This is my argument for sitting out the 2010 elections, or at least foregoing donations, GOTV, and such, in the wake of the (sure to continue) health care debacle. I am not actually convinced of this position, and am willing to be persuaded it's wrong, but I at least want to give an argument as to why this is, in the long run, the best option for us. Briefly, the arguments in favor of this are:
-we will lose relatively little ground if Republicans gain some seats
-we will make progressives a credible threat in the future
The arguments against, which I will attempt to refute, are:
-this was the best we could have hoped for on health care
-we are still going to see more good from Dems in Congress than Republicans, so we should hold our nose and GOTV
-the Republicans listened to their base, and look what it got them: loss of the House, Senate and White House
-most Dems in Congress are sympathetic to our efforts, don't punish them
But, I should say from the outset, this isn't about payback or revenge. It's about what's best for progressive policies, in the long run. It's about changing people's political calculus, and giving ourselves a bigger voice. My argument below the fold:
First, we will lose relatively little ground. It is true that the Democrats have done a lot other than HCR, a lot of which has fallen under the radar of lots of people. It's also true that Obama has done a lot as President, that is better than what McCain or any other Republican would have done. That being said, Obama isn't up for election in 2010. And most of what the Dems have done was the relatively easy stuff; the reason that it's done already is that there was little hassle involved. As a result, all that easy stuff is already accomplished, and there is none left for the Dems to do in the second half of this term.
I see, all the time, diaries extolling the Dems' and Obama's accomplishments, and saying we should continue to be supportive. They always list two types of things: things Dems have already done, usually because it wasn't too politically hard, and things we can look forward to from Dems in the future, which probably haven't happened because the Dems won't have the guts to actually see them through. I put, for example, the Lilly Ledbetter Act in the former, and DOMA in the latter. Lilly Ledbetter was important, but I doubt there are any such issues still out there, that Dems will accomplish with more ease the Health Care (which we couldn't do right). Hell, it got 73 votes for cloture - that gonna happen anytime soon, on anything? And I doubt we will get to DOMA any time soon; maybe in Obama's second term, or when gay marriage support grows more, but they won't do it between 2010 and 2012, especially if they decide they can walk all over us.
If there's any time for elected Dems to get a little humiliation, it's now. We aren't gonna accomplish much between the 2010 and 2012 elections, and our people in Congress, combined with Obama's veto, will prevent losing too much ground. It's better we do this now, than when some Republican is President and we have a lot to lose.
The second point is the credible threat from progressives. People defending Dems in Congress say that this was the best we could have gotten. Here's why I doubt it. Did Ben Nelson and the others sink the public option because of principled opposition? I say no, because what screams unprincipled like someone in the Senate, and a squishy centrist at that? It was a sign of liberals' wishes, which made it the thing to kill. And it wasn't defended enough; rather it was treated like some far away hope, the far left plank of acceptable outcomes. Few forcefully defended it, but many (Republicans) forcefully attacked it. If the public option had been some minor plank in the bill that nobody talked about, Ben Nelson would be fine with it. Exhibit A of this should be Blanche Lincoln's having her support of the public option on her website, from before the health debate, even while she came out against it.
Ben Nelson, and other Dems, don't worry about pissing off progressives. They treat us like punching bags, to secure centrist support. But there's other ways to secure centrist support - like, say, passing effective legislation that helps the country. And, as Matt Yglesias likes to point out, we don't protest because we actually care about helping the country, and so we reluctantly support whatever compromise is made.
It's time for this to change. If Ben Nelson worried as much about us as he did about Republicans (most of whom won't vote for him anyway), then he'd support us. Same with other Dems. We need to change their political calculus, which points against us, and will continue to if we fall in line again.
Now, briefly, the "anti" points:
This was the best we could have hoped for: As I said above, I dispute this. Today the public option couldn't pass, but that's the result of Dems liking to throw us aboard, to please others. Changing that political calculus will help our cause. And had people not treated the public option as toxic from the outset, and actually defended it, it may have garnered the necessary support.
We will get more good from Dems than Repubs: There are two more big things, max, Congress will do before 2012 - this health care stuff, and Cap n Trade. If they fold on this, they'll fold on that. The next big round of legislation is 2012, and then we can hope for better results. But only if Dems in Congress fear us more than, say, Glenn Beck viewers. Sure this Dem Congress has done a lot. But they've already done the easy stuff, and the question isn't what you have done - it's what you will do.
The Republicans did this, and look what it got them: It's true that Republicans are beholden to their base the way I wish Dems were beholden to ours. And it's true that 8 years of that led to the Republican brand in the sewer, and loss of control of Congress and the Presidency. But, there is a huge difference, which is that our ideas are better. 8 years of Bush led to a Dem outcome not because people dislike a party that governs from the base, but because Bush's ideas were bad. Years of our ideas will help the country - if you believe that, then the Republican experience doesn't apply to us. The more Dems listen to us, the better for the country, and the better Dems will ultimately do.
(an added argument) We should be using primaries to make our voice heard, but we should support the Dem in the general election - The problem with this is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. We should already be having primaries against Dems, where we could do better. Once we organize primaries against centrists, we still are faced with the question this diary attempts to answer, so primaries are, in a sense, a distraction from this issue. Primaries are only part of the answer.
Most Dems in Congress are sympathetic: I don't care. Our job isn't to make Congresspeoples' lives easy, it's to make them difficult. I would rather them have a hard time trying to please us and centrists, than have an easy time just pleasing centrists. If you don't like it, don't be a Senator - I'm sure plenty of hardworking, earnest people will be willing to take your place. This isn't about payback or revenge, it's about winning, in the long run. It's about changing elected Democrats' political calculus. And the best way to do that is to be a credible threat, to make people in Congress afraid of us. We need to have millions of stories circulating before the elections about how lack of base support is killing Dems, have them lose, have exit polling data show that progressive turnout was depressed, and then have people talk about how the Dems didn't do enough to please progressives, and now they look like idiots. And then they'll worry about us as much as they worry about centrists and Republicans, which means they'll listen to us.
Like I said, I am unsure if this is the right answer, but I at least wanted to put the argument out there. Thanks for reading.