 |
| 1988 ad. Dukakis soft on crime. |
Democrats have a problem.
Democrats are calling the Democrat "gutless and morally debased."
Republicans have found their wedge issue, with sanctuary cities. It is Willie Horton all over again, and it looks like it is working.
Trump--and now Virginia candidate Ed Gillespie--are onto something politically very powerful. Americans are nervous about crime by "aliens." The issue moves the polls.
 |
| Gillespie Ad in Virginia |
We have seen it before. A large, scary dark skinned man is portrayed while the narration blames the Democrat for being soft on crime. In Virginia, Republican Ed Gillespie was behind in the polls until he began running ads associating MS-13, a Central American gang, with the Democratic candidate Ralph Northam. The polls moved dramatically in the direction of Gillespie in apparent response to the ads. Voters in Virginia are concerned that a Democratic governor will coddle violent gangs.
Democratic groups protest the ads, saying they are blatantly racist and dishonest. The ads are intentionally designed to evoke racial fears. The battle lines are drawn, with Gillespie taking an openly hostile view to immigrants and immigrant related crime, and Northam taking the more moderate view, saying he supported immigrants, sought immigration reform, while favoring tougher laws on gangs.
What about sanctuary cities? Under pressure to define where exactly he stood, Northam said he opposes sanctuary cities.
Progressive outrage and strategy. A group working to raise voter turnout in the minority community ended work for him as did the progressive Indivisible groups. Charles Chamberlain, Executive Director of Democracy for America, the Democratic Party activist group founded by Howard Dean, said "Ralph Northam's gutless, politically senseless, and morally debased decision yesterday to openly backtrack on his commitment to standing up for immigrant families is a picture-perfect examples of why Democracy for America never endorsed him in the primary" and is refusing to help him now. A spokesman for Indivisible called it "despicable" and added, "Find your spine, Ralph."
This is hardball politics. It puts pressure on Democrats where they are most vulnerable. One school of political thought is that if an issue motivates the public then one should lean in the direction of that sentiment. It is a representative democracy, after all, and the voters want to be heard. Trump and now Gillespie are showing that a great many voters are motivated by fear of immigrant crime, so Northam moved in that direction.
The other school of thought is to force your political allies to be uncompromising, lest they lose your support and assure election of the opponent. There are principles and values to uphold. It is a game of political "chicken"; if you compromise we will walk away from you. Democracy for America is already explaining the upcoming loss, attempting to fix the blame on the compromisers, not that sanctuary cities may be unpopular.
Chamberlain: "Let's be really clear: if Ralph Northam wins next Tuesday, it won't be because he publicly backtracked on his commitment to protecting immigrant families, but in spite of it. And if he loses, the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the consultants who urged the campaign to cave on core Democratic values in the face of a virulently racist Republican campaign, and whose obsession with flipping white, Republican-leaning votes and ignoring voters of color has consistently failed."
A win by Gillespie will be easy to interpret, for Republicans. It will be a victory for Trump style racial politics. The GOP will be the party of immigrant restriction and will be solidified as the party defending the interests of native born Americans against the threat of uncontrolled immigration. It will show that Republicans can win in now-Democratic states if they make the campaign about race and crime.
Win or lose, the election resolves nothing for Democrats. The meaning will be ambiguous. Would Northam's win be proof that moderation works, or will he have won in spite of it. If he loses, people will wonder why. Did he lose too many progressive and minority votes and did the progressive threat work? Or maybe he should have bent with he flow of white public sentiment and recognized that Americans are simply uncomfortable with sanctuary cities. The debate will continue.
There is no unity within the left, and there is no tolerance for a Democrat to split the differences and keep everyone happy. There is no happy middle within the progressive left, and there is little desire to be "practical" or "pragmatic" or to be happy with "half a loaf." In the aftermath of the 2016 election there are people motivated by values, not by "team spirit."
Democratic groups protest the ads, saying they are blatantly racist and dishonest. The ads are intentionally designed to evoke racial fears. The battle lines are drawn, with Gillespie taking an openly hostile view to immigrants and immigrant related crime, and Northam taking the more moderate view, saying he supported immigrants, sought immigration reform, while favoring tougher laws on gangs.
