joe Enriquez Henry, Peggy Huppert, Anne Kinzel, and Ralph Rosenberg sent the message enclosed below to members of the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee on December 18.
Hatch is a business owner and builder of low income housing, a former state senator, and was the Iowa Democratic nominee for governor in 2014. Joe Enriquez Henry is a community and Latino activist, and chair of the Southside Democrats in Des Moines. Peggy Huppert has been a Democratic activist for 42 years and has served as Polk County co-chair and a nonprofit executive staffer. Anne Kinzel is a lawyer, health care policy director, and Democratic activist. Ralph Rosenberg is a former state senator, lawyer, former director of the Youth Law Center, co-founder Iowa Environmental Council and former director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.
To Members of the IDP State Central Committee,
We all know this was a bad year for Democrats. Elections are about winning; winners get to make policy and law. Iowa Democrats — leaders and rank and file alike — have failed in this truism.
For Iowans, the results have been devastating. For activists and everyone associated with our party, the result is demoralizing, with a loss of power and influence. If we believe that our Democratic Party values can improve the lives of Iowans now and for decades to come, we must question what our Party and our Legislative Caucuses are currently doing. We need to first make the necessary structural changes to allow Democrats to challenge the Republicans. Anything less will keep us where we are, politically irrelevant and failing Iowans.
Not only have we made no progress in winning statewide, congressional or legislative seats, this year we regressed even further by losing more seats in the legislature and county offices. Despite our collective, considerable and best efforts, with a few exceptions, we lost. The sole purpose of a political party is to win elections. We need to re-evaluate everything about how we’re doing things and who is doing them.
Our small group of veteran Democratic former elected leaders and activists have come together out of concern about the present state of our party. Most of us have been working in this space for more than 40 years. All of us want to volunteer our time, and in some cases resources, to move forward.
Challenges
We believe we have more than one challenge before us, but we also believe we can do more than one thing at a time. Below are the challenges we and other Democrats hope you will consider to make change significant enough to achieve success. We offer these observations:
(1) The IDP operates without a transparent strategic plan or an organizational structure consistent with the budget IDP can realistically raise for its operations. (This includes core objectives and responsibilities, an organizational chart, metrics and job descriptions).
One example of a structural deficit is the duty of the state party to maintain a statewide database that includes up-to-date information on registered voters (including, but going beyond, what is available from the voter registration list) and of party activists, loyalists, political influencers, and persuadable voters. The VAN fails in doing so. Its recent purchase by an international hedge fund makes the wisdom of retaining this important resource more questionable.
2) Communication – both internal and external – is a problem. We’ve heard complaints of un-returned phone calls and emails, lack of clarity about who is responsible for what and decisions delayed until it was too late. When good ideas are suggested by local leaders, they are often either ignored or countermanded.
This has resulted in frustration on the part of local activists to the point that some have walked away. An online poll taken during a recent Rural Caucus meeting of approximately 80 people from across the state mirrored that frustration, with a very low (less than 15 percent) number of respondents saying they believe the state party is efficient or effective.
(3) Our candidates are not winning in purple districts, despite often being comparable or even objectively better than their Republican opponents, working harder, having more money, more volunteers and majority agreement (verified by polling) on important issues like reproductive choice and support of public schools. Why is that? There is not one simple answer, but we believe the Democratic brand has become a problem in many areas of our state. We heard a local activist in a previously Blue county say he was told by a neighbor that although she knew the local (county) candidate well and thought highly of her, she just could not bring herself to vote for a Democrat. That is a problem.
Another concern is how our legislative caucuses have been operating in terms of positions and strategy, recruitment and training of candidates. They are not independent of the party and yet they seem to operate as such, often not coordinating their efforts with the state and county parties.
Despite all this, we believe we have a golden opportunity in 2025 to take the time and effort to “right the ship”. If the political pendulum swings back nationally in 2026 as we suspect it will, we must be properly positioned to take advantage of it. We want to focus on solutions and leave the figure pointing to the political pundits.
