Why The Fight Is Worth Having
Over the past few weeks, I have published a number of pieces that lay out an alternative vision for the Democratic Party. Some say they don't want such an intra-party debate to take place - but I believe, especially after such a crushing loss this year, it is absolutely essential. And that is why my writing specifically tries to challenge the stale thinking of the inside-the-beltway cabal of consultants, career operatives, and left-leaning Washington pundits. I knew the pieces in the Washington Monthly, the American Prospect, and The Nation would cause debate, and controversy. And I knew it would evoke strong criticism of me personally by the likes of the DLC (example 1 & 2), and others (example 3 & 4) - and a less-than-subtle pressure from many quarters in Washington just to keep my mouth shut.
These voices represent more of a nay-saying, status-quo point of view – they have been the ones controlling the party or making a living in Democratic circles for years, and thinking outside-the-box is usually resisted by conventional thinking and the powers that be. Nonetheless, these forces absolutely have every right to argue for their positions.
But as I leave the arena for the next month for my wedding and honeymoon, I thought it was important for those who have read my pieces and seen the debate to know that I think this is all healthy, and all, ultimately, positive - and I hope my opponents do too.
I make no apologies for saying some of the taboo things Democrats’ have for too long ignored (ie. corporate money has hurt the party, support for a corporate free-trade policy has hurt the party's ability to communicate with working class voters, etc.), and I make no excuses for naming names. I have made a career fighting in the trenches of the partisan wars – on Capitol Hill, on campaigns, and in my writing. My loyalty to a Democratic Party that has the guts to stand up for working people is clear.
It is in keeping with that loyalty that I engage in this current debate. The party will only get stronger if it finally has a discussion about what has happened to its core ideology, and how to get it back. Many of the debates over the DNC chairmanship and direction of the party right now are focused on a shallow debate over “new” vs. “old" - with Beltway-centric Democratic elites shamelessly bashing grassroots organizations like Moveon.org and other constituencies. As this USA Today story shows, the debates among the party’s elites still seems more like a forum for shamelessly self-promoting operatives to try to grab power, rather than a discussion about the fundamental principles of the party and its leadership moving forward.
But in my writing, and the back-and-forth with my hard-fighting opponents, I am trying to push a debate about more than just which hack is going to get ahead, and which operative is going to climb the ladder. I am trying to get us all talking about what the party actually believes in. And the more we have this discussion now, the stronger the party will be in the future.
From my progressive point of view, I think this is especially critical. The DLC is not all evil – I’ve never said it is. And I am heartened to see it now trying to brandish its (albeit too few) credentials on, for instance, issues of corporate power.
However, the underlying point in my criticism of that organization and its “centrist” ilk is that I believe they have watered-down Democrats’ core ideology to the point where the party appears lost, and now party leaders are more prone to capitulating to the GOP. My advocacy for a sharper, more progressive, more populist ideology - and my willingness to punch hard at some corporate Democrats - is not just some vindictive spasm. It is motivated by a constructive desire to both re-connect the party with its working class roots, and also start sending a message to weak Democrats who capitulate to the GOP. The message is that Democrats should stand strong, and that if they don’t, there is finally going to be some serious, energetic public outrage from within the party. Because if there isn't, Democratic capitulations will come with more dire consequences than ever. With Bush trying to privatize Social Security, rig the tax code, and potentially push us farther into a Mideast quagmire, the stakes are higher than ever.
Some may see my recent writing as disloyal to the Democratic Party. In fact, it is the opposite, especially if you look at what the GOP did over the past decade. When Clinton won in 1992, the GOP didn’t make the argument they should water down their ideology – instead, they sharpened it, and let their capitulators know there would be a price to pay for not being a team player (as just one small example, see today how the Club for Growth's Steven Moore regularly goes after GOP moderates). That ultimately (and unfortunately) led the GOP to a sturdy and lasting majority. Our side can do the same – but only if we have our debates now, and only if the progressive side begins fighting hard for the party to re-connect with its core ideology.
So again, I don’t apologize for the tenor and vigor of the debate I’ve tried to spur, nor the positions I advocate – and I honestly appreciate the DLC and others engaging energetically in it as well. The discussion will eventually create a stronger movement for our side in the ultimate fight against the right-wing conservative movement that is now in control.
