Just how far should Democrats go to win elections? Should we take that attitude that our highest goal is to win at any cost? Or is there a line that should not be crossed, even if it means losing? I have been waging an internal argument with myself for some time over this very issue. Yes, I understand the big picture. A win for a Democratic candidate means one less vote for Republican Leadership. But is that the Most Important Goal?
The way I see it, potential Democratic candidates break down into the following categories:
Candidate A – Agreement on all (or most) issues that are important to me, likely to defeat the Republican in the general election
Candidate B – Agreement on all (or most) issues, not likely to win
Candidate C – Disagreement on all (or most) issues, likely to win
Candidate D – Disagreement on all (or most) issues, not likely to win
Obviously, the best scenario is Candidate A, after all, I agree with A, I can support A with no guilt, and A will most likely win the general election. Also, Candidate D can be dismissed, because my support or lack thereof is moot – after all, D will most likely not win no matter what I do or do not do. The most difficult positions are when deciding whether to support Candidates B and C. Do I support the person most in tune with my values, or do I support the person most likely to put a check in the “Win” column?
Now – extrapolate this to the Party. Should the Party itself (or those influential within the Party, or those influential with the grassroots) support Candidate B or C. Should the Party support the Candidate which most closely reflects the ideals of the Party, or the one that will win? Again, yes, the big picture is important, a win for us means we are one step closer to gaining control of the House/Senate – and that is very important. But how far should we go? How many issues, interests and people need to be sacrificed to obtain this goal? Do we sacrifice women’s issues, the environment, gun control, unions, civil rights for homosexuals, etc., etc.? I have read the arguments on both sides in numerous guises – I do not want to rehash any of the specific instances here. But the question remains — What is the Most Important Goal.
This leads me to the climax of my internal struggle. I read BooMan’s extraordinary diary, Impeach, Resign, Do Nothing. I read the comments here and at Dkos. Now, as wonderful as that diary was, it itself did not lead to resolution; however, a comment by Zackpunk to the Dkos diary got me started on the path.
“If we cannot comprehend the value of standing for principles, we have no hope of getting control of anything.”
That comment struck me, but something wasn’t right. There was something more that needed to be said. However, the comment triggered something. I started to think back to cartoons I watched as a child. I had always watched the superhero cartoons (Superfriends, He-man, She-ra). Hell, I still watch superhero cartoons (Teen Titans, anyone?). Anyway, there always seems to be an episode where the hero is faced with a dilemma. The arch-nemesis is in a very real danger of being killed. What does the hero do? Does he/she let this evil person die? After all, wouldn’t the world be a better place without this evil person? Or does the hero save the evil person? You know the answer. The hero saves the evil arch-nemesis from an untimely demise. Why? If the hero had not done this, then the hero would have been no better than the evil person.
So, I would like to take Zackpunk’s comment, and reword it slightly:
“If we cannot comprehend the value of standing for principles, when we gain power, we will be no better than those who are wielding it now.”
And that is the resolution of my dilemma. I do not want power for the sake of power. I do not want to gain power if it means compromising those ideals I hold most dear. Because if I did, I would be no better than Bush, Rove, et al. I do not want to be one of those people. If we become willing to sacrifice our principles in order to win, we gain nothing, because we are no better that those we are trying to defeat.
Is there room for compromise? Of course. The key is to identify what you cannot sacrifice, and stick to it. We, as Democrats, should identify what goals and ideals we cannot sacrifice, and stick to it. We may not win today, but we will win in the future, and we will not be corrupted in the process.
Please be kind — this is my first diary. Also, I do not flatter myself that anyone will read or comment; however, a warning. I will only be available for the next hour to monitor this diary. I will return in the morning (8:30 CST) and can address any comments then. Otherwise, sorry to post and run.
Also — what ideal will you not compromise? What ideals should the Democratic Party not compromise?
Excellent breakdown of your (and others) dilemma.
I don’t think compromising on principles is necessary, but the way I’ve found around it is to not so much concentrate on elections and politicians as on issues, and attempting to change the debate on them on the ground.
I think it all works towards the same goal… if more people are introduced to progressive principles and values (and progressives are out in the communities or online working daily to disseminate those values) then the politics benefit in the long run. Trickle up theory that is, maybe? I would like to see some real progressives get into office, but unless we have people who are committed to the principles to vote for them, we will keep getting the same old same old.
Anyway, even with all that, I live in CA and I vote for Feinstein, every time. I really, really dislike Feinstein, because she compromises (sells out) so much. There really is no need for me to do that; I think it’s just habit. I think it’s one that can easily be broken, though.
Compromising on principles, sacrificing this or that group hurts us more than it helps, is my opinion. I wrote this as a comment on another diary, but I think it fits here as well:
I’m not really holding entire conversations with myself… she’ll be back! And others will comment too
I was just reading what I wrote before and it occurred to me… who is left to fight for anyway?
You listen to people in the ‘middle class’ and they feel their issues have been thrown overboard. Women think their issues have been compromised. Blacks, Latinos, others also think their issues have been ignored and pretty much tossed aside. Labor feels taken advantage of and not supported. Environmentalists feel their issues have been dismissed or literally sold down the river. White males feel that their issues have been ignored in favor of all the above. Mothers and fathers feel the issues with education and their children, violence real and video and so on are not being addressed. Anti-war people feel their voices have been shut out… and so on.
When you come to think of it… just who is the Democratic Party actually standing up for?
Nanette, I agree with you a hundred percent on your “trickle up theory.” An important point, often overlooked by those whose activism is focused largely on electoral politics, is that those politics are driven in large part by the culture. The majority of elected office holders are not leaders; they’re followers — it’s the nature of the system. There’s nothing wrong with this, necessarily, particularly if you view them as public servants rather than lawgivers.
There’s nothing wrong, either, with electoral activism — indeed, it’s indispensible. But what might be called cultural activism is equally critical, IMO: from casual conversations with neighbors and coworkers to music and art and more formal kinds of dialogue. All of these, as you say, contribute to changing the terms of the debate, to provoking people to think about old problems in new ways. Given most Americans’ disengagement with the political process, I suspect these more routine kinds of interactions may be more effective than any candidate’s stump speech or position paper — and there are a million more opportunities to communicate this way, too.
It’s only after a new idea gains a kind of critical mass among potential voters that most professional pols will take it up. If we don’t take every occasion to influence the people we deal with daily, we’re giving up half our ammo before the battle even begins.
Jennifer, yes that’s it exactly. And as soon as we get complacent or allow ourselves to be shuffled off the board, the “leaders” at the top stop leading.
We need to be in the small spaces, especially where people are mostly unconcerned about politics. Or, at least think they are. I believe everyone is concerned about politics on some level, it’s just that many don’t see how anything they do can affect anything. And many just don’t have the time for the cramming needed to follow the issues when politicians just swoop in and out. We need to be as local and as close to the ground as possible, on every issue, and the electoral activism will be halfway done before time for voting even comes around.
One of my goals is to (eventually) have a virtual thinktank/meeting/action center in every city, which people can then use as springboards for local political and social action. With enough groups working online and offline together doing something like that, we can saturate the landscape.And take over the world! (Okay, well maybe at least Peoria.)
We need to be in the small spaces, especially where people are mostly unconcerned about politics. Or, at least think they are.
This is absolutely key, I think. Just as you say, there’s a deep sense of pessimism about our ability as voters and as citizens to create change. In my experience, though, there’s also a kind of poverty of imagination when it comes to what counts as “politics.” There’s been a concerted effort over the past several decades to de-politicize so many aspects of our collective life: if you can’t manage a decent standard of living on one income, Mom and Dad will just both have to work; if there are small kids in the household, it’s up to you to find acceptable child care; if you’re stuck in a lousy-paying job with no benefits, hey, you should have gone to college and gotten that degree. Everything is reduced to an individual problem, and thus everyone is expected to scrape and scramble and wear themselves to a frazzle in search of an individual solution. We’ve been so indoctrinated in that line of thinking — and so exhausted by the struggles that it creates in our lives — that many people never even realize that these are collective, society-wide issues, amenable to collective solutions. In other words, political issues.
I agree with those who say the Dems need to return to economic populism, but doing it one policy at a time isn’t enough. What we need to do is to re-politicize the issues people care most deeply about, but tend to think of as personal — to explain to them why the only way to fix these chronic stressors, these recurrent problems that drain their energy and their time and burden their marriages and families and contribute to health problems and so on, is to get politically involved. As feminism taught us, the personal is political, and not only for women.
And that’s where the person-to-person, on-the-ground work comes in, I think. I’m not old enough to remember the second wave of the feminist movement, but I guess what I’m getting at (in my long-winded rambling way), in part, is a kind of large-scale consciousness-raising. That has to come from us, in just the ways you mention.
Today Peoria — tomorrow the world!
I agree completely with you Trickle Up Theory. But this is the hardest work of all, because you actually have to change people’s minds. It happens slowly, over time,and you really have to keep working at it constantly. It’s hard enough to get people who basically agree with you to get off their asses and vote — how much harder do you have to work to change a person’s mind?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I just think that we are so focused on short-term goals (winning in 2006, etc.) — and that is extremely important — that we are losing something of ourselves. We need to figure out what we stand for and keep a long view of things.
And I think that the Dems have recently shown (and the Repubs have shown in the past) that, even when a party is in the minority, it can still wield important influence.
I think that is precisely the thing (and thanks for writing this cool diary, by the way).
While there is always a need for people with a short term, next election type view, in my opinion there is a greater need for the long term, generational type view. We seem to live in the moment a lot of times, thinking the future will take care of itself.
Mind you, there are any number of places… charities and NGOs and think tanks and so on, who are trying to change things as well… but because of regressive policies, and lack of real support, they also are stuck in the short term… shoring up programs to take care of immediate needs, and fighting inch by inch to get support for real and effective solutions for the long term.
I really don’t think any of that is going to change until the actual … thought processes, I guess, or whatever changes. And it will definitely be a long hard slog, but we should be setting the stage for that now, with citizen run organizations (local, national and international) and taking the first steps.
I’ve had it with her, to the point where it becomes clear that not voting for her is important enough as a protest even if it means a Repub takes the seat. Yet the nagging voice comes back, but the repubs are worse.
Well yes, but in the long haul, we have to break our co-dependent relationship with these dysfunctional dems. It may mean in the short term things get a little worse, but it will never, ever get better if we just allow these dems to drift ever rightward.
Isn’t there something about not using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house?
I really wish there were some viable third party options here. If enough of us could agree on a third party, if we could get say 20% representation in the Congress, it would be tremendous. It would change the whole dynamic. It happened in England a few years ago. It can happen here to.
Is how we put up with Feinstein on the one hand, and then have someone like Boxer on the other. Both win with huge margins (one reason I won’t feel bad voting against DiFi), but they are so completely different in how they approach the politics.
I think DiFi is just habit, and probably some still remember the Milk thing, and associate her with that. But still… if we can elect one progressive, we can elect two.
I wish there were viable third parties as well, but I sometimes have a hard time believing that the third parties themselves even take themselves seriously (in being viable, electable alternatives). Except maybe in San Francisco.
First, excellent analysis and framing… and pointing up that it’s critical to consider first exactly what the priorities need to be in any given set of circumstances is where the whole discussion needs to start.
In blue lands it’s reasonable, right, and proper to discuss what flavor of Democratic party we want. In red world, the situation’s a little different.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I decided that, the system being what it is, it wasn’t going to matter for WHOM I voted that one time and that at least once in his life a citizen of a republic should get to vote for someone he wanted to see in office. Okay. I’ve done that. Now, back down to real world Jeebusland, I’ll support pretty much ANYONE who’s running on a D ticket and has a ghost of a chance of taking office… because there’s not been a D elected to statewide office in this state since God was a puppy, and the whole idea of multiparty government is in play. And as totally friggin’ froot loops as some of the D’s we get here can be, and in spite of the fact that some of the R’s I know and personally like (and trust and would support if I could), I’ll vote straight ticket D because in my opinion the argument about what kind of D we want takes a back seat to making sure there remains a statewide D party capable of putting up candidates. I saw WAY WAY too many single line races last time and weren’t NONE of them Democrat lines… and in all cases and without exception, the only thing worse than a corrupt two-party system is a corrupt ONE-party system.
