Don't use right-wing frames to attack Dem candidates
Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM PDT
Guys, I know it seems like primary season will never end but the general election is not that far away and we all know the eventual Democratic nominee is going to face heavy fire from the GOP as they try desperately to hold on to power in the face of a country eager for change. While we all want to vet the candidates and make sure that we choose the one who best represents us, the one who can win, the one who will be effective at promoting progressive goals, we should be careful not to provide unnecessary ammo for the Republicans. As I see it, we are coming dangerously close to shredding the party with internal fighting at the very time when we have a chance to send the Republicans to the wilderness. If Clinton wins, we will need Obama in the Senate; if Obama wins, same goes for Clinton. Edwards should play a role in the next administration and his voice needs to be heard. Below, some right-wing frames that I hope we can agree to not use against our own candidates.
Edwards: is NOT an egotistical hypocritical ambulance chaser. Those of us who have looked into his record are proud of the work he did as a lawyer, helping to get justice for his clients. He and his family have faced tremendous personal adversity and he perseveres because he believes he gives a voice to overlooked Americans. I was there in 2004 fighting for Edwards' good name on mixed political boards and I think he would have made a great nominee against Bush then. Criticism of Edwards as hypocritical plays into the right-wing narrative that Democrats don't really care about poor people, can't really relate to the problems facing ordinary Americans, and are either trying to assuage their guilt or else cynically manipulate this block of voters.
Clinton: is NOT a racist bitch running on Bill's accomplishments. Most of us were pretty pleased with how Bill ran the country, but most of us can think of several things we wish he had done differently too, in his politics as well as his personal life. Hillary has stood on her own all her life, did outstanding work for NYC after 9/11, and has fought back against some of the most brutal smearing ever directed at a politician. The sexism she's faced from the media has been blatant and disturbing. Criticism of the Clintons as racist and corrupt politicians plays into the right-wing narrative that Bill was a lousy President and that the Clintons are a mafia-style take-no-prisoners political machine. Criticism of Hillary using anti-feminist frames undermines progressive work for women's rights.
Obama: is NOT a naive say-anything cliche machine. He has a strong record of achievement in Chicago and in the Senate. His record reflects his rhetoric and he shows an understanding of the root causes behind "headline" issues, from Katrina to terrorism. Please, for the doubters out there, look up his accomplishments, read kid oakland's excellent series; I won't turn this diary into a plug for Obama but he's a strong candidate in a strong field. Criticism of Obama as all rhetoric, no substance plays into the right-wing narrative that Democrats talk a good game but never do anything constructive. Criticism of Obama as a naive non-fighter can be spun into the frame of Dems being weak on security. Criticism of Obama as the "charisma candidate" can be spun as him getting special treatment because he's black.
Do I even need to add that in all three cases such type of criticism is factually inaccurate? Unfortunately the right-wing frames don't have to be true to be believed, and unfortunately some of the circular fire coming from the left doesn't seem concerned with accuracy so much as damage power.
Now, this is not to say that criticism is out of bounds; there are many legitimate differences to explore between all three candidates, there are contradictions between past actions and current positions that are fair game to notice, there are campaign tactics that are understandably disturbing. But let's be careful not to reinforce right-wing frames when we try to promote our favorite candidate.
=========================================================================
If I might also take the liberty of addressing how supporters of candidates interact, something that I realize has been beaten to death but which I nevertheless want to touch on briefly. Please, let's tone down the vitriol. Some suggested guidelines for meta-level discussions:
Edwards supporters: there is no need to be personally insulted, or insulted on behalf of your candidate, when people examine the strategic implications of Edwards withdrawing. Someone who notes that Edwards might not meet the viability criteria in CA is not against the issues you and Edwards promote. If Obama supporters are eager to court your support, think of it as them seeing in you a potential ally to work for change in America. You don't have to dance, but there's no need to rip Obama because you don't like how one of his supporters asked.
Clinton supporters: there is no need to be personally insulted, or insulted on behalf of your candidate, when people are upset at what they consider unnecessary negative campaigning. You don't have to defend everything said or done by Hillary, Bill, or various people associated with that campaign. Hillary can still be the most qualified candidate even if you acknowledge a mistake or misstep. Not everything is a manufactured controversy designed to discredit Hillary.
Obama supporters: there is no need to be personally insulted, or insulted on behalf of your candidate, when people notice that he's black and speculate about what impact that will have. There's no need to interpret comments about Obama's background or electoral chances as racist if a charitable reading could suggest otherwise. I know, sometimes it's tough to distinguish bigoted concern trolling from good-faith commentary, but let's avoid incendiary accusations whenever possible.
We've got a great group of candidates, with a bright future ahead in November and beyond if we play our cards right.
Permalink | 39 comments