If your life depended on getting a nail through a plank of wood (and feel free to try and construct a scenario where this actually could occur...I sure can’t), and you didn’t have a hammer, and all hardware stores were closed, would you sit around and bitch about the lack of appropriate equipment, and refuse to try, all the while letting the clock tick down, in the hopes that one would magically appear, or would you use whatever you had close to hand (pen in your pocket, button on your overcoat, etc), even if it wasn’t likely to be very successful, in the hopes you could accomplish something, anything?
The point of that ridiculously long, grammatically torturous metaphor is to point out the absolutely disastrous philosophy that all too many progressives seem to have, particularly some very vocal ones here on DK. I haven’t been too involved with DK before, only a few comments here and there, but I am a certifiably expert lurker, and I find myself shaking my head all too much and wondering why people don’t see what they are doing to themselves, their ideals, and this community. Yes, I am referring specifically to the candidate diaries, but also to an intrinsic problem in the way progressives seem to approach politics, action and their long-term goals.
Ideals are wonderful, they’re the best thing about progressives. We know where we want the country to be, we know what we want our society to achieve, and many progressives are tireless at working for their ideals, often donating time, money and good health to try and accomplish these ends. I commend everyone who does so. But the downfall is that we also tend to write off any effort that is a compromise, because we feel we are somehow sacrificing our ideals in order to do so. Great things are not achieved overnight, and no matter how much we insist that we are not naïve enough to think they are, every progressive does secretly wake up each morning hoping that today is the day everyone finally sees the light. And so I read diary after diary, speaking about how Candidate X compromises too much, how Bill Y should be voted down because it isn’t drastic enough. One gets the impression that such authors are sulking a bit...sort of a "if I can’t have the whole cookie, I don’t want even a nibble." But then nothing gets done.
I see people on here decrying politicians for making compromises, and not shooting for the ultimate goal (efficient oil-independent energy, elimination of poverty, troops out of Iraq, universal HC, etc). But how do you think we will achieve those ends? By steadfastly refusing to come to the table unless we are guaranteed everything we want? How sullen, how juvenile, how......Bush-like. Compromises are essential, they’re the only way to get anything done, and they DON’T have to mean you sacrifice your ideals or the ultimate ends you wish to accomplish. A compromise just means you advance your cause, sometimes infinitesimally, in order to get everyone else used to the idea. Then when everyone’s got their head wrapped around the new status quo, you try for just a little bit more. Sure, this isn’t the grand sweeping change that all progressives would like, but it’s better than nothing. Baby steps will get you there eventually, sitting the game out will not. And realistically, even if you find the perfect candidate—the one whose goals match yours, the one who offers you the progressive promised land, you know that they will not achieve this. Because the other side has a different opinion, and they're fighting just as hard. I can promise you that if I were elected president I would attempt to make the United States a progressive utopia, but there’s no way in hell that this would get done. All I can hope for is to take steps in the right direction, in the hopes that the next person can build upon my work.
And this is the philosophy with which we should be approaching our political battles, and our elections. Vote your conscience, your ideals in the primaries—make your voice heard, demonstrate to the party at large what you want in a candidate, but then support whoever gets the nomination. Anyone stating "I will not vote for HRC/BHO/JRE if they get the nomination" is actually shooting themselves and their own progressive ideals in the foot, guaranteeing that they will never achieve what they want. Because whoever we nominate is better than the Republican choice, and you can’t spin that in any way to make it a negative statement, and still be truthful to your ideals. Period
If we refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate, because they’re not perfect enough, than the Republican wins. There’s no way around that. It may be a great Republican (I can’t believe I just wrote those words, and I doubt I will ever have cause to use them in the same sentence again, but oh well), and a crappy Democrat (in the opinion of the sulking voter), but the Republican will still be to the right of the Democrat, and the Democrat is still more likely to advance the progressive cause, even in increments.
I understand that it’s frustrating to want so much, and settle, but in the case of politicians and policy, temporary settling is a necessary evil. I WILL use the button on my overcoat, because I can’t sit back and do nothing. Maybe I’ll get a hammer, maybe I won’t, but I’ll get that nail through the plank of wood one way or another. If everyone embraces this philosophy, than we are a united front, steadily tugging toward the left. If we don’t, than all the lofty ideals in the world won’t help, because they’re not practicable.