Often, at moments where Democratic leaders have done or signs suggest they might do something that is distressing to liberals/progressives, someone in that group will suggest that if the Democrats really do X, they will stay at home, or vote for a third party or what have you out of protest.
Inevitably, when someone says anything like this, the rejoinder here is "This site is for electing Democrats!" The implication is, "shut up, no talk of liberals withholding their votes for Democrats is ever allowed."
I'm going to suggest that the mandate to "elect Democrats" does not forbid, and in fact requires members of this site to consider when denying votes to Democrats is in fact in service to the Democratic party. It is a larger mandate that obliges us to consider times when Democratic leaders are engaging in selfish, short sighted or just well intentioned but wrong policies that will seriously harm the Democratic party in the long term.
The case in point is the current suggestion in the media, and under debate that President Obama has put Social Security cuts on the table in the Debt Ceiling vote talks. Some evidence suggests the likely form of such cuts would be a change in the formula for cost of living adjustments to SS benefits.
Here's the thing: Social Security is more than a policy or program. It is a living symbol of what the Democratic party stands for. It is the flagship program of what it means to be a Democrat in America. The greatest legacy of the New Deal, which created a literal generation of "Yellow Dog Democrats." It makes cynical millionaire villagers quake in fear and cry about "third rails." Armies of motivated seniors will rally to its defence. It is one of the few things that makes the Very Serous People fear small-d democratic consequences for their actions. The filibuster did not save Social Security from George Bush's privatization scheme in 2005, fear of voter backlash did. Even Tom Delay would not bring Bush's plan to a vote in the House of Representatives.
How does it help Democrats get elected if this program is cut by Democrats? What does the party stand for if not that?
Obama is a Democratic President, and the leader of the Democratic party while he holds that office, but if this site is about "electing Democrats" than part of that mission is to look broader and longer than Obama's term and his scope and worry about how Democrats will get elected in 2016 or 2020. We must worry about how Democrats not named "Barack Obama" will get elected in 2012 and 2014. Perhaps Mr. Obama worries about this too, but what does he do if his electoral interests diverge from the rest of the party, or its long term future? What if he could guarantee a win in 2012 by doing something that would alienate, say, hispanics for decades? We hope he would not do it, but if he did, how should we respond?
That means we do have the obligation to ponder the possibility that Democratic leaders are capable of serious error, or engaging in short term politics with serious long term ramifications for the Democratic party. If we do identify such a situation, what should we do about it? Unless your answer is "blindly follow" you are allowing for some degree of opposition. That, must include the ultimate possibility of withholding votes for Democrats, enduring the risk of short terms losses to protect against permanent harm.
I'm solidly in the camp that says cutting Social Security is one of those possible serious errors. It doesn't matter how fine tuned the cuts are, or how neat the math is on your "chained CPI" spreadsheet. Cut social security benefits and hurt the Democratic party. Ads attacking Democrats for cutting SS will flood the airwaves. Any Democrat willing to do that should be opposed by loyal Democrats. Some may feel the degree of opposition doesn't warrant withholding votes, but it must be a legitimate option on this blog, as a necessary consequence of the mandate here to "elect Democtrats."
Point is, no one here is betraying the vision of this site by being unwilling to follow Democrats into self-imposed oblivion if they decide to eat the party's seed grain. What those issues might be, and what point you have where you leave the trail and are willing to risk defeat and President Bachmann is of course an important debate, but it is a fair game debate to be had.