The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Advocacy groups push candidates into unpopular positions.
Advocacy groups have a mission. They want to test the edges of the politically possible and move a policy from "extreme" into "mainstream." What may be a politically viable position in a congressional district in New York City may be a deeply unpopular one in a swing district.
Advocacy groups want candidate victories, but their interests are not identical to those of candidates. A candidate loss is a policy setback, but the new, worse status quo can lay the groundwork for future victories. In the loss, the advocacy group is more necessary than ever. Look how bad things are! Funds pour in. They are not trying to lose. They are trying to make a point. Candidate casualties prove they are testing what is possible. Without casualties maybe they would be leaving something on the table.
There are advocacy groups pushing the envelope on many sides of the political divide.
***Team red: Right to Life. National Rifle Association. Family Research Institute (favors criminalizing homosexuality). New iterations of the KKK.
***Team blue: NARAL. League of Conservation Voters. Wilderness Society. Americans Against Fracking. Gender Justice League. GLADD. Public employee unions.
In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, left-oriented individuals and groups demanded that Democratic candidates raise their hands for a position that was broadly unpopular: An unenforced southern border and free health care for people here illegally. Debate moderator Lester Holt asked candidates, "Raise your hands if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants." They all raised their hands.
Donald Trump pushed Democrats; if Trump was for it, it had to be wrong. "Medicare for All" pushed Democrats. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defined anything less than Medicare for All as a sell-out. The George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020 quoted spokespeople saying "violence is the language of the oppressed." It conflated protests with violence. Looting was somehow payback or reparations. This was deeply unpopular, but Democratic messaging against it was muddled.
On the political right, the National Rifle Association advocates nationwide concealed carry of handguns, near-unrestricted access to AR-15s, and it opposes laws requiring the safe storage of guns. Those are unpopular positions, but on-mission for the NRA. Anti-abortion advocates have momentum in the wake of the Texas law essentially ending abortions in Texas. That is unpopular to the general voting public.
Advocacy groups have endorsements to award, money to direct, mailing lists to contact. They seek candidates who are on board with their agenda. Then, in a phrase that reflects their sense of power and purpose, to "hold officeholders' feet to the fire." Those candidates are forced to defend their support for the least popular position of the advocacy group, e.g. a so-called "live birth" 22nd-week abortion or the right of a mentally ill person with a history of spousal abuse to buy and carry an AR-15. These are rare and extreme cases, and outrageous caricatures of typical abortion or gun use. That is why opponents use those examples.
Candidates are reluctant to disagree with activist friends and groups. That reluctance distracts politicians from the rootedness of public sentiment. In Oregon, Democratic state and local officeholders were unwilling to make sharp disagreement with friends aligned with the George Floyd protests, so they did not clearly communicate their opposition to a long summer of looting and arson. They are paying a price for that.
I have stopped giving to advocacy group PACs. I prefer advocacy groups to move public opinion, not to demand candidates lose gloriously after advocating positions they are pushed into. Advocacy groups act like bullies. I prefer candidates who stay clear of advocacy PACs, even ones I generally like. Democratic and non-affiliated voters in swing states tell polls that Democrats are "preachy" and "judgmental." I want that to be untrue. How to do that? Democrats shouldn't be preachy and judgmental.
Fortunately for Democrats, Republican candidates and officeholders have a parallel problem with their own advocacy groups. The NRA and Right to Life and anti-gay groups are bad, but not the worst of it. Trump is. Candidates dare not say that Trump attempted to overthrow the election and was wrong to do it. They are stuck with their leader. Their feet are held to the fire.
5 comments:
You are describing the system that presents us with a choice between both parties’ worst candidates. There’s got to be a better way.
On the other hand, let’s be grateful for what we’ve got. Just think, instead of being stuck with an old statesman who spent his life serving his country but is known for his gaffes, we could be enjoying the political freak show put on by an old pussy grabber who “fell in love” with Kim Jong-un, groveled before Putin and lies compulsively every day.
A lot of the problems that Peter mentions stem from the “reforms“ of the early 1970s, when both parties replaced “smoke-filled rooms“ with primaries.
The idea was that by taking decisions about which candidates to nominate away from the party leaders, we would have more “democracy.” The actual effect, as we have seen, is to empower the extremes in both parties, given that only the most motivated vote in primaries. Turnout in primaries is very low.
This is how we get candidates on both sides that can only be described as amazing crackpots. Democratic party leaders would never have nominated someone like AOC. Republican party leaders would never have nominated Marjorie Taylor Greene or Donald Trump.
There is a quote I never can find, which I believe may have been from Edmund Burke, so I will paraphrase it:
A system does 100 important things, but does each of them poorly. A reformer notices only 5 of those things, and invents a system that will do those 5 things superbly well. If the reformer is unlucky enough to actually implement his ideas, he will watch in horror as the system dies in a twitching heap because it didn’t to the other 95 things at all.
Reformers in the early 1970s got rid of the “smoke-filled rooms.“ And here we are…
These groups are not perfect, but it seems that they provide a pressure point against a system that tramples on minorities and the disadvantaged.
None of the rights of women, African Americans, and LGBTQ would be moving forward without those who are on the front lines pushing for change. Without their passion for justice we'd still be in the Victorian age.
I don't see the same value in permitless open carry and banning Toni Morrison.
Maybe Progressives are "preachy"...isn't that a virtue? Isn't preaching speaking to higher moral values? What are we to think of those who don't like it.
Maybe a twinge of conscience?
I think Peter may need to just do better homework before making any contributions.
Is it the advocacy groups that are asking politicians to raise their hands during debates, or forcing them to raise their hands? No.
I doubt anyone who is not working for that particular advocacy group who agrees with all of said group's positions.
I have a problem with groups that intentionally mislead the public. Right to Life is antiabortion. Other than that, it doesn't do anything to protect life - such as support access to vaccines and healthcare for children, or campaign against the death penalty.
Rick has a good point. If it weren't for the persistent pressure of social justice warriors, the South's economy would probably still be based on the blood, sweat and tears of slaves.
Post a Comment