There has been a growing attitude and message problem around much of Daily Kos lately because of the FISA capitulation. I'll start by saying that I count myself in the group opposing the bill that was recently passed and signed; I've made it clear that I don't support immunity for the telecoms or insufficient court supervision for the FISA program.
But that's not what I'm writing about today. Today I want to address something that is potentially ten times as dangerous and damaging as the FISA capitulation. I'm talking about the perception that by acting as purists when it comes to ideology we can wash our hands of the consequences when it comes to reality.
Markos created a firestorm when he publicized the fact that he was witholding money he had earmarked for the Obama campaign because Kossacks were angry over Obama's vote on FISA. Many, if not most, of us have condemned the idea that donations would be better spent on purist groups like the ACLU, MoveOn.org, etc. (Don't get me wrong; these groups have done great things for the progressive movement, but a choice between giving to Obama and giving to the ACLU is ridiculous.) Yet some have said that they would rather remain completely true to their beliefs on civil liberties by witholding money or support from Obama.
I have two suggestions to make:
1.) You can disagree with Obama's vote without having to abandon his campaign.
Senate Obama has said from the beginning that his campaign is about inclusivity and participation. He wants your input and support even if you disagree with his positions. Participating in the campaign, rather than taking your metaphorical ball and going home, gives you an opportunity to express your discontent over this issue and pressure Senator Obama to take your opinion into account the next time this issue is raised (and it will come up again).
That being said, if you were to only support candidates who remain pure to all your specific beliefs, you would never be able to support another candidate again. Here is something that a fellow Kossack pointed out a while back: think of all our progressive heroes. Kucinich was anti-choice at one time. Feingold supports AIPAC. Dodd voted to nominate John Roberts. Edwards voted for the Iraq AUMF. The point is that nobody is perfect. It would be naive to assume that there is a politician who mirrors all of your views on the issues.
2.) You cannot separate actions and consequences.
Those who have toned down support for Obama because of FISA like to say that they won't back down on any part of our progressive agenda. They value the progressive purity of their actions over the progressive purity of the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, you can't separate the two. This is the real world, not some utopian society. And in the real world, not everyone is progressive. So when you fail to support the far more progressive candidate (Obama), you in fact assist the regressive candidate (McCain). Choosing to not participate or support Obama is inaction. Here is what Dr. King had to say about inaction:
Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.
Don't think for a second that because you choose to sit in your purity bubble that your hands are washed of the consequences of this election. There are far too many issues at stake: healthcare, Iraq, reproductive rights, energy independence, global warming, social security, transportation, housing, education - the list goes on.
This is a time of crisis. You don't have the the luxury of choosing between ten different progressive candidates in this election. There are only two choices: one is regress and one is progress. And if you're not supporting Obama, you're choosing regress.
There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. This has been the case for years, but we don't have enough to show for it. The GOP has always done a better job of consolidating and organizing support, staying on message, and turning out voters for Presidential elections. We have a chance to change that this year. But it won't happen if you refuse to get off your ideological high horse and come work to get a progressive elected President.