Jules Witcover, journalist and author of several works on
presidential campaigns and political figures, wrote a book about the Democratic
Party titled “Party of the People: A History of the Democrats.” Published in 2003, shortly post-9/11 yet
before the Great Recession, his closing chapters reflect a Democratic Party heading
into uncertain times without a consensus on the best way to move forward. The party’s left, which had undergone its “wilderness
years” since the 1980s, was just beginning to show signs of a resurgence…unfortunately,
without one of its leading lights as Senator Paul Wellstone perished in an airplane
crash shortly before Election Day 2002.
The Democratic Leadership Council/New Democratic Network-style
Ds held a tenuous grip on the leadership of the party, albeit one weakened by
the not-unrelated failures of the Clinton Administration and the Gore campaign. Even the “insurgent” voice of 2004, Howard
Dean, wasn’t particularly progressive; and the eventual nominee of that cycle,
John Kerry, was largely viewed as an Establishment figure. Neoliberalism, the idea that “swallowed the
world” according to Stephen Metcalf, remained the dominant worldview, with
President Barack Obama winning election and re-election in the midst of what
was fundamentally a relatively conservative regime sequence, with a somewhat
greater warrant of authority for bold(er) government action following the
financial crisis of 2007 – 2008. Unfortunately,
in yet another close and bitterly fought election similar to 2000, the Democratic presidential nominee of 2016
was unable to succeed a then-relatively popular Democratic incumbent.
So here we stand in 2020 with an impeached, highly
polarizing, and dangerous Republican incumbent.
Yet there are elements within the Party who have decided that the best alternative
for the Democratic Party is the nomination of a billionaire former Republican with
a history of racist rhetoric and policies.
If Mayor Bloomberg were to be the standard-bearer of our party, are we
not yielding the moral high ground? How
can we effectively contrast our party’s values by running an oligarch against
theirs? How can we defeat not only Trump
but Trump-ism with a Democratic nominee who is running as a technocrat who
would merely govern better than the current Administration (a low threshold by
any account)? Bloomberg’s campaign is
not values-driven, it does not offer up a competing vision as much as it is
seeks to accommodate the political environment fostered by Trump and his ilk.
What good is a Democratic Party that it sets its sights so
low as to consider the nomination of Mike Bloomberg as a rational, much less a
winning response to the continuing threat posed by the Trump Administration?
Suffice to say, I am disappointed by the thought process
(??) of certain current and former local Democratic “leaders” who have chosen,
for whatever reason, to stand with the Bloomberg campaign. Lest I be accused of vague-ness by 1,000
cuts, let me be clear: I am referring to
former Howard County Executive Ken Ulman and current State Senator Katie Fry
Hester.
I don’t know what they think they are getting out of their
support for such a figure. I do know
that if they wanted a Republican-Light, someone who would be unable to run a
strong differentiating campaign against Trump, they could not have made a better
choice than backing the former NYC Mayor.
Which gets us back to first principles and the original
question, what good is a Democratic Party?
What is the public good we hope to advance…at the national, state, and
local levels? And what are the
obligations of our leaders within the “party of the people?” Whose interests must they serve?
These are important questions for 2020 and beyond.
In solidarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment