Democrats' Self-Promoting Sellouts

It is always depressing to me to see someone who says they speak for "progressives" and then goes out and publishes material in right-wing rags reinforcing all the dishonest, unfair stereotypes about progressives. Ari Melber is a great example of this - someone more concerned about his own self-promotion than about anything resembling progressive politics - even though he says he speaks for us. You can bet he will be the next hire at the New Republic, and bet that he's not enlisting in the military to go fight the wars he is so adamantly for.

Melber published a piece in the right-wing New York Post today basically saying Democrats are weak on national security. His proof? A number of polls showing that rank-and-file Democrats have serious questions about the Iraq War and the War on Terror. What Melber misses is the idea that having these positions doesn't necessarily mean you are "weak" - it just means you have a different definition of security. Polls show most Americans, for instance, think the Iraq War made America LESS secure.

The conflation of Democrats' questions about the Iraq War/War on Terror with a supposed weakness on security issues is, in truth, a purely right-wing creation - something Melber deliberately and disgustingly perpetuates with his piece.

Interestingly, the one poll number he doesn't cite is the one showing that most Americans think the Iraq War wasn't worth it, and that we need an exit strategy from Iraq immediately. And let's not pretend he didn't see those poll numbers - he just dishonestly chose not to address them. Because if he did, it would crush his entire argument that Democrats simply need to be more hawkish. If the population thinks the war was a mistake, and wants a withdrawal, then that means they want a party to articulate that position - not one that simply cowers in the face of right-wing arguments and parrots more hawkish rhetoric. This was exactly what John Kerry never realized in 2004 - and why he paid for it (big surprise - Melber worked on the Kerry campaign).

Finally, Melber will likely say that this is a debate Democrats need to have, and that Democrats have a "national security" gap. But it is the peak of disloyalty to have that debate in as right-wing a rag as the New York Post. And it is shameless for him to use his recognition from Moveon.org to attack the very anti-war movement Moveon.org has worked so hard on (see Melber's tagline at the bottom of his piece, which the right-wing New York Post no doubt was excited to use).

But then, this is what too many people in the Democratic Establishment do - they are more in it for the promotion of their name, than they are in the promotion of the cause. It is the New Republic phenomenon to a T - attack Democrats from the right, as long as it gets media attention, because for the arrogant Democratic glitterati, media attention is more important than the cause. Notice, its not that way on the other side - you don't see Republicans criticizing Republicans in, say, the Nation Magazine.

Melber's piece is just a sad cog in that soulless part of the Democratic Establishment more interested in individual self-promotion that promotion of the collective cause. It is more important, apparently, to Melber to see his name in lights in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and parrot right-wing malarkey, than actually engage in the harder work of trying to redefine the national security debate on our terms.It is ambition for ambition's sake - a perfect reflection of the way Democrats are perceived as a party today: standing for nothing other than their own advancement. Pathetic.