What am I talking about? I'm referring to their decision to hook up with Democracy for America and spend at least a million dollars trying to pressure Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) into running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2016.
This makes no sense to me. Senator Warren is a strong-willed person who knows what she wants -- and she has repeatedly said she is NOT going to be a presidential candidate in 2016. She has also made it clear that, if Hillary Clinton runs (as is expected), she will support and work for her election. Warren knows that the most important thing is to keep the Republicans out of the White House, and Hillary Clinton has the best chance of any Democrat to do that. She also knows that Clinton would have the longest coattails of any possible candidate, and could help to flip the Senate back to Democratic control (and maybe even the House) -- because Clinton appeals to many Independents in addition to Democrats.
That is not true of any other possible Democratic candidate (Warren, Sanders, Cuomo, O'Malley, Booker, Biden, etc.). Nominating any of these candidates would make the 2016 election a much closer contest, and give the Republicans a real chance to win the presidency. That would allow them to double down on their policies of austerity and trickle-down economics, which would complete the transition of this country into one with only "haves" and "have-nots" (making us a third world "banana republic"). The election of Hillary Clinton and more congressional Democrats would prevent that.
As a progressive myself, I understand why Move On and Democracy for America are doing this. They want an ideologically pure candidate of the left. And while I wish that could be possible, I believe that would put the Democrats on the same path the Republicans are currently trodding -- putting ideological purity ahead of winning the presidency. The Republicans have basically run moderates out of their party. Do we, as Democrats want to do the same thing?
Do we want to have an election with an ideologically pure leftist running against an ideologically pure right-winger? Are we really ready to ignore, as we did in 1972, the fact that most Americans are neither on the left or the right -- but are moderates who want the parties to compromise and find moderate solutions to the countries problems? And if given that choice, most Americans would probably opt for the right-wing candidate (because, like it or not, a majority of voters in the U.S. are still scared of the far left -- a lingering residue of the scare propaganda of the 30's, 40's, and 50's).
Hillary Clinton is not an ideologically pure leftist. But she is the most progressive candidate the Democrats would put forth in many elections (including the nomination of her own husband), and she has an excellent chance of being elected president if she is the Democratic nominee. And that is far more important in 2016 than ideological purity. After she is elected, progressives should put as much pressure on her as possible to support our policies -- but trying to find an ideologically pure leftist to run against her right now would only split the party and help the Republicans.
There may well come a time when Elizabeth Warren is the appropriate candidate for Democrats to nominate (I certainly hope so), but 2016 is not that time.
NOTE -- The photo of Elizabeth Warren is from Wikipedia, and the photo of Hillary Clinton is from the website of the Clinton Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.