Sir, I think you are one of the best people we have in the Democratic Party. And I agree with much of what you say. But I would be remiss in my duty to this great nation if I didn't stand up and point out some of the flaws in your letter to us. I hope you take this criticism as my humble attempt to unite us, not divide us, because it's not ideological purity I seek, it's having the common sense to ally with those who are fighting the same fight we are, not those who are fighting against us. And frankly, sir,
you admit Americans want progressive candidates in your own letter! It only makes sense for us to give Americans what they want.
More below.
First off, I think it is important to define Why
We Fight. What is it that progressives stand for?
Equality, Democracy, Social Justice and Economic Sustainability.
Those aren't emtpy words. Absolutely every individual issue on both sides are defined by how they affect these four words.
"Big Tent" should be defined by them as well. If a congressperson regularly supports Equality, Democracy, Social Justice and Economic Sustainability, then we have room for them under our tent. If they regularly support Corporate Oligarchy, Social Darwinism, the Class System, Justice only for the Rich, short term Corporate Interests ahead of long term American Interests, then they need to hit the road.
That's not ideological purity, that's just common sense. If you fight our fight, welcome aboard. If not, you ARE the enemy. It's not rocket science.
So now to look at your letter sir:
You seem to have two messages going on in this letter. One message is to not lower the level of debate. That's a good message. Your letter is very strong when you stick to this message. The other message is don't rail on Democrats for breaking ranks. This message doesn't hold up too well. You also make a strawman to strengthen this second message and it actually serves to betray the message, not reinforce it.
There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.
Very true. I do not think, however, that people are "vilifying" good allies over "one vote". This is the strawman I was referring to, sir. The problem as we see it are those Democrats who regularly vote against us on key issues. Show me one Democrat with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes who's being vilified here over one vote and I'll show you at best a single handful of people doing the vilifying. In most cases, you'll find people expressing their frustration at the congressperson for making a vote they don't understand.
I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.
I agree with much of what you say. Some of the left have gone over the top. I know I have on occasion. It's hard not to when the opposition is so far over the top they've redifined the phrase.
But please explain how demanding accountability from within our own ranks is an "impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country?"
We should turn a blind eye to Lieberman? He ran for VP not too long ago sir! Has it ever crossed your mind that that may be one of the reasons we lost that election? Who wants to vote for a Republicrat? You're saying we are better off not urging for a better alternative than a Republican in Democratic clothing?
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.
That pretty much sums up the right.
In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone,
Like it or not, sir, that is WAY overdue!
give as good as they get,
That kind of goes with the get some backbone idea. If one side FIGHTS and the other side doesn't, Americans are the kind of people that will NOT vote for what they perceive as the wimpy group. Like it or not, that's the way it is. You better recognize that sir.
brook no compromise,
No. That'd be silly and everyone recognizes this. In politics, as in life, you have to make compromises. BUT, and it's a Big Bertha BUT, that doesn't mean we have to be happy when "compromise" becomes another word for "put some vaseline on it before you ram it in". Unfortunately, THAT is the kind of compromise that the DLC and others within our party have been giving us. That's not compromising, that's selling out. Let's call it what it is, sir. Which is why there is the outcry for what you bring up next:
drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.
That's right sir. It's OKAY to keep the wolves out of the henhouse. In fact, it's COMMON SENSE. And as you, yourself, will unwittingly point out in just a few more sentences,
it's what the average American tells you he wants you to do! It's not ideological purity, it's inviting in those who fight our fight and recognizing those who don't.
The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
Yes sir, you nailed it. And as you're about to point out yourself, sir, that's what Americans WANT us to do. But first you say:
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.
While this is irrelevant to the question of should we weed out the wolves in our own henhouse, it DOES bring up a good point: We need to focus and STAY ON MESSAGE that this administration is irresponsible and incompetent. Namecalling will alienate voters. But does that mean we can't or shouldn't point out instances where Republicans in general are mean-spirited or prejudiced? If a large percentage of them ARE, then I think we SHOULD point this out. Shouldn't we remark upon and be horrified by what Bennett said? Let's not forget the power of using their own actions to drive away their own voters.
They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.
I agree wholeheartedly sir. Do you not realize that what you are saying is that most Americans are PROGRESSIVES and many of them don't know it? That they BELIEVE in our fight! If they already believe in what we fight for, then WHY aren't more Democrats driving that message home with them? Are we to stand by and do nothing if we see, time after time, that some Democrats just don't seem to get this message themselves? No, sir, those "Democrats" have no place under the Big Tent.
Why should we compromise with the Social Darwinists when most Americans, by your own admission, already agree with us? Cannot you see, sir, that this compromising our own principles is what drives them away from us? If we don't stand firm in defending what they already believe in then why shouldn't they refuse to go to the polls?
This is where I believe you've misread the American people. If we provide a united front, giving Americans OUR message. Letting them know What We Fight For, then they will come back to us, sir. Because we will have finally stopped listening to the "appeasers" within our own party and united behind the very thing they already believe in: Progressivism.