What about sanctuary cities? Under pressure to define where exactly he stood, Northam said he opposes sanctuary cities.
 |
| Democratic group abandons Northam |
This is hardball politics. It puts pressure on Democrats where they are most vulnerable. One school of political thought is that if an issue motivates the public then one should lean in the direction of that sentiment. It is a representative democracy, after all, and the voters want to be heard. Trump and now Gillespie are showing that a great many voters are motivated by fear of immigrant crime, so Northam moved in that direction.
The other school of thought is to force your political allies to be uncompromising, lest they lose your support and assure election of the opponent. There are principles and values to uphold. It is a game of political "chicken"; if you compromise we will walk away from you. Democracy for America is already explaining the upcoming loss, attempting to fix the blame on the compromisers, not that sanctuary cities may be unpopular.
Chamberlain: "Let's be really clear: if Ralph Northam wins next Tuesday, it won't be because he publicly backtracked on his commitment to protecting immigrant families, but in spite of it. And if he loses, the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the consultants who urged the campaign to cave on core Democratic values in the face of a virulently racist Republican campaign, and whose obsession with flipping white, Republican-leaning votes and ignoring voters of color has consistently failed."
A win by Gillespie will be easy to interpret, for Republicans. It will be a victory for Trump style racial politics. The GOP will be the party of immigrant restriction and will be solidified as the party defending the interests of native born Americans against the threat of uncontrolled immigration. It will show that Republicans can win in now-Democratic states if they make the campaign about race and crime.
Win or lose, the election resolves nothing for Democrats. The meaning will be ambiguous. Would Northam's win be proof that moderation works, or will he have won in spite of it. If he loses, people will wonder why. Did he lose too many progressive and minority votes and did the progressive threat work? Or maybe he should have bent with he flow of white public sentiment and recognized that Americans are simply uncomfortable with sanctuary cities. The debate will continue.There is no unity within the left, and there is no tolerance for a Democrat to split the differences and keep everyone happy. There is no happy middle within the progressive left, and there is little desire to be "practical" or "pragmatic" or to be happy with "half a loaf." In the aftermath of the 2016 election there are people motivated by values, not by "team spirit."
4 comments:
I hope now he loses. He'll deserve it.
As a Progressive I mourn the loss, but this candidate has exposed his weakness of principle as a "moderate democrat". The election is close, and he is panicking. Will he get a poll bump as "law and order" (racist) independents climb aboard? It's a cold political calculation where he's trading one set of voters for another. I predict it will be moot, except that now he's exposed as a fraud.
Progessive Friends of Trump
The GOP candidate has limited his attacks to illegal immigration. Even in that subset of all immigration, he has limited his attacks to sanctuary cities shielding criminals. Sanctuary cities is not an "also" issue in the Virginia race-- it is now the issue. In swing states it is a litmus test issue for Democrats. Refusal to say you're against them and you're imperiled. Northam in fact had already done that, as my guest post explained in detail last month. Failure to say you will actually vote against sanctuary cities (or veto them as a governor) and you're unelectable in all the swing states that rejected Hillary. Northam wisely decided that it would be absurd for Democrats to lose for the sake of shielding criminal immigrants like MS13.
What happened to the progressive candidate personally supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? He was defeated by Northam, i.e. bythe centrist.
The reality is clear: Progressives are unelectable in 35+ states and therefore no progressive ever has and likely never will be POTUS. Indeed, progressives are unelectable to the Senate-- there are just two. The truth is progressives are the best friends Trump and the GOP could ever have, as they are increasingly reliable foes of the Democratic Party.
Let's hope Northam's promise to veto sanctuary cities did not come too late for Democrats in Virginia.
The Progressive movement has no future caving in to Regressive fear mongering, bigotry and racism.
The "center" is not the center. It is collaboration with the continuing erosion of values that are destroying the democracy. I don't like saying it's better to lose on principles than win by abandoning them, because it means that things will get worse before they get better. Time, opportunities and lives may be lost.
If there is no happy middle within the progressive left, there is also no real center ground in centrist democratic leadership to hold on to. What is the use of crying for team spirit when the "team" doesn't seem to stand for anything? Of course, we all know who/what the real culprit is. Actual representation for and of the people has been replaced by money interests in both parties. I propose a valid idea. The Democratic Party needs to adopt a strategy to Repeal Citizens United?
Post a Comment