There is no shortage of inspiration and “how-tos”, including plenty of templates and examples from other Midwestern states to look to for inspiration and guidance. We also suggest you watch this illuminating and inspiring interview that Jon Stewart recently did with Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler (running for DNC Chair) for ideas of what is possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfBtlvfysjw
This is our chance. If we don’t take it, there will be a mass exodus of donors and activists from which we may never recover.
Here are our suggestions to get started on this work:
1. We propose the SSC create a broad-based working group of SSC members, former elected officials, legislative leaders, activists and donors to commission a strategic plan to be completed by early April.
2. This strategic plan would focus on the following basic duties of the party:
- a. identifying core IDP activities,
- b. an organizational chart including IDP’s responsibilities to all 99 counties and allied organizations,
- c. job descriptions of IDP personnel, and
- d. creation of a two-year budget.
- e. review how policy priorities have played out in rural, working class and small-town Iowa.
3. The funding of this plan will be assumed by private donors who have already committed to paying for the plan.
4. The workgroup will assemble within one week of the SSC authorization and would define the scope of the plan. They would then hire an outside (independent) expert to produce a working plan for the SSC to approve by May 2025.
5. We further request that the candidates for the Chair of the IDP commit to this approach in their presentation to the SSC.
We still need Party leaders, legislators and allied groups to produce an immediate, stronger, and more consistent voice in response to Governor Reynolds’ harmful policies. We believe our party and our legislators need a strong, vibrant party organization that values families, health care, civil rights, public education, wage equity, income & property tax reform, water and soil health and rural development. We do not want to sacrifice our political agenda by thinking that structural changes are the only answer. Once we have a stronger party apparatus, we would frame and communicate these issues in ways that resonate with the lived experiences of working families. We need concrete examples that show how wealthy individuals and corporations benefit at taxpayers’ expense.
We believe that the State Central Committee has three immediate and important tasks in the next six months — elect a chair, agree on a strategic plan and establish a structure that can execute the plan. We are asking you to seriously consider our recommendations and to ACT NOW. We pledge to contribute to your work and offer further advice and support as you go forward.
With great respect,
Jack Hatch, Joe Enriquez Henry, Peggy Huppert, Anne Kinzel and Ralph Rosenberg
9 Comments
Before the strategic plan,
Ask yourself what your values are, and if you have been true to these.
Consider children. Democrats call abortion a fundamental right; fill K-12’s immature minds with questionable ideas on gender, fought for keeping schools closed during Covid. Now that the damage to the children’s education has been assessed [1], Democrats keep pushing for the narrow interests of teachers unions, rather than the interests of children.
So, if Democrats hate children, just say so. Otherwise, do these humane things; apologize and change. Most people I know like children. And parents of large, stable families typically vote red.
[1] The 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed that American fourth and eighth graders experienced significant drops in math scores compared to 2019, erasing years of progress. Eighth-grade math scores fell by 27 points, the largest decline since the U.S. began participating in TIMSS in 1995.
Karl M Mon 30 Dec 5:52 AM
The Democratic Party brand
This plea to the Iowa Democratic Party is a good start. I am not close to the Democratic Party structure, but it seems to me that the proposals in this letter are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The real problem is illustrated by the comment of the voter who liked the Democratic candidate, but couldn’t vote for a Democrat.
The problem as I see it is that the Democratic brand has fallen into disrepute. Consistently, when voters are presented with a choice on specific issues, they vote for the positions supported by Democrats. It seems that Democrats are terrible at messaging, compared to Republicans. Of course, Republicans have an advantage. They are not burdened by the truth. But I believe (or hope) that a well-crafted, continuous messaging campaign by Democrats can improve the Democratic brand.
Wally Taylor Mon 30 Dec 8:59 AM
Let Jimmy be a model
ME. Below is the first paragraph of Samantha Powers’ tribute to Jimmy Carter in NYTs. I hope someday the historians will say something similar about Iowa Democrats. Instead of a short frame, consider the first 50 years of 21st century, which includes the disappointment of 2004 and the elation of 2008. Obama proved to have masterful oratory skills, but diluted his potential by being too needful of a bipartisan agenda, which Rs took advantage. Point being, much to learn. Young activists of 2004, are mid-age now with families, jobs, and bills to pay. Let the plan relate to them.
So, yes‼️ “We believe our party and our legislators need a strong, vibrant party organization that values families, health care, civil rights, public education, wage equity, income & property tax reform, water and soil health and rural development.
Powers says, “elevation of human rights in U.S. foreign policy offers many urgent lessons for today. Whatever challenges he faced consistently applying the principles he championed as the 39th president, he made a radical break with decades of foreign policy tradition, changed the world’s understanding of America’s aspirations, showed deep empathy for individuals who had suffered human rights abuse and in so doing, made a lasting impact on both the United States and the world.
By Samantha Power, the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/opinion/samantha-power-jimmy-carter.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Gerald Ott Mon 30 Dec 9:48 AM
With friends like this,
Lis Smith, a Democratic communications strategist, stated that “the Democratic brand is in the toilet.” She made this remark during a written online conversation hosted by The New York Times, published on December 23, 2024. Smith elaborated that many successful Democratic candidates in recent elections ran against the party’s brand, indicating a significant issue with the party’s current image.
Karl M Mon 30 Dec 9:59 AM
REASSERTING DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND WINNING BACK VOTERS
Compared with other states, Iowa is much more rural and small town, white, working class, married, and Christian. As late as 2015, electorally Iowa was a purple, battleground state. In 2016, however, Iowa became much more red. Iowa experienced the second greatest shift in Presidential voting between 2012 and 2016 (second only to North Dakota), primarily in Iowa’s 90 rural counties, where 2 in 10 voters changed from voting for Obama to voting for Trump. Succeeding elections have only expanded upon that.
If Iowa is again to become electorally competitive on a statewide basis, it will require changing at least one in ten votes back to the Democratic side, particularly in those rural counties.
My view of the first step in developing a strategic plan is to identify opportunities to engage, educate, and energize people at the grassroots level in doing so with their peers.
In this respect, Republicans have appealed to rural voters based upon their fears and sense that their way of life is being jeopardized and they are ignored or looked down upon by Democrats. Republicans have used hot-button cultural and “family values-parents matter” issues to attract them, which have not effectively been countered by Democrats.
At the same time, in terms of specific policies (rural public education, eldercare, paid family and medical leave, child tax credit, support for family farms and rural community development, and protections against monopolization and price gouging), Democrats have proposed policies that truly help people in rural communities make ends meet and maintain their way of life. Republicans have done the opposite and exacerbated wealth and income inequalities which further leave those rural communities behind. As indicated by some of the other comments (and particularly related to Jimmy Carter), Iowa Democrats can move forward by proudly articulating their proposals as a pro-child, pro-parent, and pro-economy agenda that helps ALL families.
Charles Bruner Mon 30 Dec 1:54 PM
It’s Complicated
Some realities regarding the lost working class voter segment everyone is writing about . . .
1. They perceive bluster as strong leadership, not real courage.
2. They fear the loss of white majority status, but don’t realize it or won’t admit it.
3. Like some of the candidates they vote for, they have no curiosity about new solutions to old problems.
4. A double down on Wally’s point that it’s hard to message against the Republican willingness to lie to win.
Beyond that there are structural issues that don’t favor Dems . . .
1. White domination of many small Red states which results in a Senate control advantage for the GOP.
2. Gerrymandering gives the GOP a slight advantage for House control.
3. Dark money favors the GOP.
Not saying the Dems don’t need new faces or new strategies, but it’s more than all that.
Let’s also keep in mind . . .
1. A change of about 115,000 votes in the three Blue Wall states would have elected a Black Dem woman president.
2. The Dems picked up a seat in the House despite having a Dem incumbent in the White House.
3. The GOP has its own problems. Beyond Trump, their candidate bench is no better than the Dems. That intra-party battle will be ugly.
