Kind of a quick one today because I don't love talking politics these days, but I wanted to muse a little on the concept that the Democratic Party is particularly spineless compared to the Republicans. I won't say the reputation is entirely undeserved, but it feels at times like kind of a double standard.
The one example that really comes to mind is the 2000 election, which was the first instance in decades of the electoral college result canceling out the result of the popular vote. Notwithstanding the recounts and all that back-and-forth in Florida, Michael Moore also criticized the party in general (and Al Gore in particular) for not pursuing an enquiry into the voter suppression that took place in Florida in that election.
I still remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where he showed various Democratic lawmakers bringing some motion relating to that on the floor of the Senate, but Al Gore not admitting any of them. It's designed to piss you off, and in my case at least, it worked.
What changed my mind is the latest election cycle, where the current incumbent threatened to call into question the result if he didn't win (something that he did actually do with regard to the discrepancy between electoral college and popular votes). On my side of the aisle there was the usual appalled protest at how he could subvert the democratic process, but it also made me think of Gore's actions/inactions back in 2000.
The other thing that put this thought into my head was a blog post by Mark Manson where he tried to lay down some truth about a variety of things, including noting that Trump is not actually the devil incarnate, just a shockingly corrupt and incompetent person. What he said was that the climate was at least forcing the Democrats to show some spine, which is always welcome.
It got me thinking about 2000, and it occurred to me that not pursuing the question back then may have been Gore's attempt to stop a worrying precedent, namely that of questioning every election result that doesn't go your way. If all you care about is power or winning, then you might want to fight everything in the courts as long as possible, but it's not a good way to run a republic, and I expect that it wouldn't be long before partisans on one side or another start to take up arms in favor of their candidate.
Perhaps it's reductive to focus on this one aspect of the Democrats' spinelessness, but it's the most obvious example that comes to my mind. The fact is that in a functioning democracy, eventually the loser concedes, with the knowledge that he or she won't be thrown into jail for daring to run against the person who won.
Where the double standard comes in is in the Republicans' insistence on winning at all costs. Of course neither John McCain in 2008, nor Mitt Romney in 2012, contested the elections, in part because they lost by much clearer margins than in 2000. But if you look at the GOP's behavior in blocking Barack Obama from filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, as well as bringing in or blocking incoming senators for votes depending on what they were trying to pass.
What I'm getting at is that the narrative appears to be criticizing the Democrats for not doing things to weaken democracy and rule of law, while we criticize the Republicans for doing those things. I don't know that we can have it both ways. Which is why I'd love for someone to come and give me some further examples of Democratic spinelessness.
Now, just to be clear, I do have some problems with the Democratic Party at the moment. Let's start by dismissing the preposterous claim that they're veering to the extreme left. The most unpresentably left-wing Democratic lawmaker I can think of from the past few years is Dennis Kucinich, who was only a little bit weird but not agitating for class war or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Jill Stein has some definite problems, but I'm talking about the Democratic Party, and even if she were a Democrat, she'd still be an outlier. No, the Republicans are getting away with fielding a lot more far-right and unpresentable candidates than the Dems, hands down.
The big complaint I have about the Democrats is the smugness and clear cozying-up to big business. I'm sure I've said before that Hillary Clinton dismissing Bernie Sanders as a "one-issue candidate" was the low point for me, because she was dismissing the issue that everyone cares about. Even Obama evinces that, in part by today's news that he's signed a content deal with Netflix. I mean, that's great for him and his family, but it's a long way from the candidate who talked in 2008 about how he'd only just finished paying off his student loans.
So those are my thoughts on the "spineless Democrats" narrative. They may not have the iron discipline and will to win that the Republicans do, but given how that's leading to a perversion of democratic process and rule of law, I don't think the country would be well-served by having two parties trying to win at all costs.
The right number is zero - anything more leads to nationalism, populism and lost generations like what Argentina had. We can't afford to be distracted like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment