When I tell Democrats that I am not comfortable with Hillary Clinton and do not want her to be the Democratic nominee, I get varying responses. Some agree. Some fly into a rage. Some call me a rightwing agent. Some ask what candidates I prefer.
Often, no matter what else, the response is a question.
“But if she is chosen as the nominee, would you vote for her in the general election?”
While sometimes this question is asked in good faith, at other times it is barely veiled code for a more aggressive message:
“Talk all you want, but we’re not listening. Get in line behind the front runner and shut up, or you can’t be a Democrat.”
Cross-posted at The Seminal.
The hostility that pro-Hillary Democrats direct at Hillary’s critics can be astounding. Their vehemence rests, it seems, on the assumption that any division in the party will translate into electoral losses.
I would argue, however, that internal debate strengthens the party - especially at this particular moment in time.
In the primaries, the party should pick the best candidate: the candidate who, ideally, represents the party base’s ideals most closely while simultaneously standing a solid chance of winning the general election. In selecting the best candidate, the role of thoughtful debate is crucial. We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history: defining the Democratic party’s strategy as it faces that juncture deserves our clearest thought. Hasty conclusions - such as clinging to a centrist candidate out of fear that America will be alienated by a more progressive one - could be a damaging mistake to the party and the country. If nothing else, the internal conversation within the Democratic party deserves to run its full course, and opinions deserve to be heard by all elements with an open mind.
To have a dissenting opinion does not make one a traitor to the party. Indeed, given that freedom of expression and thought are core democratic/Democratic values, constructive dissent is beneficial for moving the party forward. By ignoring it or disparaging it, Hillary supporters lose a chance to sharpen their own arguments - practice that could come in handy during the general election. They also lose their chance to consider another point of view. Emphasizing allegiances over critical thought at this moment is a mistake.
To return to the question of whether I would vote for Hillary in the general election, I refuse to answer. If lurking behind the question is a demand that I render my voice irrelevant, that I toe the party line, that I allow debates to be prematurely silenced, then I refuse. Real moral values are at stake in the choice of who the party nominates, and the issues need to be discussed.
Of course, I hope it’s a choice I won’t ever have to make. For those who demand that I put forth an alternative to Hillary, let me say that I would vote for Senators Obama, Edwards, or Dodd, all of whom I consider worthy candidates. I believe that any one of them would be a better choice than Hillary Clinton. Would you like to talk about it - not name-calling, not attacking each other, not ascribing malevolent motives to each other? I would.