|
...Or Un-Democratic.
Until today, I’ve watched from the sidelines the post-primary debate in DU over what constitutes “constructive dissent from” versus “disloyal attacks on” our presumptive nominee.
Part of my reluctance to engage is a vestige of my own divided loyalties. I worked hard to elect Bill Clinton in the 1990s and admired HRC’s accomplishments as First Lady and later as a U.S. Senator. I decided months before the first primaries to work for John Edwards and only voted for Obama after Edwards withdrew. My initial cautious support for Obama’s candidacy has since grown into an abiding commitment to elect him President, but that commitment never tempted me to participate in the fratricidal melees that often dominated GD-Primaries.
My reluctance to weigh in post-primary stems from an even deeper ambivalence. As a lifelong Democrat, I know too well that Party disunity has too often presaged defeat. And, to be blunt, defeat in this election is not an option. And yet -- and yet -- I hope I speak for many here in stating that I am a Democrat because I believe democracy works best in a public sphere where no policy position is uncritically accepted, where a disconnect between policy and principles is never condoned for political expediency, and where no politician – however preternatural his or her potential – engenders loyalty that blinds us to their personal failings, political missteps and policy obfuscations.
And so it was only after hearing today Obama’s speech on patriotism that I feel compelled to take a page from his playbook and suggest that dissent and Democratic solidarity – like patriotism -- are not mutually exclusive. Obama lauded Mark Twain’s definition of patriotism: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Can we not take this to heart by recognizing that Democratic solidarity is supporting our candidate all the time and his policy positions when they deserve it? (And further acknowledge that DU exists for the very purpose of debating which positions deserve our support.)
My point is that dissent is not the issue; what matters is the intent of that dissent. We are all familiar with destructive dissent. Whether expressed as righteous outrage or disingenuous concern, its intent is to question Obama’s electability and/or credibility, either by conflating complicated issues into false dichotomies or by inflating gaffes and missteps into fatal character flaws. And while I personally would oppose censoring even this form of dissent in DU, I would hope that most of us could agree that it is best left to those opposed to a Democratic victory in November.
But the dissent I have seen more often here stems not from antipathy but from a sense of almost unprecedented expectation. It is because Obama has galvanized the progressive left, because he has promised a new form of politics that we now measure his actions against our principles and cry foul when we fear the twain may not meet. And we not only have the right as loyal Democrats but the responsibility to do so -- if only to provide a progressive counter to overly pragmatic voices who prod Obama to adopt expedient positions that appear electorally “safe,” but which may in fact undermine the platform of genuine change the vast majority of Americans are clamoring for. And I would further argue that constructive Democratic dissent – like patriotic dissent – in no way calls into question or diminishes our support for Obama. It instead exhorts him to perfect and realize his potential as the future POTUS.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(457 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
