In my second diary, one of the comments got me thinking. It was a comment that I had seen before and I'm sure everyone has as well. "This is a nice idea, if the Democrats in the Senate/House/wherever had a spine . . ." We all know the feeling. And then the mind began to percolate and the questions started flowing. Where ARE their spines? Why does the Republican leadership appear to have a spine, yet they are so blatantly cowardly about presenting their bankrupt ideas publicly? Look at their record of wishy-washiness. It isn't any better, but they're sturgeons and we're jellyfish is the conventional wisdom. Why? Spine is really a relative thing here. What we're really taking about is sticking to the principles of the people they represent and there is a sense that the Republicans do it far more than the Dems. And I think I know why . . .
Because WE, the Democratic/liberal/progressive base, ARE THE SPINE OF THE DEMOCRATS. In the same way that the Republican base is the spine of the Republicans. What happens if a Republican official doesn't tow the party line? What happens if a Republican gets "too moderate"? The Republican noise machines slowly turn and point at them, if ever so briefly and slightly. Enough so that they get the picture. How often have we seen so-called moderates like Arlen Specter hint that he might do the right thing, only to have "conversations" and fall back into line. The voting base and the administration's ability to mobilize it is a powerful weapon to keep wayward politicians from straying. Only the base of a party can punish that party. The opposing side is going to vote against them regardless of what they do. We can't rely on the illegal, immoral or corrupt behavior of the opposing party to wake up our politicians as long as we keep voting for them regardless. We are their DIRECT line to political power, not the institutions they are a part of. If we want them to do what we want, we need to be prepared to see them out of office if they don't do it, REGARDLESS of whether that means we lose the seat to the Republicans. It doesn't (and shouldn't) mean we have to switch parties to work for their defeat and it doesn't (and shouldn't) mean that we compromise any of our principles or even vote for anyone who is not Democrat. In fact, it means the exact opposite. We explain in no uncertain terms why support for this person is gone. Why they are out. Why we have brought out the ostraka.
But we haven't been acting like a spine, because the Republicans have an advantage over us. If they punish one of theirs by not voting, running a challenger in the primary or some other kind of game of chicken that could result in the loss of a Republican seat, the alternative is a Democratic and, relatively, competent government. Frustrating (for them), but, in the long run, better to have the non-performing Republican out and the message for others loud and clear. If WE do the same thing, we're left with a Republican controlled government. And we've all seen what that looks like. For years, this is the boogie man that our under performing or non-performing Democratic politicians (who are not all of them by any stretch) have cowed us with - "I'm the best you've got, cause it's either me or the Republicans" and we frustratingly cast our ballots because they're right.
Well, SCREW THAT! This is why the Ned Lamont challenge is so awesome. No more free rides, guys. We've finally realized that, for all practical purposes, having a DINO in office is no different than losing the seat. We need to remember; Democrats, not Republicans, vote Democrats into office. They are dependent on our goodwill, not that of their Republican colleagues and they need to be reminded of that. The good Senator Reid said that people need to be aware of the consequences of the Lieberman issue and I agree. All parties involved need to be. After years of watching certain members of the Democratic leadership undercut democratic ideals and principles left and right, I think we are ALL aware of the consequences of this, but perhaps only NOW are they.
What we need is a set of standards that we can all look at to determine whether a Democratic politician is properly representing the principles of the party. And, as we've seen, we can't just look at their voting record because of the frequent use of strategic legislative practices. We need a more holistic kind of review. And we need to look at it differently than the Republicans do when their members stray (which seems to be with a kind of seething anger and fury). We need to think of it as a employee performance evaluation. Heck, we could even set it up like that and give people a "warning" before "firing" them. And think of it like that, as a way of saying, "I'm sorry, this just isn't working out. Nothing personal, but maybe you would be happier somewhere else." I don't think we should become or act like a "love it or leave it" party, but when it is apparent that someone has already "left" or is only hanging around the party for the open bar, they should be shown the door. And, I would probably STILL vote for a DINO over a Republican (and we probably should) once it gets down to cruch time if they are the one who survives the primary, because it is still true that (for the most part) they are better than the Republican alternative. The question is (if this is a good idea), how and who makes those determinations and what criteria should be used?