Well, that title isn’t really what this article is about, but I get there eventually.
This started as a Facebook post, but it’s too long and preachy, so I went for the blog. But it plays off threads started by my friends Ivan and Corky on FB.
Ivan was saying there’s no sense in those of us on the left arguing with each other about nuances. But Corky thinks we have to unite around certain big ideas and redirect the Democratic Party.
So what I think — and what I’ve thought since 1980 – is that, as Ivan says, there’s no point arguing about small differences. What we need to do is get a majority in both Congress and in our state legislatures. After that, we can argue about whether we should continue with the ACA or move to a single payer system. Or how to approach climate change, or figure out a way to get campaign finance reform through the Supreme Court or take on the really big issues.
But there’s absolutely no point in going into the next Congress with the current party distribution united behind a single payer health care system when we don’t even get to make amendments on Republican bills.
And I also don’t believe that an issue like single payer health care is going to rally the populace to such an extent that they are all going to vote Democrat on the basis of that — when, if you remember — a large portion of the population didn’t even know that the Affordable Health Care Act was the same as Obamacare.
I think what we need is to agree that we’re all going to work really hard — at the local level, at the state level and for any Democrat Congressional candidate that has a snowball’s chance of winning. That may mean supporting a candidate that you don’t agree with 100 percent. (Hmmm. Would I go door to door for a candidate who’s not pro-choice? That would be a hard one, but I might do it if it meant we could achieve other essential goals.)
I would send money to and go door-to-door for a Democrat who supports 80 percent of what I care about if she or he could take out a Republican incumbent or win a race in a close district.
Then when we get a good, solid majority in Congress — when we know we can protect against the deliberate erosion of environmental regulations, when we can protect health care and the rights of women and minorities and immigrants and refugees, when we can legislate to protect our voting rights — when we can stop the assault on all that was achieved over the last 50 years — then we can look ahead to major changes like single payer health care, free universities, etc.
My goals for the next two years:
– Find and support candidate in a swing district who can use my help
– Support the efforts of President Obama and Eric Holder to fight gerrymandering at the court level
– Do what I can locally to keep established, working families from being torn apart by ICE.
I just have to keep reminding myself that I’m not helpless, that together we can do a lot and that I lived to see a Black president. Maybe it’s not true that all you need is love, but love is a great starting point.
clairecommunicationsdotnet 
Excellent comments Claire, and I agree job one at this point is to get a majority Congress and in as many state legislatures as possible. And I agree that doing so will take some compromise on issues that some might be a big deal for some. I hope there’s enough leadership and cohesion within the party to make it happen. Right now I have to wonder. But if we don’t do it, there is potential for serious damage in the near future, assuming (a)Trump ever gets his act together enough to get anything done, and (b) the Supreme Court gets the solid conservative (and young) majority that seems likely.
So yes, we all need to be prepared to compromise on some issues to salvage our only near term chance for progress (the mid terms). And, as you point out, we all need to act personally at the local level to make it happen. Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well stated Claire, the challenge for me is finding a candidate that has the moral values that I believe they should have as a leader. It’s a low bar, but our current minority-elect president has obliterated the bar by dragging it sub par. I am not convinced that either party are suited to lead, in their current condition. Why can’t an Independent candidate hold the moral values and voice for ALL Americans? With the Republicans in a downward moral spiral and Democrats in a constant state of confusion can another party be a better solution? I am not confident that the Democrats have the right-stuff to win and that is frightening!
PS: What do you think of Tulsi? Does she have the “goods” to unify the Democratic party?
LikeLike
I have always minded the fact that Bernie Sanders never called himself a Democrat, but when he ran for president, he expected the party to rally behind him.
I am sure there are plenty of terrific independents out there, but then it is up to them to develop a network that is going to get them elected: they can’t expect the Democrats to do it for them.
Or else they have to convince me and other Democrats that they not only had good ideas, but that they would know how to rally a majority in Congress, work with the Congressional leadership and actually be able to get things done. Senator Sanders had a pretty dismal record.
Having great ideas just isn’t enough. Especially when we’re hanging on by our nails to keep our civil rights from eroding.
I see now that you’re saying, “Why not a third party?” First, I just don’t see how it can happen. Second, the Parliamentary systems with multi-parties can be quite a mess. Maybe it’s worth a try . . .
As for Tulsi, I have heard her speak, and she certainly could rally a lot of support. But maybe I’m an old stick in the mud, I still think she has to make nice on the party establishment.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of other very dynamic Democrats coming up. Congressman Blumenauer has a luncheon every year in which he brings a Democratic Congresswoman to speak in Portland. I’ve heard some terrific speakers that way.
I agree with you if you’re thinking we need new energy and new charisma to get the electorate excited. But I stick by the values and the ideas that the Democratic Party has stood by and that they continue to stand by. I think that a solid majority in Congress would go a long way toward protecting what’s been achieved in the past and enacting both incremental and innovative improvements to what we have now.
LikeLike
Bernie proclaiming his allegiance to the Democratic party only after he realizes he can’t go it as an Independent is no different than our current minority-elect precedent proclaiming he is a Republican, or for that matter, a Christian, when he was neither most of his life. The party-switch is only a means to garner votes. Like eating a turd and proclaiming “it’s great” the republicans realized too late that the candidate they were left with was their only choice. There are lessons-learned all around this story.
My suggestion wasn’t to propose a third, fourth or fifth party (although it seems to work in other countries, albeit with some struggle, at times). Realizing that our Democracy was/is set up for a two-party system, why do the two parties need to be the Republicans and the Democrats? Why not the Whigs or the Greens or the Purples? My frustration is with the two (dominant) parties that we currently have. One has lost their moral compass completely and sold themselves to corporate and personal wealth hoarding (R) and the other has no common goal that resonates with “the people” (D). The situation is ripe, NOW, for another party to REPLACE one or both of our current parties. Possibly a party designed to win-over the youth of America (our future) while reaching across the aisle to breathe some life into the concept of “serving the people.”
I agree with you, completely, that a candidate/party must speak in broader terms and not just “ideas” in order to “win” but why just for the win? Why not BE that person who is inclusive instead if divisive? The ideal candidate must be diplomatic (unlike the car wreck we currently have) and must possess compassion or empathy for people, not just their corporate buddies and certainly NOT one who’s only intent is to feather their own nest. Being diplomatic and compassionate itself would resonate with a large cross-section of Americans.
I will read more about Congressman Blumenauer. I trust your judgement. Thanks for the heads-up!
LikeLiked by 1 person