Unity vs Clarity

I mostly agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis of the way the Democratic presidential debates are turning out. But not completely.

• "There are only two coherent ideologies in this race." yes, correct
• "You have Bernie Sanders and democratic socialism and you have Joe Biden and a return to 2012 neo-liberalism." also correct
• "There really is no other choice in this entire field." ummm... well...

I suspect a great many Democratic Party primary voters don't actually make their decision of who to vote for based on coherent ideological choices. It seems irrational, but I do believe that many will make their decision based on, something as primitive and essentially meaningless as identity politics. So, yes, Enjeti was correct in pointing out that "Kamala Harris was completely exposed" and "fumbled and bumbled"-- but did anyone ever really think this unaccomplished, utterly plastic freshman senator-- who took campaign contributions from Steven Mnuchin, who otherwise only contributed to Republicans, after setting him free in a dead-to-rights bankster prosecution-- was going to be anything other than the identity politics candidate who would be ideal for some neo-liberal white man's VP pick?

Enjeti is unafraid to describe her as she is, which takes a lot of guts: "She's a pandering person. She doesn't believe anything. She's slimy and moves her way through whatever she thinks is the best poll-tested version. It's exactly like Hillary Clinton when she talked on TPP." That could easily be a description of Mayo Pete as well. 

But what about Trump? Anyone is better than him, right? Yes... but how low a bar is that? Come on, at this point, there is no reason to settle for a Biden or a Pete or a Kamala-- not when the available choices include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie. Let the #NeverTrumpers fret all they want; they had their chance to stop him and they failed. Jennifer Rubin is a #NeverTrumper who propagandizes for Republican-light candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party on the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Yesterday... with lots of passion and some conviction:

In sum, we are awash in hate crimes and white nationalist-inspired mass murders. We have a president whose words inspire and bolster perpetrators of these heinous acts. That makes Trump not only a moral abomination, which no policy outcome can offset, but a threat to national security. Those encouraged by his words in recent years kill more Americans than Islamist terrorists.

If that is not justification for bipartisan repudiation of this president and removal from office at the earliest possible moment I don’t know what is. Those who countenance and support this president for his white-grievance mongering are not merely 'deplorable' but dangerous.

On Sunday morning, The Hill published an OpEd by Cenk Uygur, The Mythology Of Unity, in which he is moved to defend the concept of... primaries, of late much-maligned by a greasier-than-usual Democratic congressional establishment. "The idea that tough primaries are bad for political parties,"  wrote Uygur, "is a complete fabrication supported by no evidence at all. So, why does this myth even exist? Because in reality it is an establishment protection racket." 

Progressives don’t mind tough primaries because we’re attacked by fellow Democrats and the entirety of the media constantly anyway. For us, that’s called Tuesday. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Former Rep. John Delaney (D-DE), former Gov. John Hickenlooper, et al. will cite a Koch Brothers funded study that "Medicare for all" cost $32 trillion without mentioning it saves $34 trillion, every time. That’s a right-wing smear. It’s done with such regularity that everyone assumes that’s normal. Of course you attack and lie about progressives. That’s a normal day in Washington.

But God forbid there should be a debate format where progressives get to fight back. Then, all of sudden, everyone catches feelings. Is this good for the party? They’re even questioning President Barack Obama. This is heresy. Everyone get back in line. Unity.

No deal. The morning after each debate, there is shock and chagrin on the Morning Joe set-- the epicenter of the establishment-- that their beloved Joe Biden has been criticized. My God the unity shield has been breached. They seem to be further hurt by the fact that it is other members of the establishment like Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) who are doing it. What happened to the good old days when we would pick an anointed candidate ahead of time and all pile on the progressives together? To be fair to them, remember how well that worked in 2016? Oh right, they were all wrong-- that didn’t work at all and they lost to Trump.

That’s the issue with television pundits--  it’s the one job in America where being consistently wrong gets you more job security, not less. How many people have jobs on television now if they warned that the Democratic establishment strategy in 2016 was wrong? I think there is one but I don’t want to out him for fear of costing him his job for being right. How many thought unity around an anointed candidate was good idea? I count about 150. They all still have their jobs despite that spectacular failure.

And they’re back making that same argument today: That we shouldn’t criticize the front-runners. Well, that’s not quite right, is it? They have never had an issue criticizing two out of the top three front-runners. Have you ever heard anyone on television ever say that Bernie Sanders shouldn’t be criticized? Did you just laugh out loud at that idea? Yet on Thursday morning, most of the pundits on television were howling at how poor Joe Biden had been criticized.

That’s a bias so thick that they can’t even see it. They asked a fish “how’s the water?” and he asked “what water?” They asked Joe Scarborough about his establishment bias and he asked “what bias?”

Let the candidates fight. Let them analyze each other’s records. Let them vet each other. Let them talk about past mistakes. Let them have a real exchange of ideas. And let the best person win. Then we will know who is a real fighter, who is battle tested, who has great ideas that the voters are willing to get behind and be excited about! Then we will have our champion.

Progressives are used to this and if the establishment candidates are so weak that they can’t stomach a punch, they have no business going up against Donald Trump. You might not be the right candidate if you have to go crying home to mommy or Morning Joe.

Finally, do you know who should choose our candidate after this great and mighty battle? The voters. And after they have done that, they might genuinely be excited to get out there and fight for our candidate, organize for them and vote for them. Real unity comes from being tested and finding out what you stand for, it isn’t forced upon you by the party machinery and cable news. That’s obedience, not a shared vision.

You know what happens when you have voters excited about a candidate they themselves picked: victory. 

Indeed, indeed. Mention it to Cheri Bustos, to Nancy Pelosi, to Chuck Schumer, to Steny Hoyer. And don't forget Rahm Emanuel. There would be far fewer Joe Crowleys and many more AOCs if the Democratic Party embraced the concept of grassroots voters choosing the nominees they want representing them, rather than political bosses beholden to Big Money and their own careerism.