With your own words you've shown us that appeasement isn't what most Americans believe in. They want Government to keep the playing field even. They don't want multinational corporations to fix the game to their detriment. They don't want social darwinism.
By your own words you've shown us that most Americans already buy our product. Why, then, shouldn't we sell it? Why should we sell a diluted product? Why should we compromise with those that want to fix the game? Why would most Americans, believing as you say they do want to vote for Democrats who want to appease the right?
They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.
All of this is true, but what has it got to do with weeding out the wolves in our own hen house? Again, this has more to do with staying on focus, not alienating Americans. This is a good point but it seems you have two messages rolled into one with your letter. We should be careful not to marginalize ourselves with words like Bush is mean, America is Imperialistic, which are good points, but then you try to tie that in with we shouldn't call for ousting those Democrats who aren't fighting our fight.
Both messages are simply exclusive of one another sir.
It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.
A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.
I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.
In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.
You're making a strawman sir. Kos readers don't want Dems ousted for single votes. No single issue makes the case. They want to track Dems votes on ALL issues and oust those who have a pattern of breaking ranks on big issues.
But you've also missed the point why ALL Dems needed to be united on this issue: While it's true that Americans agree that a conservative president has the right to elect a conservative judge and we had no chance to stop the appointment short of perhaps a filibuster, Americans also believe that liberal congressmen and women are within their rights to oppose such nomination. In fact, they expect it. Seeing Democrats, and ONLY Democrats, break ranks (once again) to support Roberts appointment only tells them one thing:
Liberals don't stand up for what they believe in. They only look out for their own reelections.
So why should Americans vote for them? In the eyes of most Americans no one represents them in DC and so they don't vote at all. THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. Show them What We Fight For! Stand up and don't break ranks. Even if it is a losing cause. Sure, some Dems might have to make compromises to win their states. Fine.
Was Patty Murray going to lose out in Washington State if she voted Nay?
Nay.
So why did she do it? Those are legitimate questions to ask. It's OKAY to ask those questions. It's our responsibility to do so.
The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.
You keep pounding that strawman you built sir. Again, the point isn't ONE ISSUE. It's OKAY to look critically at our Democratic Congressmen and women and weigh thier works as a whole. That means asking, do they consistently break ranks on important issues? If so, then let's get rid of them, plain and simple. It's not rocket science, it's just plain common sense.
Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?
Sir, please show me one instance where a Republican was swayed from the party line because Patty Murray voted Yea on CAFTA? I really don't think ANYONE sways another Senator by saying "well, Joe Lieberman broke ranks on US, you should break ranks on THEM!" Sir, as you well know, it simply doesn't work that way.
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
That's all true. But it is irrelevant as it only seems to apply to the strawman you've created that is ready to pull the guillotine cord after only ONE issue. That's not what people at DailyKos are calling for. Sure, they wanted unity against Roberts and they really should have gotten it because of the message it sent by breaking ranks, but that's not what people here are calling for on a daily basis.
It's OKAY to demand accountability from within our own party. It's OKAY to track our own representatives and see if they are really fighting the same fight we are. It's OKAY to figure out who's with us and who's against us.
Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.
From this quote I know that you fight our fight. But sir, it's OKAY to ask that everyone who wants to stay under the Big Tent also be required to fight our fight. There's a difference between unity and letting the wolves roost with the chickens. Americans WANT us to stop being wishy washy. Americans WANT to believe they have an option. Americans WANT to believe that Democrats are more than just the lesser of two evils. If we come at them with 50 different messages crafter for 50 different states, don't you think they'll continue to see through such a shallow strategy? Like Chamberlain, we tried appeasement and like Chamberlain, we found it didn't work.
We shouldn't be ashamed of our message. We should be PROUD to be progressives and stand up for what we believe in, because the fact is, Americans actually believe as we do. You said so yourself. We drive them away when we start showing ourselves to be undefined, wishy washy. Most Americans don't know WHAT the Democrats because they don't seem to stand for anything anymore and that drives them away. It's OKAY to have some backbone and stand up for what you believe in. Americans respect that a lot more than they respect politicians they see as selling out for political expediency.
The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.
Yes, when we dumb down debate we lose. Yes, we shouldn't demonize them. They do that well enough themselves. Good points, but they have nothing to do with our desire to police our own ranks. So again, it seems you are sending two messages.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.
And that's why we love you Obama! We are really on the same page! Core values. We need to show Americans that we have them and to do that we need to insist that our representatives fight our fight.
Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.
My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.
In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor
Sir, you've stayed on one message here and it's the RIGHT one! I agree with you completely as I'm sure everyone at Daily Kos does.
It's the other message we disagree on. That the party should turn a blind eye to those who don't fight our fight. I hope you understand my position as I've tried to explain it, as I believe it is the position of the majority of those who complain about Democrats breaking ranks.