Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Some Senate Democrats Value Susan Collins's Friendship More Than Power
New York MagazineThroughout the Trump presidency, the Democratic leadership has begged progressive activists to appreciate the limits of their party’s power, and the wisdom of its strategic judgment.
When immigration advocates demanded a prolonged shutdown to secure protection for Dreamers in January 2018, the Establishment explained that such a gambit would do more to hurt their party’s red-state incumbents than to break the president’s will. When “the Resistance” read the Mueller Report as an airtight case for impeachment, Nancy Pelosi’s allies reminded their co-partisans that the Senate would never vote to expel Trump from office — but a Democratic push for impeachment just might keep him there until 2025, according to polls and historical experience. And when “the Squad” opposed new funding for Trump’s migrant “concentration camps” (in the absence of sweeping reforms to the administration’s asylum policy) this year, Democratic leaders insisted that such a stance would only deepen detained immigrants’ deprivation while muddying their party’s message.
And they may have been right. American politics is a messy and stupid game. Progressive voters are systematically underrepresented by our electoral institutions. Democrats really do need to worry about alienating the tiny, bizarre fraction of the electorate that still isn’t sure what team it’s on. Sometimes, maximizing policy gains does require tempering one’s demands. As the German sociologist Max Weber wrote in “Politics As a Vocation,” “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em; know when to walk away, and know when to run.”
Still, strategic capitulation to injustice will always be a bitter pill. If a party’s leadership expects activists to accept such prescriptions, it must preempt the suspicion that its appeals to pragmatism are just fig leaves for ideological disagreement, personal spinelessness, or moral indifference. Which is to say: The party leadership must demonstrate a commitment to maximizing its share of power, and using that power to advance its self-professed ideological goals to the greatest extent possible.
When immigration advocates demanded a prolonged shutdown to secure protection for Dreamers in January 2018, the Establishment explained that such a gambit would do more to hurt their party’s red-state incumbents than to break the president’s will. When “the Resistance” read the Mueller Report as an airtight case for impeachment, Nancy Pelosi’s allies reminded their co-partisans that the Senate would never vote to expel Trump from office — but a Democratic push for impeachment just might keep him there until 2025, according to polls and historical experience. And when “the Squad” opposed new funding for Trump’s migrant “concentration camps” (in the absence of sweeping reforms to the administration’s asylum policy) this year, Democratic leaders insisted that such a stance would only deepen detained immigrants’ deprivation while muddying their party’s message.
And they may have been right. American politics is a messy and stupid game. Progressive voters are systematically underrepresented by our electoral institutions. Democrats really do need to worry about alienating the tiny, bizarre fraction of the electorate that still isn’t sure what team it’s on. Sometimes, maximizing policy gains does require tempering one’s demands. As the German sociologist Max Weber wrote in “Politics As a Vocation,” “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em; know when to walk away, and know when to run.”
Still, strategic capitulation to injustice will always be a bitter pill. If a party’s leadership expects activists to accept such prescriptions, it must preempt the suspicion that its appeals to pragmatism are just fig leaves for ideological disagreement, personal spinelessness, or moral indifference. Which is to say: The party leadership must demonstrate a commitment to maximizing its share of power, and using that power to advance its self-professed ideological goals to the greatest extent possible.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
