Primary Out Democrats
Modern Republicanism appears incoherent. Donald Trump’s opposition to free trade, to name one example, is a drastic move away from the stances of previous conservative movements. His divorces and public discussion of his sex life are a shift away from the puritanism that used to define the right in America. He is, in other words, an unlikely leader of a new political movement within the GOP.
And yet, it works. As Trump became popular and gained power, the party coalesced behind him. True ideological conservatives like Paul Ryan mounted a token offense whilst preparing for their new roles in a Trump government. A lot of words in places like Politico and the New Yorker have been dedicated to the new movement that Donnie is the (perhaps unwitting and willing) leader of: Trumpism. The Tea Party movement was, excluding a few victories in 2010, a lot of smoke and not much heat. Trumpism, on the other hand, didn’t just decide the presidency; it also helped a lot of Republican nominees in the house and senate win close races. Now, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches. The GOP may have fought against Trump through the spring and summer of 2016, but it’s now clear that Trumpism is a winning formula. Trump isn’t a continuation of the conservative movement that Barry Goldwater started. Instead, he is at the forefront of Trumpism, a movement that could be scrapped within the next election cycle. Alternatively, it could serve as the intellectual backbone of the Republican party for the next 50 years or more.
Modern Democrats are incoherent too. But Republicans are incoherent for strategic reasons. The Democratic party is rudderless. From 2008 to 2016 they were, if nothing else, Obama’s party. Now they’re a party lacking in ambition. The signs were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them. There were 12 Republicans at the beginning of the primaries in February; the Democrats numbered only three, and Martin O’Malley withdrew after the first contest. Moreover, the Republican frontrunners all moved away from the orthodoxy of their party, each in their own way. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, ran as a continuation of President Obama. Forgetting about her policies entirely, her campaign allowed Republicans to present themselves as agents of change, essentially calling plays that President Obama ran to perfection in 2008. In a total role-reversal, Democrats were the party of the status quo and Republicans looked young and energetic.
It’s important that liberals realize Bernie Sanders will not be the future of the Democratic party. His vision, however, can be. The man should be set aside for the ideals. A president Sanders would be hamstrung by a center-left DNC. The solution is to vote against incumbent Democrats in primary elections in favor of progressives who want to, you know, progress their party and America. The organization Our Revolution, borne from Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, is an excellent starting point. Our Revolution organizes around candidates with progressive values and platforms. Additionally, they aim to engage and educate voters. It’s a grassroots campaign to push the Democratic party to the left. Their greatest accomplishment to date has been promoting Keith Ellison as a candidate for chair of the DNC. It’s a logical place for Our Revolution to get involved, considering Sanders’ conflicts with former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
But the selection of DNC chair is much more than petty squabbling. Whoever is elected will chose what lead Democrats in upcoming elections and, critically, in opposing the Trump administration. Selecting Ellison would show that Democrats are committed to moving in a more progressive direction.
Ellison, if he wins, can’t decide the fate of the Democratic party alone. His hypothetical win would be the start of the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, a necessary move by a sleepy and underperforming party. Instead of relying on lifers like Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine (the safest and most boring possible VP pick), Democrats need to cultivate the rising stars, such as the Twin Tammys of the senate, Tammy Baldwin and Tammy Duckworth. While both are initially attractive to voters because of their unique personal stories (Duckworth was a helicopter pilot who lost both her legs in the Iraq war, Baldwin is the first openly gay senator in US history), their dedication to progressive policies and advocacy is more important. Republicans emphasize young voices in their party (Tom Cotton, at 39 years old the youngest senator, has become a leading conservative voice) while Democrats choose Chuck Schumer (66 years old) and Dianne Feinstein (83 years old) as their standard bearers. This makes the Democrats superficially appear like a party with no future when this couldn’t be further from the truth.
It’s a shame that the members of a congress with record-low approval ratings have more job security than a lot of American workers. On the other hand, this job security can be disappear if voters will it. That’s why I implore left-leaning voters to not just vote for their candidates in generals, but also for true progressives in primaries.
I’d like to explore a couple of these primaries on a more case-by-case level. It’s true that some Democrats in red states are more moderate than their peers out of necessity. Senators like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana are given F grades by ProgressivePunch, but both are in Republican states where any victory is a blessing. Tom Carper also has an F, but in deep blue Delaware. Dianne Feinstein has an F too. These seats are secure and could be contested by a candidate more committed to progressive values. While Carper and Feinstein are probably thinking little about their 2018 campaigns right now, a real challenge from the left would have one of two affects, both of them good: either the incumbents will move left or they will be replaced by someone who is already there.
This is to say nothing of the corruption that an uncompetitive political environment breeds. For proof, look to the senior senator from New Jersey, Bob Menendez. Menendez is scheduled to face trial on federal corruption charges in late 2017. Moreover, allegations of Menendez engaging in quid pro quo politics date back to at least 2010, and he has been under investigation for the majority of this decade. Despite all this, he is still projected as likely to retain his seat.
Moderate liberals will argue that pragmatism should take precedence over principal, but I’d argue that pragmatism is a proven loser. Republicans backed pragmatic candidates in 2008 and 2012 and lost twice. In 2016, Democrats put the full weight of their leadership behind an inoffensive, safe candidate and lost. Democrats tried to be all things to all people and instead came across as insincere and pandering. And we lost. Staying the course after a loss is sometimes smart, but when that loss revealed deep flaws with the party, staying the course is foolish. Change needs to happen, from the top to the bottom. I believe that the moderates had their turn and proved themselves ineffectual and weak. Now it’s the progressive’s turn. The Democratic party should, in other words, chose leftism over neoliberalism, not just because it would represent a true change and a real ideological backbone for the party, but also because neoliberalism has been rejected by voters. Whether Democrats choose to listen to voters or stagnate remains to be seen.
