Cross posted at My Left Wing
At
Booman Tribune, more handwringing about "pragmatic" Dems and the Base:
RJ Eskow argues on The Huffington Post that Kos and Armstrong won't be able to keep the blogosphere unified because of an impending conflict between the 'technocrats' who want to win and the 'values' activists who want to stay true to their beliefs.
"There's a major split coming in the so-called 'progressive blogosphere,' and these two talented thinkers [Markos and Jerome] and writers won't be able to straddle the divide much longer. The brawl they try valiantly to avoid is one that's been brewing for some time now, but has yet to fully erupt. One side of the progressive/liberal commentariat (especially bloggers) wants to grow and strengthen the Democratic Party - while placing ideology second. The other fights for a set of core values first and foremost, and considers the Democratic Party to be nothing more than a weapon in an ongoing struggle.
(Emphasis supplied.) A quick aside, "nothing more than a weapon?" I don't know who that describes, but whoever that is is not very smart. If you think the Dem Party is "just a weapon" then you are never going to achieve anything for progressivism. The Dem Party is the ONLY place that welcomes progressivism in party politics - 2 party politics - which is what we have in the United States. Progressives better fight for the Democratic Party, cuz if you are counting on the Greens or some third party to save progressivism, maybe your grandchildren will see the fruits of your labor.
But I think Eskew's argument and Howie's endorsement of it fundamentally misstates the issue. See, I am a Politics of Contrast adherent and also a Big Tent adherent. And those views, I submit, are NOT mutually exclusive.
Before I explain what I mean, a reality check:
In 2004, George Bush won the 17th Congressional District with 70% of the vote. In 2000, he had won with 68% of the vote. In 2004, Edwards won against Arlene Wohlgemuth with just 51% of the vote. In Congress, Edwards has voted against the Bush's tax cuts, voted in favor of human cloning, voted against the ban on partial birth abortions, and voted against school choice programs in the District of Columbia. Edwards has a 2004 National Taxpayer Union rating of just 16%, compared with an AFSCME (the government employee union) rating of 75%. His AFSCME rating was 100% in the non-election year of 2003. Like typical Democrats running in swing districts, Edwards is more liberal in off years than on years. In 2003, National Journal ranked Edwards as a social liberal with a score of 61%, only to see that number drop to 53% in 2004.
What type of Dem do Progressives want from that district? A "true" progressive who gets stomped? Or Chet Edwards?
Or take Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What type of "progressive" can win in Nebraska? What do "purists" expect from a Nebraska Democrat that can win?
We need a Big Tent. But a Big Tent does NOT mean sacrificing our core values. I'll explain why I think so on the flip.
I have a
mantra:
Since November 2004, I have argued that a politics of contrast, what I label Lincoln 1860, a Fighting Dems approach - where Dems aim to label the GOP as extremist, corrupt and incompetent and Dems as fighters for their ideals.
I also have a Big Tent mantra:
On the Pennsylvania Senate primary, the NARAL endorsement of Chafee, the Cuellar/Rodriguez race, the Lieberman as an Indy issue and the Nader Presidential candidacy, Markos (and I) have tried to make a simple point - making the Democratic Party what you think it ought to be is the ONLY way to effect beneficial political change in this country.
If you believe in third parties as a vehicle, then you are not being realistic in my view. Move the Democratic Party, that is the only way, in my opinion.
And those Democrats who abhor primaries also do the Party no service -- to close the legitimate debate of policy and ideas within the Party - as some here urge - is just as destructive. We must allow for a fair debate of the issues WITHIN the Party. That means primaries. More of them. Hell, I think every Dem facing a primary would be a GREAT thing.
It would evidence a vibrancy and openness that SHOULD be our Party. It would sharpen the campaigning skills of our candidates. It would keep our elected officials close to their constituencies and their base.
But the winners of the primaries get our support. The Big Tent. We respect the views of Democratic primary voters. (I strongly support closed primaries.)
That means, for me, supporting Bob Casey if he wins in Pennsylvania. That means, if Lieberman stays in the Democratic Party, supporting him if he defeats Lamont (that is what infuriates me about Lieberman's threat and the tepid response to it, Lieberman owes it to the Dem Party to accept the decision of the Democrats of Connecticut), and so on.
Big Tents without primaries is telling progressives the Democratic Party has no place for you. Progressive organizations and interest groups not supporting the Dem nominee is giving no respect to the Democratic Party and to their own self interest.
You want to scare Dem incumbents like Bean? Do it in the primaries. Hell, it is your best chance to scare them anyway.
In November, the D means everything. At least for me.
Progressives need to respect the voice of local Dems. To change the message of Southern Dems and other moderate/conservative Dems in places like Texas, Nebraska and Mississippi, progressives need to persuade the voters of Texas, Nebraska and Mississippi. Chet Edwards, Ben Nelson and Gene Taylor speak for their voters. Progressives who rail against the Nelsons, Taylors and Edwards do their cause no service. They convince no one of the rightness of our views.
Respecting the Big Tent does not mean abandoning our core values. The National Party is made up of a substantial majority that shares our progressive views. But we can not demand fealty on all issues from all Democrats.
But we can demand Party discipline and loyalty. Of course, WHEN to demand it is the rub. But first we must accept some basic principles - we can not demand fealty from all Democrats on all issues. We must be a Big Tent Party. That serves the electoral interests of the Democratic Party and the policy interests of Progressives.
Because you can't change a darn thing if you don't win. But compromise on the Big Tent does not mean compromising the values of the progressive Democratic Party.