Response to Goldy’s “Progressives Need To Get Real”
Goldy over at horsesass makes some valid points in his blog post Progressives Need To Get Real. And I certainly understand the sentiment and frustration that motivates his point of view. We really do not know if the nation can stand a few more years of Bush and a Republican controlled congress. However I think he misses the larger issue, the more significant issue here.
Let me preface by saying this: I am a life long Democrat. I have voted the party line pretty much my entire life with the exception of Nader in 2000. And I love Maria Cantwell, I really do. I like her more than Patty Murray in a lot of ways. She has a lot of good ideas on energy policy, and if for no other reason she deserves my vote. The looming energy consumption crisis that faces this country is a significant, if not the largest, crisis this country and the world face. In some sense I think it is smart, forward thinking efforts of the likes of Cantwell and many others in this state that the Northwest finds itself with a “glut of green power” this year.
But I must also say no party, and I mean NO PARTY deserves the unquestioning assent of its people. Goldy suggests that the primary objective is seizing power:
“But No, we have to engage in our usual bullshit in-fighting over who is or is not ideologically pure enough? all the time losing sight of what should be our overriding objective: seizing power.”
I would suggest that this kind of thinking borders on unamerican. That “ends justify the means” kind of thinking worked well for the Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany but it is not baked into our DNA as Americans. Our political culture is certainly a fractured and painfully contentious one, but so what. That is the way it has to be. Our diversity while seemingly a weakness, is our greatest strength. And Goldy your willingness to let morons like MOMUS and JCH run unchecked in your comment forums is one of your blog’s greatest strengths. The willingness to embrace the free exchange of ideas is what makes us great. It is what makes us better than Republicans and moreover you win wars with ideas not by tactics alone. Go see V for Vendetta for great dramatisation of this principle.
Now to address a few points about Cantwell and her votes. According to Goldy there is
“all this wailing and gnashing over her failure to stop a war she couldn’t stop or her refusal to join a filibuster that could not win.”
It is a logical fallacy to argue for realpolitik and at the same time imply that certain votes don’t really count because the odds are just stacked against us too high. It is precisely in these moments that votes do count. If her vote for the war was that insignificant, then why not make the vote anyway? Well, because it was significant. It was 1 out of a hundred votes. And that is more power than any single citizen or protest march holds. Her colleagues in the Senate understand that the vote was significant and she understands the vote was significant. She probably did it for a number of reasons, a political calculation, an quid pro quo agreement with other members in the senate, maybe because she truly believed Bush and the WMD story. Who knows? The point is actions do matter. And they deserve to be accounted for. Is Cantwell’s vote for the war worth suffering a term with McGavick as senator? Probably not. Is the debate worth having? Absolutely. There are many, many, many poltically jaded and cynical people in our society. Many who have been looked over and forgotten by society and the political process. With voter turnout still hovering near 50% in this state we could do a lot worse than get people excited over a senate race. And to get people excited you have to speak to them and win their trust with real ideas, not simply harangue them into voting for voting’s sake in a camapign to seize power at all costs.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
March 21st, 2006 at 8:36 am
Hi Gordon… great to see you blogging.
My larger point is that the reality is, our choice this November is between Cantwell and McGavick, and nobody else has a snowball’s chance of winning. Personally, I choose Cantwell, however much she may have disappointed me on a handful of votes.
I believe that the stakes right now are really too high for us on the left to have the luxury of voting our conscience. Life is full of choices… full of compromises, and no doubt Cantwell is a compromise for many Democrats. But then, so are most candidates.
What we need to do is win back control of one or two houses, so that Congress can once again be a check and balance on the White House. That should be our overriding goal.
And when I say seize power, I say it with the understanding that seizing, holding, and exercising power is the only way to enact our progressive policies.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:34 am
Thanks for the reply Goldy. I am truly sympathetic to your point of view and the urgency of the matter. I feel the same way about Cantwell and will vote for her in the fall. I felt that way about Kerry in 2004. In fact I was a fan of Kerry long before Iowa and long before the Howard Dean phenomenon. I guess it boils down to a question of when it is appropriate to have these discussions of conscience. My only point is that it is healthy to have these kinds of debate. We were kind of denied a meaningful debate going into Iraq and I think a lot of self identified progressives are really torn up about the war and so the questions of conscience weighs very heavy in their hearts. And many will ask if not now? When? When is it ok to hold our politicians accountable for the war?
I concede your point that the nomination process is over and time to focus on Cantwell winning. I guess the real answer is for people to show up at the primaries and act on their concience then. But then there is another part of me that feels the notion of a candidate’s inevitabilty rings hollow with a lot folks, especially those not as actively involved in politics. And any suggestion otherwise kind smacks of an imposition on one’s right to exercise his or her vote. With all the people actively discouraged about politics, a real benefit is to be gain by speaking to this silent, disouraged constituency. Cantwell would do well to actively reach out to this constituency in real and meaningful ways.
Also in my mind, acting or voting one’s conscience is rarely a luxury. Many cases in history where people have been beaten, ridiculed, tortured, or even lost their job or life while acting on matters of conscience. But I will readily admit this fall is probably not one of those moments.
Go Dems in 06!
March 21st, 2006 at 9:15 pm
I would add that while strategy and picking your fights carefully may inflame some, it would be good food for thought for some progressives to understand why that tactic is necessary. This is a battle of idealism that charades as facts and truth within the Republican Party, and the swing votes they are pushing towards, that cannot be combated through reason alone. I often feel like we are in a society that has given itself to a party because the problems are too complex to understand they rely only on faith. Be that faith in God, leadership, or the hope that things will somehow turn out for the best. The issues are so large many people don’t either have the capacity, or time, to comprehend. It simply has gotten complicated enough to tune out. That is not the case with most Progressives. In stark contrast to their counterparts, they have opinions beyond the simple talking points that so many others have simply put faith in.
Unfortunately, strategy is the game. Progressives need to learn that we are not playing by only our rules. In fact, on the national level at least, we are playing by a set of rules that are almost alien to most progressives. But the Judas is in the opposition, not in our leadership. Unless that can be clearly identified and exposed, dissent in the rank and file republican (and swing voter) that supposedly represents the ‘mainstream voter†won’t be reversed or at least exposed for what it really is.
Where is the Judas? Usually right in front of the “true believerâ€, but it is not Maria Cantwell.