Why Donna Brazile’s Claims Don’t Matter
Is it too little, too late?
By Isabella Garcia
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
IF YOU HAVE BEEN SPARED THE SEEMINGLESS ENDLESS FLOWS OF NEWS ABOUT THE DNC’s APPARENT internal combustion as a direct result of Donna Brazile’s “exposé” Hacks, consider yourself lucky. Brazile’s account of the election was primarily showcased in an excerpt released mere days before special elections that were crucial to Democrats in states like Virginia and New Jersey, and was criticized as excessively divisive, but with the big wins in the wake of this “disaster,” the question remains of the actual levity of Brazile’s account. While Hacks carried immense risk with its release timing and abrasive diction, the account should not be interpreted as consequential to the party because it’s perceived effects are muffled on the national stage.
Let’s begin with the fact that, if nothing else, Brazile’s release was poorly timed. In an era with the evident rebirth of political activism and revived energy within Democratic politics, a book that triggers infighting is counter intuitive and dangerous. Even mildly controversial material seems as if it could wreck the delicate alliance between Democrats. However, the book, while undoubtedly detrimental to the existing momentum present within the party, didn’t have the level of impact many feared. With success in states like Minnesota, New Jersey and Virginia, Brazile’s release seemed inconsequential. This points to the flimsiness of the book’s claims and it’s unrealistic impact.
However, that doesn’t approach the root of the issue: why are Brazile’s interpretations meaningless in the scheme of progressive politics? Simply put, it is because the claims themselves that stir the DNC controversy aren’t inherently illegal. The controversy itself is fundamentally solved through increased transparency within the primary process moving forward, which makes it less of a crisis. While it should be recognized, is not necessarily crucial to the function of the DNC. Brazile brings an important issue to the table, but does it in a divisive manner that unnecessarily questions the party’s legitimacy. Thus, while the account did facilitate some improvements, it did so in a manner that was counter intuitive.
Donna Brazile’s harms are showcased in her unabashed statements about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Her words create division between moderate and progressive democrats, reviving the open wound within the party from 2016. At a time when the special elections had seemed to once again unite democrats to “fight the good fight” once more, Brazile’s account resurfaced the division that had driven democrats apart. Even though the Democrat’s had resounding success in the early November special elections, this issue itself is raising questions about how progressive the party wants to be. Admittedly, this debate is necessary to establish the future of the Democratic party, but Donna Brazile doesn’t have a big part to play in it.
Donna Brazile makes some interesting points: she raises an issue, makes some accusations and accelerates a debate that is raging in the minds of Democrats. Her ideas aren’t inherently revolutionary, and the divisive gap between progressives and moderates isn’t so large that Democrats can’t build a bridge and cooperate. Her account is not crucial to the DNC’s legitimacy and while it was perceived as detrimental, it seems undoubtedly inconsequential in the grand scheme of the Democratic process.