It’s going to take some bad outcomes for working class Republicans and the non-MAGA GOP to learn they’ve been hoodwinked.
Bill Bumgarner Mon 30 Dec 2:04 PM
Thanks Bill,
for laying out the details.
I think your final point is unfortunately true. Iowans are like alcoholics, they will have to hit bottom before they decide to make a change.
Wally Taylor Mon 30 Dec 2:11 PM
A thought
Karl M’s contributions are a regurgitation of the same bilge we’ve been hearing about Democrats since 2016.
We have ignored his remarks because we’re a bit too cool for school, and we fail to listen to what he says.
Now, that is easy to do because, as others have mentioned, many of his remarks are verifiable illegitimate.
It’s funny that this blue ribbon panel of experts ignores him, too.
He isn’t wrong when he articulates our stupidity regarding social issues.
Unlike the Republicans, who play the long game. Republicans knew 30 years before 2024 that Hillary’s ambition would result in her eventually running for office, so they dogged her in the media for three decades, and when combined with an awful campaign, she lost.
Republicans — Mitch McConnell — set out to pack the Supreme Court back almost forty years ago following Bork’s failed nomination for associate justice.
We have no depth of thought.
Putting aside the facade of reorganizing the party (which needs doing), Jack (I’m pro-life; electric me as a Democrat) Hatch, Anne, Joe, Ralph and Peggy miss what the essence of the problem is.
The problem, at least from my vantage point, is the quagmire we created by going head long into racial and sexual rights, and focusing on abortion, at a time when even a hermit could tell that the country wasn’t with us.
We put up a woman in 2016 who was damaged goods, because we never intervened in the onslaught of lies and bad press. More than that, though, unions endorsed her but their members voted against her.
This time around, with racial prejudice defining the 2000s, the national put up a Black woman.
Our response to the criticism (mine, too) from the mouth breathers on the other side was, “You need to grow up. You need to accept [fill in the blank;” they’re right when they say we tried to stuff social equality down their throats.
I am sorry to this well-meaning group, but who runs what is less important than addressing the ridiculously obvious racism, sexism, xenophobia and fantasy in a way that, at the very least, gives them a sense they are being heard.
Statements like, “2026 might be a good year,” are not inspiring.
They’re right to say that we act like elites. I think the social, financial and personal make-ups of the authors of this letter demonstrate that.
I don’t have a solution. At least, though, I can focus on our impotent responses to decades of clear messages about transgenderism (bathrooms), gays in general, anti-immigrant, pro-White and say, “We’re going to have to cut some of our priorities down into bite-size pieces and give Americans the ability to digestive them, rather than getting a victory like same sex marriage, and resolving then to immediately wipe out all other forms of discrimination.”
The group that wrote this letter don’t propose anything serious like that. To do so would be bad press — something that most, if not all of them, do not have the stomachs to withstand.
This equality thing has been a quagmire that has been our biggest source of pride, and our worst-considered issue.
It needs consideration.
Because, you know what the tag on us now is — wanting men raping women in bathrooms, wanting to displace the Whites, wanting to “indoctrinate” our kids, etc.
And we stand around like chumps, telling one another on facebook that these people (our constituents, mind you) are idiots. They hear that and revolt, even compromising their own lives by doing so.
Bill from White Plains Mon 30 Dec 5:16 PM
Stand up to DNC
IDP needs to bring back the first in nation caucus and quit bowing to the DNC. NH makes it clear they will have first primary regardless of whatever the “geniuses” at DNC dictate. DNC thugs moved South Carolina up, litigated RFK Jr at every turn, chasedpropped up a senile POTUS and then coronated Harris with the nomination and her billion dollar boondoggle. DNC could nominate Harris (or even Biden) again in ’28 and sycophants would back these losers again.
ModerateDem Mon 30 Dec 8:29 PM