Arguments about an ideologically pure but not terribly viable candidate versus a less lovable but maybe more electable one ring like an insufferable bit of boasting… Maybe where you are you can debate this, but we’re playing goal line defense here, just trying to make it off the field at halftime with enough players alive to come back out for the next period. If we focus on whether we can win the championship this year, we may not make it out of the preseason.
The voting plan supports the vital goals of the party and the progressive movement, not the other way around… and I think Superman would look at the question and realize, quickly, that it’s not a spandex issue. One size most emphatically does NOT fit all. Circumstances alter cases, and to a large extent if you look at the bigger — and smaller — pictures in your particular set of circumstances, the “who should I pull for” questions resolve themselves.
If they don’t, then God love you; you’re a lot better off than many of us. But waffling between steak and caviar in front of us “bologna on white bread is all there IS” folks is a little crass and I’d take it as a personal favor if’n you’d be jest a tad quieter about it? <G>
(Please note: The last graf is a hot, tired, dehydrated, cranky, late-night attempt at humor. If it didn’t come across as such, I apologize; I’ll be better in the morning. The rest of the post is serious, though.)
Well, I’m in Oklahoma, and here, just getting a Dem to run for some seats would be a great step forward, regardless of what flavor of Dem that person was. So, I understand what you are saying. I think my point is that we, as individuals need to do some introspection and decide what is most important to us. Additionally, we, as a Party, need to do some introspection and decide what is important. We seem to be having an identity crisis, and a focus on “win at all costs” doesn’t help. I don’t want to argue for ideological purity. I don’t think that any individual candidate needs to be in lock-step with the Party’s stance on issues, but surely, even in a red state, a candidate can agree with some core Dem principle and stand by it. Sure, perhaps you can’t campaign on abortion rights in Oklahoma, but you can campaign on supporting the middle class, conservation so that the hunters and fishers will have something to hunt and fish, etc…
I don’t know if I’ve articulated myself very well. It’s morning, and I haven’t had my coffee 😉 Sorry.
You’ve articulated yourself quite well, and if you’d like coffee I’ve just put on another pot, good Salvadoran Dark Roast….
And I think we’re basically on the same page. Being a Democrat SHOULD stand for something and, by and large, that shouldn’t be “Not Technically a Republican.” I guess where I’m coming from is that rather than using “Big Tent” as an explanation of why we’re largely cat-herding, we need to turn it into a positive affirmative value…
and as my dadgum pager just went off and I have to go save some editor’s happy butt by making truly gripping photographs of something with absolutely no visual interest or angle whatsoever, I’ll have to get back to you on what, exactly, I mean by that.
I love my job. It’s the idiots I work with that sometimes stretch my patience. I suppose it’s good for me, but like cod liver oil, it goes down hard.
and I think that the biggest dilemma is the perception issue. I watched Clinton use a strategy of just waiting for the storm to clear when he was attacked by repubs and I thought the man had enormous courage just to sit there and not just take the abuse but really still be articulate and human at the same time in expressing his views. But Clinton with his triangulation tried to pull repub issues over to his side and he was successful at that. But one could argue = yes Clinton was successful but were the dems able to use his success other than to elect him president? (Oh yeah, and his wife Senator from a small unimportant state like NY!) Were we able to promote dem causes? We were able to move progressive ideas onto the national billiard game table? Not much. In fact, taking the repub lines just promoted repub ideas.
So CW said that Kerry was the most electable candidate and we blew out all other candidates so quickly in the primary rounds it was clear we wanted to win badly. But we lost. So CW isn’t truth. CW doesn’t talk about the voters and what they need from a leader.