Why We Fight

Like many people, I have gotten pretty caught up in the Democratic nomination fight over the last couple of months.  After initially leaning towards Edwards, I shifted to Obama for a variety of reasons.  As I became increasingly invested in (and excited by) the prospects of his winning the nomination, I found myself getting irritated by the tactics of the Clinton campaign, sometimes voicing my frustrations on this site in a fairly full-throated fashion.

It occurred to me that this was not producing the most edifying or rational state of mind for me and many others.  This should have been self-evident when I was muttering about sitting out the general election if Hillary won the nomination -- okay, a pretty guilt free indulgence in its way when you live in DC, which has never been characterized as a swing state -- here we like to see if we can keep the Republican from getting into two digit percentages, something we have achieved in the last two presidential elections.  The madness of this perspective was really driven home to me on the night of the Pennsylvania primary when perusing other sites where Clinton or Obama supporters were vowing to vote for third party candidates or sit out the general election as though none of us had absorbed the lessons of the 2000 election.

And then I awoke the next day to two stories on NPR concerning rising food commodity prices and the enormous impact that this is having domestically and internationally.   I felt a bit ashamed that I was obsessing over the Democrats' internecine battle and issues of tactics and the like at a time when the ability of large numbers of people to feed themselves and their families seems to be growing ever more tenuous as a result of poorly crafted public policies.   

Of course, this is just the latest in a series of calamitous events that have occurred on the present Administration's watch -- a disastrous war, the gutting of the Constitution, the embrace of torture, the Katrina debacle, two recessions, a plunging currency and rising deficit -- well you get the idea.

The take away lesson to me seemed obvious -- we cannot afford to allow the Republicans to continue to run this country.  It will be a disaster not only for ourselves, but for the world writ large.  So I've vowed to lock away my inner fascist* and keep my eye on the prize, regardless of how irritated I may get during the day to day struggle of the campaign.  I am going to try to avoid writing about the Obama-Clinton battle and to reaffirm that I will support whoever emerges as the nominee.  As the old cliche goes, I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- or even the palatable.

*This would be the "emotional fascism" that obsesses Elvis Costello -- our need to be right and to dominate people on a small scale, not the Jonah "I put the fat in fatuous" Goldberg notion that we liberals all goose step to the recycling bin.      

 

Comments

[Ari]

Lovely post. And I agree with most of what you say, for what that's worth. But I wish that I was more certain that you're right in your conclusion. I'm not, though, as there's a part of me that thinks that burying the DLC brand, burying a politics of triangulation, burying a race-baiting Democratic party, all of these things are important and worthy goals. Which is why I've been careful not to accuse those people who've threatened to sit out the general, or vote for Nader, or write in Bobby Seale -- or whatever else people are claiming they'll do to punish the candidate they currently can't stand -- of being immmature or narcissistic.

In sum, there are real and good reasons for expressing real and just outrage at the Clintons' tactics. And we should, as a result, not be silent about our outrage* -- even if, at the end of the long primary season, we know that we'll close ranks around the Democratic nominee. Moreover, I think the blogosphere, inasmuch as it resembles something like an eighteenth-century public sphere, is exactly the right place for these debates. So let's celebrate the fact that people are so invested in their candidate and the process. Let's celebrate the fact that people are fighting rather than defaulting to silence or easy consensus. This makes for a lively public sphere. It's all good, in other words, so long as we come together in November.

* Just as Clinton's partisans should not be silent about Obama's flaws.

[Sir Charles]

Ari,

I agree with more or less everything you said. I think I should have been clearer that my focus in terms of not writing or obsessing about the Obama-Clinton battle was more personal than general. I wasn't suggestng that others not write about it or care about it deply. My point was more that is has a bad effect on me, pushes me to extremes and tempts me to say things that are ultimately unwise.

Having said that I, like you, am opposed to the politics of triangulation and believe that the Dems need to move in a progressive direction and do so with strength and confidence. I will try to focus on more issue oriented aspects of the campaign as opposed to something that Bill or Hilary have done that drives me to distraction.

[Ari]

You could also get a puppy. That worked for me. Seriously, the puppy is so silly, so hilariously clumsy, and so damn cute that I don't get as worked up about politics. But I suppose concentrating on rising food prices is a more mature way to deal with primary-induced mania.

