There is broad recognition on this site that we can't judge Jon Tester or Jim Webb by the same criteria as a Senator from say, California, due to the more conservative nature of their constituencies. We therefore accept (not in all cases, but in many cases) the fact that they take more moderate or conservative stances on some issues, because we recognize that they couldn't get elected or re-elected otherwise.
Now, here's my question? Why do so many of us take that stance on a state level but not the national level? And in particular, why does Hillary Clinton (and, occasionally, Barack Obama) get so much negative flack here for sometimes taking more moderate positions that people here might like?
Well, I expect one common answer would be that that's not necessary, that the national mood has swung so far to the left that we can win with more pure leftist positions. Can I remind people that we have lost 5 of the last 7 national elections--and that the only two we won were by a person named Clinton who took many moderate positions? Can I remind people that we also should have had the election in the bag in 2000 after 8 years of peace and prosperity, or that we should have had the election in the bag in 2004 after 4 years of George Bush, but that we lost both elections? (And please, don't try to convince me that we lost those elections by being too moderate.)
We remain a deeply divided nation. A nation that, in its majority, rejects gay marriage. A nation that, in large part, rejects higher taxes. A nation that is deeply divided over abortion (with those who reject abortion feeling stronger on this issue than those who favor reproductive choice.) A nation that, in its majority, rejects what they call "partial birth abortion" (sorry, I can't remember the scientific name). A nation that is skeptical about immigration reform or gun control. A nation where many people--perhaps the majority--will accept limitations on civil liberties in the name of security.
And yes, on national security as well. Just because the majority of Americans want out of Iraq doesn't mean that our presidential candidate will get a pass on national security issues. Look at how Kerry got swiftboated in 2004. We need somebody who can get us out of the civil war in Iraq, but who can't be portrayed as weak on national defense if we want to win the presidency.
Anybody who hopes to win a national presidential election must take into account that national constituency. Yes, it is true that John Edwards is running to the left, as is Dennis Kucinich. But they are not focused on the general election--they are focused on winning the primary. And, if Edwards were to win the primary, a number of his current positions might make it difficult for him to win the general election (in spite of current polls on that topic, which likely don't reflect broad knowledge among independents and Republicans about some of his recent positions). Hillary, with a strong lead in the primaries, is deeply concerned about the general election (and has been planning this run for years).
So here is the question? Why do we cut candidates slack when they take into account a local or state constituency, but we demand purity from our national presidential campaigns--rather than respecting that they too must account for their constituencies if they want to win. Isn't it more important to win the presidency than a single Senatorial seat?
Let me take one example: universal health care. I have heard some talk that Hillary doesn't want universal health care, because (a) she's in bed with Murdoch, (b) she's taking big pharma money, etc. Does anybody really believe that? Hillary has devoted her life to women's and children's issues--with health being prominent among them. I would bet anything that she would love to have single payer universal care. But it just ain't gonna happen. And she could scream all day that that's what she wants and it wouldn't help it happen--but it just might cost her the election. That's why I don't judge the election on who has the best policy (Kucinich has the best health care policy, hands down)--but who I trust the most to build a coalition to (a) win the election and (b) get an improved health care plan through.
Same with gay marriage. Same with lots of positions.
I repeat the question: isn't it more important to win the presidency than win a single Senatorial seat?
Comments are closed on this story.