This has been brewing for a while.
I remember during the FISA fight in 2008, some of us did indeed have a premonition of things to come. This was the first time, as we moved toward victory, that we saw what that might mean for many of us here. United against Bush, our common purpose was clear. But when our own standard bearer, Barack Obama, took a stand on the FISA bill that many here saw as a betrayal, that common purpose began to fray. Two factions began to emerge. Some trusted and supported our presumptive nominee and were willing to sacrifice on policy if it led, in the end, to victory. Others were not willing to lay down on FISA -- they simply saw telcom immunity as far too dangerous a precedent to set. Those people criticized our nominee loudly.
As a short hand, let's call these factions "supporters" and "critics." This is not really accurate -- Obama's staunchest supporters have their own criticisms to levy. And most of the supposed "critics" of this administration are still actively supportive of Obama. But we need a set of terms to use, and I suppose these will do. Supporters and critics.
Each side saw the other as ultimately short sighted and likely to doom our common purpose to failure. And it became clear during this epic pie fight that once these battle lines had been drawn, we would be fighting this battle for the duration of our time in power.
And we have. The public option. Warrantless wiretapping. Afghanistan. Whistleblower protections. Marriage equality. On every issue that we care about, issues that we agree on, anything short of victory in Washington sent us back into our trenches.
And here we are again. Huge losses in the midterms have sent the pie flying. Each side is convinced the other is at fault. So, who is right? Let's try to summarize each side's argument.
Supporters: "Progress takes time. No president has a magic wand. Sometimes the best we can achieve is incremental progress. But we need to keep moving forward, and if we want to keep moving forward, we need to keep Democrats in office. When you incessantly complain about every disappointment, all you achieve is making our President seem like an embattled failure. How can he win, how can he fight for us, if he's being attacked on all sides? If you really care about progressive causes, you'll stop doing the Republicans' work for them by tearing down our President. He needs our support."
Critics: "Of course I support the President. I work hard for Democratic victory. But victory is useless if we can't translate it into good policy. More than that, without good policy outcomes, our victories will be pyrrhic. If we want Democrats to win elections, they need to produce tangible results for the voters. My complaints, such as they are, are directed toward that one goal -- pressuring our leaders to enact the best possible policy. Every progressive victory in our nation's history began with a chorus of noisy critics like me. I'm not attacking our President. I'm working to make him a better President."
Ok, I'm sure that doesn't perfectly represent the views of every person reading this. But it's a starting point. So, who's right? Which one of these positions is correct? I bet you know what I'm going to say...
BOTH OF THEM.
Or neither of them, take your pick. History will do a better job of explaining my point than my amateur skills as an essayist, I think. Let's go back 70 some years to the battle for Social Security. Like most of you, I idolize Franklin Roosevelt. But we didn't get Social security in this country thanks to the goodness of FDR's heart. We got it as a result of an enormous amount of public pressure from progressive activists. When Dr. Francis Townsend introduced his plan for an old age security plan, he had zero interest from the powers that be. A few years later, as thousands of "Townsend Clubs" with millions of members started to vocally campaign against Roosevelt's inaction on the issue, retirement security suddenly became much more attractive as policy on the Hill.
And it didn't stop there:
Obviously, Townsend’s activism didn’t topple FDR. But it did help lead to tangible, beneficial changes to Social Security. By 1939, Congress had enacted amendments to the Social Security Act that added survivor and dependent benefits. But, to FDR’s progressive opponents, that wasn’t enough. Various social justice coalitions joined Townsend in agitating for higher benefits. Eventually, in 1950, this relentless advocacy produced another round of amendments that added a host of other professions outside of industry and commerce to the Social Security program, and the first cost-of-living adjustment, so that benefits finally outstripped the miniscule amounts in Old Age Assistance. This dynamic continued apace for 30 more years. Disability insurance entered the program in 1956, early retirement became allowable in 1961, and automatic cost-of-living adjustments were added by 1972. All this happened under Democratic and Republican presidents. It’s difficult to conclude that Townsend’s persistent, forceful critique resulted in negative consequences for the policy–in fact, the result was completely salutary. And Townsend wasn’t alone–pension organizations like Ham and Eggs in California, Upton Sinclair’s EPIC movement, the Share Our Wealth Society, and many others pressured Roosevelt in those years, often quite critically, and in the end Social Security became the successful, expansive program we have today.
