Two states, two sitting moderates, two challenging liberals, and an altogether pissed off blogosphere have come together in a powerful way at this point in the election cycle. Primarily I should say that I applaud the politics and admire the enthusiasm of those who have so very actively supported Bill Halter and Joe Sestak in their primary challenges. Yet, I wholly reject the notion that, should these challenges fail, abandoning Arlen Specter and/or Blanche Lincoln is a viable, productive, or just retribution for their moderation.
It is true that both sitting Senators lack much to be desired from our liberal perspective. Arlen Specter held the Recovery Act hostage and removed over a hundred billion dollars from it, a fact that Sestak has used effectively in his primary. Blanche Lincoln was one of a handful of moderate Democrats who did something similar to the Affordable Care Act, and they successfully disemboweled the public option then eliminated it altogether.
These are famous examples of a classic symptom of moderation. It is resistant to any agenda, up to and including our own. Our anger with Specter and Lincoln is justified and rational. However, and this is my key point of departure with many advocates for Sestak and especially Halter, our response to that anger must be equally justified and rational. To abandon Specter and Lincoln in the event of their success in the primaries is to cede ground automatically to the avowed opponents of our agenda, and those opponents happen to have an agenda of their own.
Consider the end result of the examples above. Specter demanded that the Recovery Act be less expansive, and to win his vote he was accommodated. Yet when the bill required Republican votes to win passage, Specter voted yes when his demands were met and even joined in encouraging Senators Snowe and Collins to vote with him. Lincoln did demand the weakening of the public option in a way that assisted in its untimely demise. But when literally every single vote was crucial on bringing the bill to the floor and on ending debate, Blanche Lincoln voted with us.
That reality in itself reveals the foolishness behind abandoning these or any moderate Democratic candidates to the likes of Pat Toomey and others. They are, by dint of their own moderation, infinitely preferable to the conservative alternative. I strongly disagree with Charlie Melancon on the health care issue, but if I lived in Louisiana I would fight like mad to see him elected, because he is far better for my cause than David Vitter. To say that a moderate is no better than a conservative is to ignore the realities of political relativity and, frankly, to betray the liberal cause for a childish petulance.
Will we, as liberals and proud ones at that, give up potentially competitive seats because our candidate is not the best we could have had? If we intend to call ourselves forceful advocates for the change of which we speak almost incessantly, the very least we can do is hold our noses on some imperfect candidates for the good our ideals. Our national political life is a constant struggle. The perfect is never fully attainable, and some compromise is always the key component of success. If we are not willing to accept that reality, then we are undeserving of our majority and unworthy of our cause.