A criticism of the AZ Democratic Party

by David Safier

I am both astonished and dismayed by the passivity of the Arizona Democratic Party right now. I have kept my ear to the ground, I have read every Media Release and email I could find from the party and from politicians over the past few days, and I have found little that was worth the effort. What I have seen and heard from most Democratic quarters is shockingly bland.

I can only assume the party has decided not to touch the issue of the violence-laden language which has pervaded state and national politics, the vast majority of which comes from the Right. If that is a conscious decision by Democratic leaders, I imagine their rationale is as follows. Even though Democrats are suffering through a nightmarish tragedy which has led to inevitable and understandable feelings of pain and outrage, it is best to adopt a calm, compassionate demeanor. Though this may be exactly the right time to condemn the escalating use of violent rhetoric on the Right, something virtually all Democrats agree about, it's best to do no harm. After all, the media is picking up the topic of excessively violent language and imagery in right wing politics, and the Party should let others do the work without interfering. Any chiming in from prominent Arizona Democrats could be a distraction or, worse, it could give the Right a target to deflect the discussion to accusations of the Democrats' attempts to politicize a tragedy. Who knows, the Right might even be able to spin what we say to their advantage.

Democrats decided to say nothing. In other words, at a moment when Arizona Democrats are in the national spotlight, they have decided to stand for nothing. That's what the voters see, a party afraid to express outrage or formulate a strong, coherent message. By deciding to "do no harm," Democrats are showing once again that they are afraid to take a stand, and are doing themselves a great deal of political harm as a result.

This is reminiscent of the 2010 elections, when most Democratic candidates avoided taking strong stands against SB1070. So far as I know, the party didn't even formulate coherent language to express opposition to the bill. The rationale was, I expect, any attention brought to the issue would only further harm Democrats, so the less said the better. Most Democrats decided to do no harm and said as little as possible.

When Democrats decided to say next to nothing about SB1070, in the eyes of the voters, they stood for nothing.

Obviously, Democrats' caution didn't work so well in the elections. Would the results have been better if more Democrats had said, "Agree with me or not, I'm strongly against SB1070" and had some clear, well phrased reasons which were stated often enough by enough candidates that voters knew Democrats are willing to take a stand? Maybe so, though it's also possible the results might have been even worse. But at least the voters would see Democrats standing for something. If that didn't pay immediate dividends, it would pay dividends down the line.

In these two examples, Democrats said: (a) Shut up about SB1070, because the cards are stacked against us so we'll only make things worse if we say anything, and (b) Shut up about the Right's use of violent language in politics, because the cards are stacked in our favor and we don't want to blow it.

The message to voters is, Democrats are cowards who say nothing and stand for nothing.

Sheriff Dupnik is out there doing heroic work, saying what needs to be said. He's being interviewed on television, even on Fox News, and he's quoted in papers across the country. He's being taken very seriously. Where is the support from the Democratic Party? Where are the Democrats defending him from attacks from the Right? Where are Democrats who are using the opening Dupnik has given them to discuss this pressing issue?

It's not necessary to blame Republicans for the horrific shooting. No one will ever sift through the myriad causes of Loughner's actions and come up with definitive answers as to what pushed him over the edge. But this is a moment we should not let slip. Nothing will make the tragedy less tragic, nothing will ease the feelings of pain and loss, but it's very possible something good can come out of a forceful condemnation of the escalation of violent language and imagery in politics. Democrats should not be afraid to say what is true: that most of the purveyors of violent imagery are Republicans. It may be "partisan" to tell the truth about what's going on, but strong statements, like those Dupnik and others have made, are not part of the inflamed rhetoric that is harming the country. They are a forceful attempt to spotlight a genuine problem and either convince or shame those who resort to this kind of dangerous rhetoric to stop. Forceful condemnation of this kind of language says, You will pay a political price if you resort to violent language and imagery in your quest for political power. We will not sit silently and let you get away with it.

Right now, Democrats in Arizona are shying away from the kind heated argument this country needs and deserves on this important issue at just the moment their voices can have the greatest impact. Call it cowardice. Call it calculation. Either way, the Democrats' decision is bad for the Party, bad for the state and bad for the country.