[Sir Charles]

Ari,

I have a lovely old cat -- she is the only good thing that came out of the Bush v. Gore imbroglio. She belonged to a reporter who got stuck in Florida for six weeks covering that debacle and was distressed (the cat that is) at being alone, so I was asked to take her in. Other than a disconcerting habit of grooming the back of my head in the middle of the night, she is a soothing presence.

[Ron]

I have had almost the same experience. I initially leaned towards Edwards but in late December decided I liked Obama better and now am utterly disgusted at Clinton. However I am not going to vote for Clinton if the superdelegates hand her the nomination when she hasn't earned it (if she somehow takes the pledged delegate lead, then I might vote for her). She has demonstrated herself to be a pathological liar and person of low character who will sanction the use of race baiting and attacks on other opponent's religious beliefs by her campaign and surrogates and who does Karl Rove politics better than Rove himself. Plus it's clear from her recent comments on Iran that she is as much an unrepentant neocon on foreign affairs as McCain. I live in Georgia where neither Democrat has the slightest prayer of coming within 10% of winning, so there is no danger of me being responsible for a Florida 2000 scenario if I don't vote for Clinton. If I lived in a competitive state, I would definitely but sadly vote for her. I will still vote for the Democratic candidates for other races. (This is all academic of course since Obama is going to be the nominee and I will enthusiastically vote for him like I did in the primary.)

[Toast]

However I am not going to vote for Clinton if the superdelegates hand her the nomination when she hasn't earned it (if she somehow takes the pledged delegate lead, then I might vote for her).

As much as it would piss me off, I'd still vote for Hillary if the Supers gave the nomination to her. After all, they'd be operating within the rules. The only condition under which I truly do not think I could vote for her would be if she won by getting the party to seat Michigan's delegates. That would be tantamount to stealing the nomination. I could not, in good conscience, pull the lever for someone who did that. I'd simply abstain from voting for president.

[Henry]

However I am not going to vote for Clinton if the superdelegates hand her the nomination when she hasn't earned it

I think this is exactly what the post above is warning against.

Let's be honest. The Dem Primary system is not anyone's ideal version of democracy. It's hardly democratic at all. You have some individuals whose vote is worth more than others, entire states whose residents don't vote at all, caucuses when most agree that votes should be private, etc.

The point is, regardless of whether you think Clinton acted sleazy, either Clinton presidency or an Obama presidency would be a world away from a McCain presidency. To sit out something as important as a presidential election because Clinton didn't "earn the nomination" - that is, didn't meet certain arbitrary standards in an already incomprehensible nomination process - well, I don't know what to call that.

C'mon. I think the health of the country is more important than punishing Clinton for the way she campaigns.

[Joe]

"C'mon. I think the health of the country is more important than punishing Clinton for the way she campaigns."

It could be argued that the health of the country is better served by sacrificing the short term disaster that would be a McCain presidency in order to show the Democratic party that scorched earth campaigns and undemocratically-selected candidates are not acceptable (i.e., they will result in unsuccessful general elections).

[ikl]

I think that Toast nailed it. Winning by super delegates is legitimate. Winning by seating delegates from an election where you were the only candidate on the ballot and then poaching uncommitted delegates who represent the votes of people who were trying to vote for your opponent would be very, very problematic. But that won't happen because most super delegates won't got for that.

[Scott K]

I live in Tennessee, and I doubt that TN will be a swing state despite the close Corker-Ford race recently. I would vote for either Democrat in the hopes that I'm wrong, though I'm definitely rooting for Obama. I must say that some of my discussions with Republican friends have yielded some very odd responses... there are left-leaning Republicans who voted for Kerry in 2004 who would passionately vote for McCain over Obama, and then solid Republicans who voted for Bush in 2004 saying that they liked Obama and while they might not vote for him, they wouldn't be upset if he won. It really drives home the point that the divisions drawn between the party lines don't exist as a clear-cut fracture line in American society.

In any case, I'm definitely voting Democratic (whoever it is) in November. I admit to being somewhat annoyed by Clinton tactics and such, but I put myself into the shoes of a Clinton supporter, feeling just as passionately about Clinton as I do about Obama, and I can understand how they would act. So I preserve the majority of my ire for people who are so foolish as to say that they'd vote for McCain over . ;-)