Battling the Prince

Claire Snyder-Hall

Description

What happens when a democratic theory professor gets involved with the Democratic Party? In this political memoir, Claire Snyder-Hall shares lessons learned from eight years in party politics. She tells the story of organizing a grassroots campaign for state senate in a district dominated by good ole boys, of a political milieu in which a letter to the editor results in a smear campaign and broken friendships, and of battling a party establishment more concerned about shoring up its own power than engaging everyday people or fighting for their needs. Using an intersectional understanding of identity, Snyder-Hall unpacks the ways in which gender, class, and sexuality affect political campaigns, and offers advice for progressives. She also draws on insights from Machiavelli, Rousseau, Marx, and Gramsci to argue that a democratic republic requires a politically engaged populace, a democratic culture, and economic justice, and this can only be achieved when people defend democratic values in the face of rising authoritarianism, stand up to bullies, transform their political consciousness, and create a party willing to fight for the 99%.
Preface: Claire Snyder-Hall to "We the People," the 99%—An Opening Tribute to Machiavelli

Acknowledgments

The Big Picture: A Theoretical Introduction

1. Becoming an Activist

2. My First Career: Democratic Theorist

3. Tales from the Campaign Trail

4. Good Ole Boys vs. Nasty Women: Cultural Polarization in US Politics

5. The Royalist Mindset

6. Soft Authoritarianism in the Democratic Party

Conclusion: What Is to Be Learned?

Notes
Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• Political party
• Memoir

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 01 août 2021
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438484662
• Langue: English

Extrait

BATTLING THE PRINCE
SUNY series in New Political Science

Bradley J. Macdonald, editor
BATTLING THE PRINCE
A WOMAN FIGHTS FOR DEMOCRACY
CLAIRE SNYDER-HALL
Cover photo of the author taken by Kelly Sheridan.
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2021 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Name: Snyder-Hall, Claire, author.
Title: Battling the prince: a woman fights for democracy / Claire Snyder-Hall.
Description: Albany : State University of New York Press, [2021] | Series: SUNY series in New Political Science | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: ISBN 9781438484655 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781438484662 (ebook)
Further information is available at the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For Mikkiavelli
CONTENTS
Preface: Claire Snyder-Hall to “We the People,” the 99%—An Opening Tribute to Machiavelli
Acknowledgments
The Big Picture: A Theoretical Introduction
Chapter 1 Becoming an Activist
Chapter 2 My First Career: Democratic Theorist
Chapter 3 Tales from the Campaign Trail
Chapter 4 Good Ole Boys vs. Nasty Women: Cultural Polarization in US Politics
Chapter 5 The Royalist Mindset
Chapter 6 Soft Authoritarianism in the Democratic Party
Conclusion: What Is to Be Learned?
Notes
Bibliography
Index
PREFACE
CLAIRE SNYDER-HALL TO “WE THE PEOPLE,” THE 99%—AN OPENING TRIBUTE TO MACHIAVELLI
I t is customary these days for those who seek or have sought political office to write memoirs about their lives and experiences. 1 In this volume I share knowledge I have acquired through years of participation as a left-wing, democratic activist in the world of electoral and social movement politics and from my studies.
I offer readers my story within the compass of this small volume, and I hope it will be received with favor. Although this work draws significantly on political theory and research on US politics and history, I have sought not to adorn my work with a lot of jargon or long phrases. Sadly, I cannot tell a feel-good story of a progressive arc of history that inevitably bends toward justice. We can never take that for granted. Yet I recount my sometimes-disheartening experiences because I believe it necessary for political activists, supporters of democracy, and other readers to understand the perilous situation faced right now in the so-called American republic, to recognize habits of powermongering and deference that have developed in our political parties and larger culture, and to accept the enormous difficulty of making change under current conditions.
I trust readers will accept this little literary gift in the spirit in which it is offered—as my attempt to make the world a more just and democratic place, by offering up my experiences and reflections for consideration. With the veil pulled back, we can face our situation head-on and, despite the odds, persist in our hope for a better world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
W riting a book about your personal experiences sounds like an easy task, but I found the process quite challenging. Not only do you need to reflect somewhat detachedly on the events of your own life, but you must also pull out the anecdotes and insights that people other than your friends might find interesting. The extent to which I accomplished that goal can only be evaluated by readers.
This political theory memoir took about five years to craft, and I have a lot of people to thank for help and support along the way. First is Derek Barker of the Kettering Foundation, who suggested in 2015 that I write about my experiences in electoral politics from the perspective of the people-centered, deliberative politics studied at the foundation, and the resulting piece, “Four Years in the Vipers’ Nest,” delineated a number of themes that became the basis of this book.
The next year, the project got a huge boost from Sarah Surak, who invited me to apply for a Faculty Research Fellowship at the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (PACE) at Salisbury University, and I offer heartfelt thanks to her and her codirector Sandy Pope, who suggested the autoethnographic methodology I use in the project, for selecting me as a fellow. Sarah also did me the huge favor of reading the entire final book manuscript and providing helpful comments, for which I am very grateful.
During the 2016/17 PACE fellowship year, I presented a long paper at the fiftieth anniversary conference of the Caucus for a New Political Science, held on South Padre Island, Texas. In particular, I want to thank Clyde Barrow for his enthusiastic encouragement and to those at the conference who engaged the project, particularly Mark Kaswan, the discussant.
An earlier version of chapter 5 was originally published in New Political Science: A Journal of Politics and Culture , titled “Battling the Prince: A Political Memoir,” and I thank the Caucus for a New Political Science and Taylor Francis for granting permission to republish. 1 In addition, heartfelt gratitude goes out to Jocelyn Boryzcka, the journal editor, for inviting me to publish that essay, as well as the anonymous reviewers and Chad Lavin, who edited the piece.
After the article came out, a pivotal moment occurred at the APSA meeting when Bradley Macdonald said, “I want to publish your book in the New Political Science book series.” I was delighted by the invitation and thank Brad for that encouragement, as well as Michael Rinella, acquisitions editor at State University of New York Press for his support. In addition, I am grateful to Diane Ganeles, the production editor, as well as Anne Valentine and Kate Seburyamo, marketing managers, for all they did to make this volume a reality.
I had the opportunity to present an earlier version of chapter 4 , “Good Ole Boys vs. Nasty Women,” at the Florida Political Science Association annual meeting and thank Keith Fitzgerald for commenting on the paper and Liv Coleman for organizing the panel.
Preliminary versions of the manuscript benefited from the critical eyes of some dear friends and colleagues, including Lori Marso, Caroline Heldman, Jill Locke, Mary Dougherty, and Don Peterson. When the entire book manuscript was finally drafted, I was blessed to receive detailed and transformative comments from Judith Grant, Vince Lankewish, and the two anonymous reviewers, and I offer all of them deep thanks.
And, of course, my largest debt of gratitude goes to my wife Mikki Snyder-Hall without whom this project simply would not exist. I thank her from deep in my heart for her unwavering support, for literally years of ongoing conversation, for all her insightful suggestions, for reading numerous drafts, and most of all for actually living the events described in the book with me, every step of the way.
THE BIG PICTURE
A THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION
A specter is haunting the United States—the specter of authoritarianism. While that force has long inhabited the realms of household and workplace, government-sponsored authoritarianism has grown over the course of my lifetime, a period when the country was supposedly becoming more democratic. Indeed, over the past fifty-plus years, a punitive, militarized, authoritarian mentality has increasingly animated federal policy, as evidenced by the “war on crime,” “the war on drugs,” “the war on terror,” and now the war on immigrants, all of which have bolstered police, prison, military, and surveillance apparatuses, and aggrandized the executive branch over the legislative. 1 This is a serious problem because authoritarianism is the polar opposite of democratic republicanism, the type of government we are supposed to have in the United States.
Most democracies do not die suddenly because of a dramatic coup d’état but rather erode over time, as ambitious powermongers gain control, and political elites either cannot stop them or choose appeasement, generally the latter. 2 I have worried about the coercive power of the state ever since I became politically active during the Reagan years. In the 1990s, I found the bipartisan support for rigid and unjust, “tough on crime” policies during the Clinton administration—like “three strikes, you’re out”—deeply troubling, but when the administration of George W. Bush started torturing people in the Middle East and few objected, I thought our republic had reached its nadir. Then President Obama refused to hold the perpetrators accountable and actually continued, and in some cases expanded, the coercive power of the state, and my dismay increased even more.
Subsequently, under the presidency of Donald Trump, the authoritarian threat grew stronger and spread wider. For example, while the Obama administration has been widely condemned for deporting over three million undocumented people, it targeted those convicted of serious crimes and new arrivals. Trump, in contrast, aspired to remove all undocumented immigrants, regardless of any mitigating circumstances, and pursued that goal in a way designed to sow terror in Latinx communities, all over the country. That is, he sent heavily armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents