After much press and campaigning, the Democratic National Committee elected a new chairman, Tom Perez. His main opponent, Keith Ellison, accepted the position of vice chair, and the overall message from the two of them was “unity.” Like clockwork, the “real progressives” promptly started whining about how the party “hadn’t learned its lesson,” and spent time on the internet and press complaining. What makes this annoying is some of the statements are from people who should know better.
Tag Archives: frustrati
Back at the end of 2013, I wrote a post about how political pundits don’t understand politics. More specifically, how political parties are actually structured and work. It’s somewhat (but not very) forgivable when it comes to them, because they’re used to thinking the “movers and shakers” of the party are based in Washington. I was reminded of that post when I read an article at Newsweek by Kurt Eichenwald about the myths that Democrats swallowed. I recommend reading it, but it matches what I saw a lot this past year, and more specifically, it’s been an ongoing feature of the frustrati, or the Purity Left for years. It’s why they’re destructive instead of constructive, and why they never achieve any of their goals, hence, my labeling them “the frustrati.”
Today was primary day in New York, and over lunch, I went and voted. Yes, as the title said, I voted for Hillary. That I voted in a primary is not unusual, I vote in all of them. There’s another one in September for state offices, and yes, I wish they’d change that. I regard voting as a duty, one that goes with my rights as a citizen. As I’ve said in a previous post, it’s not often I’m “excited” about any candidate. Mostly, I take a look through what their platforms are, review their records and qualifications, and pick the one I think will probably do a better job than the other one. Sometimes, it’s really “flip a coin,” in that both are good and you can’t lose either way. This year though, I couldn’t wait for the primary day to arrive so I could vote. Not because I was excited, but for a reason that hasn’t happened to me before.
A couple of months ago there was an article on another site arguing that one of the reasons some Democrats were against Bernie Sanders was that they were “afraid to sell the case for higher taxes.” More particularly, meaning that they aren’t willing to make the case for the tax increases necessary to pay for all the programs he was proposing. Leaving aside the rather nebulous nature of his healthcare plan, and the unlikelihood of his college plan being accepted, my response was “Do you really expect me to tell people in my area that their tax bill will double?” That would be a tough sell in any event, even if I was really enthusiastic about the programs.
Over the past several weeks, I’ve been getting lectured to by various members of the purity left. According to them, I’m not really a progressive, I’m actually a Blue Dog, or some other worse name they’ve come up with. Why? Because I’m a pragmatic liberal, not a hardcore liberal like they are. Somehow, they’re under the assumption that they are the majority of the party (they’re not), and they are the base of the Democratic Party (they’re not). I’ve been chastised for explaining why “real progressives” don’t – and can’t – win in many areas, which according to them, is only because our candidates aren’t “exciting” enough. All of which falls under “the usual” stuff when dealing with them, but here’s the thing that’s truly infuriating: They’re also saying that if their preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination, they’ll stay home or vote for the other party’s candidate, and encourage others to do the same. What that shows me? They either don’t care about the consequences, or they don’t think there will be any.