So yeah, Roosevelt had his critics. The Left of the 1930s was, if anything, far stronger and more vocally critical of Democrats than it is today. But what else did FDR have? He had him some serious mojo:
"Roosevelt was really, really popular," said Philip A. Klinkner, a government professor at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., who is writing a book on the election of 1936. "He came up with the fireside chats. People connected with him in the way they hadn't with any previous president."
It's no exaggeration to say that millions of Americans loved FDR. Truly loved him. Americans gathered around their radios every week and welcomed him into their homes. They were behind him 100%. They trusted him. Even when he failed or disappointed them, that unwavering support never faltered. That's the kind of mojo that wins you four terms in the Whitehouse.
This all happened before most of us were born. It's hard to really get a visceral sense of that dynamic through 70 years of history, but there it is -- FDR, perhaps the most successful President in American history, had the most vocal critics AND the most ardent supporters. He needed them both.
And so does Obama.
I'm sure you've heard it a million times in every kumbaya moment on DKos, but I'll say it again -- we are all on the same side. We have a common goal, though we disagree on how to get there. What I want you to take away from this is simple: We don't have to agree on how to get there. Nor should we. We all, each and every one of us, critics and supporters alike, have an important role to play in Democratic victory. So not only is it a waste of time to try to convince the "other side" that they are wrong and should be doing it your way, it's counterproductive. Let's imagine a couple scenarios:
1) Scenario: Every Dem is a "supporter." We all keep our criticisms to ourselves and just wave the flag.
Result: With no criticism from the Left, the only pressure Dems receive is from the Right. They continue to move toward the supposed "center," and balk at taking on any of the really big challenges. Why would they push for something like single payer healthcare, for example, if no one was campaigning for it? After a lackluster performance, the electorate abandons ineffective Democrats and votes Republican.
2) Scenario: Every Dem is a "critic." We all agree that we will not thoughtlessly support Dems just because they are Dems, and we noisily criticize each and every failure or half measure.
Result: The President and the Party are embattled and weakened. With the Press Secretary as the only person on God's green earth with anything good to say about Democratic achievements, Democratic voters are turned off and fed up. They don't bother voting anymore, or perhaps vote Republican.
Get the idea? We need each other. For those of you who know me, you know I fall into the "critic" camp. Though I am still a loyal and committed Democrat, when I have a criticism, I express it. And when my elected leaders fail me, I say so. Loudly. But I understand that not only do many other Dems, here and elsewhere, not approach politics that way, they shouldn't approach politics that way. And I shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. I appreciate the necessity of both of our approaches.
Just once, I would like to see an argument on DKos end this way:
Critic -- "Hey supporter, I am so mad about policy failure X. I'm waging a serious campaign to pressure Obama to reverse his approach. We need to make him understand that we are NOT going to take this lying down. By the way, thanks for that article you wrote yesterday about Obama's underrated achievements. We need to remind the voters what the alternatives are. Thanks for getting that out there. I know your enthusiasm is going to help with our GOTV efforts!
Supporter -- "No prob, critic! You know me, I'll be waving that flag from now until election day, and I'm going to make sure everyone I talk to knows how much our President has accomplished after being dealt so poor a hand. And thank you, too, for your campaign on policy failure X. I know that if you and your allies can rally enough support, we can make the Congress and the President understand what needs to be done. If you can pressure them to do the right thing, then I'll really have a fantastic policy accomplishment I can use to build support for the President!"
Am I hoping for too much? Are we really so narrow minded and politically naive that we believe, each of us, that our way is the only way? That everyone who disgrees with us is wrong? Can't we learn the clear lesson of history, and join our efforts and once again unite in pursuit of our common purpose? It's ok if we disagree on how to get there. It really is. Let's just help each other get there. Please. Pax.