Splinter groups and the obvious conflict of interest

[gulliver]

I noticed that the SEIU is preparing to not support Dem primary victors if they are not the SEIUs candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/seiu-to-sit-out-general-e_n_575066.html

So it seems appropriate to point out an obvious conflict of interest in these progressive splinter groups. Whether it is MoveOn, the SEIU, or even media outlets like HuffPo, they all stand to gain if the majority of people lose. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but here is an example.

Say SEIU supports a Dem candidate A, but Dem candidate B wins. The SEIU now has the choice of whether to support B. If the SEIU supports candidate B, then the SEIU is supporting someone they don't prefer. That is bad for the SEIU, but good for the people, because otherwise they will end up with candidate C, a Republican catastrophe. If the SEIU, instead, decides to sit out the election and let Republican candidate C win, then the SEIU gains power, but the people lose.

Quite clearly, the SEIU stands to gain from the loss of the people, a major dilemma and conflict of interest. This has to be kept in mind for all splinter groups, IMO. Every one of them has this conflict of interest. They should disclose it and make people aware of what the downside of sowing contention within the Progressive/Dem coalition really is. Major loss.

If they don't, it is unethical. It would be like a Big Pharma company hiding a potentially catastrophic side effect.

[Radical Activist]

1. SEIU is doing the right thing by not supporting Lincoln in the general.

The people lose when corporate lobbyists like Lincoln get elected to office.

I'm not sure what you think groups like SEIU need to disclose. We all know they work to benefit working people and their members in particular. They shouldn't be expected to do anything else.

The truth is that moderate and conservative Democrats routinely sit out an election or put in only a token effort when a liberal wins the primary. That's how they keep forcing moderate Democrats on us as the only supposedly electable option. Progressives should do the same. That's how we'll get a progressive majority that actually supports the people over corporate special interests.

[gulliver]

10. To be ethical and principled, the SEIU would need ...

...to disclose to its members that a position it was taking might result in a catastrophic win for the GOP. I.e., it should disclose that the position of not supporting the Dem primary victor could cost the SEIU membership dearly.

For example, the SEIU could state publicly:

We, the SEIU, recommend that their members not vote in an election in which the Democratic candidate is not to our liking. This may result in the election of a Republican for the given seat. This may have a catastrophic effect on members of the SEIU. If a Republican wins, members of the SEIU can expect job losses in significantly greater numbers than they would have under the Democrat. Also, social programs on which SEIU members may depend may be significantly reduced or eliminated.

If the did that (or have already done that), then their stand would be principled, IMO.

[Radical Activist]

11. That's a big maybe.

I don't believe those are accurate statements in the case of someone like Blanche Lincoln who holds Republican positions on issues that most directly impact union members.

[Vincardog]

2. IMO everybody should support the candidate that SUPPORTS THEIR POSITIONS. Suggesting that

without "splinter groups" support Republican candidate C will win, implies that the democrats are running some very weak candidates.

I don't buy your assumptions and attempt to blame people who stand on PRINCIPAL as bad for the party.

They are what the party needs. The party also needs more candidates to stand on principal and with the people.

[Radical Activist]

3. Right. We're not rooting for a baseball team.

If the Democratic Party nominates candidates who act more like Republicans then no reasonable person should expect issue-based voters to stay on board.

[Vincardog]

4. Unfortunately what they want for the issue-based voters to stay at home and only send in their vote

and money. What we need to do is find candidates who support us and we in turn need to support them.

We should and have the right to tell the Party over principals folks to STFU.

[Radical Activist]

5. True. But sadly,

even when there's a good candidate, half the left stands on the sidelines. They either work for a non-profit that can't be political, or they want to keep their hands clean working on issues without getting involved in elections, or there's one issue they disagree with the candidate on, or they'll only support Greens not progressive Democrats, or they think direct action is the only way to make change etc. The left is often its own worst enemy.

[gulliver]

7. SUPPORTS THEIR POSITIONS best of available candidates...

...in the general. Anything short of that is unprincipled.

[Brickbat]

6. I am pleased to see a union withhold money, volunteers and endorsements from candidates they don't

believe in.

More unions should do the same, rather than hoping a candidate will come around to their way of thinking.

[gulliver]

8. It's a short term gratification vs. long term misery decision...

...to do so usually. The principle of not supporting people you don't believe in is sound. But cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is too often an emotional gratification trap. No one gets the opportunity to do exactly what they want to do very often. At least not on this planet. Everything is about working through disappointment to achieve, not withdrawal. That is always a sure sign of weakness and failure if there is any.

If the SEIU were to cause a Republican to win, for example, without disclosing to its members that a Republican win is a real risk, then it would be an unethical thing to do.

I hold out the likely possibility that they are simply making this threat and will vote against the Republican in the fall. But it's their problem if they don't.

[LoZoccolo]

9. If the SEIU doesn't support the Democrats, I won't support them. n/t