A few months ago I wrote a diary entitled
Relativity, Uncertainty, Big Tents and the Political Space-Time Curvature. My thesis was, in the main, as follows:
I want to introduce my own concept of political space time curvature to help us better understand the Politics of Contrast (or Definition, as Texeira and Halpin call it) and the need for a Big Tent Democratic Party.. . . . [continued in extended]
. . . Earlier, I wrote:
Texeira and Halpin are not writing a specific proposal for the 2006 election -- they have properly idenitfied one of the key long term problems of the Democratic Party, the ability to shape its image and brand has been hijacked by the Republican Party and Democrats have allowed Republicans to completely control the branding of their own party with no resistance from the Democratic Party. . . . Those themes have been central to much of my writing on Democratic Party politics. Texeira and Halpin have identified the problem and, in my opinion, provided very good and workable proposals for attacking the problem. Full disclosure, much of what Texeira and Halpin talk about are ideas I have endorsed for 18 months. Those who know my work from daily kos will no doubt find some of these ideas familiar - The Politics of Contrast, Lincoln 1860, The Party of Dobson, Extremist Republicans
I would like to expand on this idea, incorporating "political space-time curvature." Let's recall T&H's 5 postulates:
(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: "What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?"
(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.
(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.
(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right's social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one's position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]
(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.
As general themes and principles, these postulates can be applied in every region of the nation. But they will not lead to uniform specific issue positions for Democrats everywhere. The political gravity or, "political space time curvature" in Nebraska or Mississippi is different from that in say, Rhode Island [or Connecticut]. But the progressive or Democratic position in each of these locations can clearly be discerned and is the position for Democrats to follow in each of them.
. . . It is important that Democrats, Single Issue Groups, citizens, all make these judgments. And argue their points of view. How far can we push Dems in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Mississippi, etc? We have a wonderful POSITIVE mechanism for making these determinations - primaries.
Yes primaries are central to my view of a dynamic vibrant Big Tent Democratic Party. It allows us to test our ideas and be open to all ideas that are consistent with our core values as Democrats and progressives. It also is consistent with a tolerance for diversity of ideas and respect for different approaches in different regions.
In addition, primaries serve the essential function of making elected official accountable to the Party and to their consituency. mcjoan's fine piece contrasting the Lieberman and Jane Harman responses to the call for accountability provides a wonderful illustration of this effect.
Of course primaries are also the exercise of choosing candidates for a general election and thus will not exclusively be a test of ideas. Consider three notable primaries of this year and the functions they played: MT-Sen, VA-Sen, CT-Sen.
In MT-Sen, it seems to me the primary was primarily a contest of choosing the best person to represent Montana Dems in the general election. Jon Tester was far and away the most impressive candidate I've seen this year and it seems to me that that explains his rout of Morrison. Not an acountability moment and I can't say that I could discern a battle of ideas.
VA-Sen was both a choice of candidates and a battle of ideas. Webb was perceived as the better candidate to take on George Allen AND was better attuned to the ideas that Virginia Democrats were concerned about. Most notably, Webb is a strong voice against the Iraq Debacle.
CT-Sen. To me the CT-Sen race was the primary that best illustrates my theory of political space curvature as well as being an accountability moment for an elected official.
Here, Ned Lamont tested Lieberman's progressive bona fides, his efficacy as a voice of progressivism, his ability to represent the views of Connecticut Democrats and his notion of what it means to be a Democratic Senator in the Age of Rove. Lieberman was found inadequate.
To wit, Lieberman was not progressive enough, not partisan enough, not enough of a Democrat for Connecticut Democrats. Lieberman has not accepted this determination thus leaving no doubt that the determination was absolutely correct. No good Democrat would reject the decision of his constituency in this way.
Lieberman was a poor representative for Connecticut Democrats and thus was rightly rejected by Connecticut Democrats. It is interesting that too many short sighted people can not understand this process in this way. Many scream that there is not room for "moderates" (what Lieberman is I'll leave to others, it is a sterile debate, he is not representative of a Connecticut Democrat) in the Democratic Party.
But that is not what occurred at all. What was decided yesterday is that Lieberman is not representative of Connecticut Democrats. It is likely that if Lieberman were a Senator from the South or from Nebraska or North Dakota he would have been fine, or even too progressive.
During the campaign, a phrase became popular that I think really speaks to what happened here - "Lieberman's problem is Connecticut." I would say that Connecticut Democrats' problem was Lieberman - he did not represent them. And Connecticut Democrats chose someone who did.
That is democracy. Most Democrats are in favor of little d democracy. Lieberman did not accept it. He makes clear he is no Democrat.