In Defense of Stay at Home Progressives, Part 2

I received a comment to my post In Defense of Stay st Home Progressives that prompts a follow-up.

Here’s the pertinent part of the comment:

We can’t always get the best or sometimes even the second best. So you make the best of a weak lot and try to use the primaries to help get progressives in. One assumption made by more than a few, is to let the Dems lose big for a few cycles and then come back with real Dems. That fails to realize that more Federalist judges would be appointed to courts and even the SCOTUS and the things progressives want will never be attainable again. Right wing laws would be passed and codified and the plutocracy would be forever entrenched, unlike the 1880s when change was ultimately possible.

Put the part about judges aside, as judicial appointments flow from presidential elections, and progressives tend to hold their noses and vote on the presidency.

I wholeheartedly agree that the ideal way to address the problem of cynical reps who sell out their base is the primary process. But the same folks who condemn progressives for abstention also condemn the use of the primary process against such a rep. Indeed, establishment Democrats have made a mockery of the primary process. The DCCC and other arms of the Democratic establishment never stay out of primaries involving an incumbent Dems. Indeed, the DCCC often steps into open seat primaries to help the more “electable” (translation: conservative) of the primary contestants. Down With Tyranny documents this phenomenon on an almost daily basis.

In any case, if the concern is that the plutocracy not be “forever entrenched,” I submit that the commenter has it precisely backwards. Voting for Democrats who are in the hip pocket of the plutocracy will not loosen the hold of the plutocracy on our political system, it will tighten it.

The plutocracy currently is highly entrenched. Why? Because it has the support in both parties. The political battlefield largely is limited to issues that mean little or nothing to the plutocracy. Yes, the support for the plutocracy is more consistent among Republicans, but it may be the Chuck Schumers, Max Baucuses and Mary Landrieus who do the most damage carrying water for the plutocracy.

In this respect, the Democratic primary process is not the mirror image of the Republican primary process. Moneyed interests will support the Tea Party extremists because they’re often right in step with the plutocracy on the issues that count. Thus, a Republican primary pitting an establishment type against a Tea Partier can be a relatively equal contest in terms of funding. And when a Tea Party candidate with any viability wins a primary, he’ll find support from the Republican establishment in the general, as long as he keeps his crazy reasonably in check.

Not so on the Democratic side. An establishment Democrat will have the support of Democratic money, whereas a progressive will not. And, if the progressive does manage to squeak past the primary, the Democratic establishment will snub him. Remember what happened to Ned Lamont after beating Joe Lieberman in a primary?

Now, consider the effect when a Dem votes with conservatives on an issue of economic justice. The apologists for such a Dem will point out that “it’s a tough district” and “it didn’t impact the outcome of the vote.” Maybe, but what it does do, with damaging effect, is impact the perception of the vote. When 30 craven House Democrats vote with the Republicans, the vote becomes “bi-partisan”. The result? The legislation is considered centrist in approach. It finds substantial support in both parties. And those who oppose the legislation? They’re now considered closer to the extreme political left than they would be if the Democratic caucus had stood firmly against the legislation.

Presume, for sake of argument, that those 30 craven Democrats are in the 30 toughest D seats to defend. When those 30 Democrats cast their “safe” votes, consider what they do to the Democrat sitting in the 31st toughest seat to defend. That Democrat is now far more easily attacked. How does it impact him on the next vote?

From this perspective, if you have a choice between a Democrat who carries water for the plutocracy and a Republican who does, you’re better off with the Republican. At least in that case the legislation that results can be depicted as the plutocratic garbage that it is, and the corruption of the party supporting it can be placed at issue.

Lastly, consider the use of the primary process as a vehicle to avoid “losing big for a few cycles.” In the short-term, the primary process could cause Democrats to do exactly that. The current center of the political spectrum is far to the right of ideological center. It easily could take a cycle or two for truly progressive views to become acceptable to the voting majority. So, if the goal is to reach a progressive majority, there may be no way around suffering temporary setbacks.

But maybe that’s not all bad. After all, real change will not occur through the electoral process alone. We’re going to need the pressure of a sustained Occupy-like movement. And what better crucible in which to bring a mass movement to a boil?

As I said at the intro to my previous post, this is not an easy call. There’s real logic behind the position of stay at home progressives. They should not be dismissed as irrational dreamers.