| The following is a variation on a fairly common sentiment that I hear both online and offline about the primaries, or really whenever Democrats argue with one another:
So now, if you're a Hillary supporter, you're not a real Democrat?
Fuck that noise. There are passionate, hard-working progressive Democrats who support every single one of our candidates, Hillary included.
And I'm sick of diaries that insinuate to the contrary.
Oh, I know, it's primary season. That's just how things are.
Bullshit. We're adults. Let's act like adults.
We're allies. Let's act like allies.
I don't in any way mean to pick on this diarist from Daily Kos that wrote these words. Also, I would state that of course it is possible to be a real Democrat and support Hillary Clinton, and it is also possible to be a "real" progressive and support Clinton. Instead, what I want to take issue with is the notion that all self-identified Democrats are "allies."
The simple fact is that not all self-identified Democrats, including all Democrats in Congress, are our allies. This was made repeatedly clear to me back in 2006, and I am tired of variations on the circular firing squad line being used to defend criticism of Democrats. For starters, the following five Senators are absolutely not our allies, and should not be considered such:
- Carper (D-DE)
- Pryor (D-AR)
- Salazar (D-CO)
- Nelson (D-NE)
- Landrieu (D-LA)
In no uncertain terms, these five Senators made it clear that they are not allies of the Democratic Party. This is because all five of them endorsed a candidate who was running against the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2006. If they were our allies, if we were all on the same team, then they would have endorsed the Democratic nominee in Connecticut. Period. End of story. Since they did not, it is clear that whatever relationship they have with "us" is one of convenience that will be broken whenever it suits their personal interests. And the ten Senators who failed to endorse one way or the other in the primary general, including President Bill Clinton himself, are not much better:
- Baucus (D-MT)
- Bingaman (D-NM)
- Conrad (D-ND)
- Dorgan (D-ND)
- Johnson (D-SD)
- Levin (D-MI)
- Lincoln (D-AR)
- Mikulski (D-MD)
- Nelson (D-FL)
- Sabarnes (D-MD)
This is very simple: if you don't endorse some Democratic nominees, you don't get to say that you are on the same team with those endorse all Democratic nominees. People who undertake those different actions are on different teams. Or, more accurately, those who endorse all Democratic nominees are on a team, while those who selectively endorse are on a team of one.
And it doesn't stop there, either. Even before the 2006 election, I was told by some Democrats that I had already lost:
Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.
"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something "we've got to fight."
And after the election, I was told the same thing:
In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.
Don't tell me that I lost the election, and then try and tell me that we are all on the same team. Don't tell me that people who endorsed Lieberman are on the same team with me. We are not all on the same team. That much has been made clear.
Are most Democrats on the same team? Sure. In fact, I would estimate that about two-thirds of Democrats are on the same team (which is about the percentage of Democrats at both the leadership and rank and file level who supported Lamont by the end). But for the rest, it is simply a marriage of convenience. They will break off and form their own team if and when it becomes more politically convenient for them to do so.
And sure, there are people on the left who aren't on the team either. Many people consider themselves progressives before they consider themselves Democrats, and as such will sometimes endorse non-Democratic third-party candidates. However, what I am arguing here isn't a left-right division, but rather simply pointing out many of us do not consider ourselves to be on the "same team." We operate in a broad coalition, that for many people is an arrangement of convenience. That is fine. That is politics. Unless you live in an ideological one-party state, there is no way to successfully operate outside of a coalition. All I am asking is that before people start decrying the circular firing squad or internal debate, don't use the lame defense that we are all on the same team. We are not all on the same team, we are just all in the same coalition, which are two different things. This is especially the case in a primary, which is essentially a fight to lead the coalition. It is important we all keep that in mind, because I believe it helps put internal debate in a more accurate perspective. |
Design by Politics by Design, Powered by: SoapBlox