Matt Stoller doesn’t like that I think a purge of the Democratic party is suicidal, but he decided to argue it dishonestly.
Here’s what I said:
I don’t agree with his vote, but apparently now Dennis Kucinich is not progressive enough and must be challenged in a primary. Because he voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. Dennis Kucinich.
Yes, that Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis Kucinich ain’t pure enough for these liberal purity purges, these folks are going to end up with a really, really, really small Democratic party.
Here’s what Stoller posted on his blog:
I’ll randomly pick Oliver Willis, who suggested in response to the same line of posts Sullivan discussed that primaries are ideological purges and that the only reason I could think a primary against Kucinich was a positive development is that Kucinich is not progressive enough for me. When I confronted him and pointed out his illiberal impulses, Willis’s rationale changed, and he then returned to the premise that primaries waste time and resources.
Now, of course, I didn’t change my rationale at all. But his comment didn’t refute my main idea that a primary for primary’s sake against a guy like Dennis Kucinich for not being progressive enough was idiotic. In addition to that rationale, it is a waste of time and resources. I am able to hold both ideas in my head at one time. What Stoller is saying here though is that if you’re against one, fruitless, useless, primary, you’re against the very idea of primaries.
That sounds almost as simplistic as an argument Bush would make.
Look, I wish every area in this country was as forward thinking and progressive as Montgomery County, Maryland, where I live. But that simply isn’t the case. As such, a political party – in order to gain power – must run a candidate in a district with a snowball’s chance of winning. You’re not going to get Heath Shulers elected to office in Maryland, nor are you going to get Dennis Kuciniches elected in North Carolina. That’s just a fact.
In 2006 the Democrats decided to compete across the board and threw away the litmus tests and pushed candidates all over the country. As a result they won the House and Senate and elected Pelosi and Reid to leadership positions.
Now, I don’t like the way a lot of the more conservative Democrats vote on issues, but the idea that the remedy to this is a primary challenge is – in most cases - a surefire recipe to give the seat to a Republican. Many of these seats are in Democratic-hostile regions, and they won election by the skin of their teeth (Shuler won 54-46). You give them a primary challenger and even if they win, they’re beaten up in resources and in the local media – softening them up for a Republican, who already has inherit advantages in the district.
What I would prefer is a strategy of going after Democrats gone astray. Here in Maryland, for instance, Albert Wynn should have a much more progressive voting record. Instead he’s pro-corporate, anti-working Marylander. Yet, his district is overwhelming Democratic. Right now he’s being challenged by Donna Edwards, and the real race is the primary. If Edwards wins, she will be the congressional representative. Through the primary process you’ve made the congress more progressive without shooting the party in the foot.
But because I didn’t agree with Stoller’s reasoning, he dismissed it with a wave of his hand as being anti-primary.
What I would prefer is a strategy of going after Democrats gone astray.
Like Kucinich, who has a history of voting his conscience when his party needs him most?
Now, I don’t like the way a lot of the more conservative Democrats vote on issues, but the idea that the remedy to this is a primary challenge is – in most cases – a surefire recipe to give the seat to a Republican.
Which is likely to happen in a district that routinely votes for Dennis Kucinich?
I don’t necessarily disagree with you re. primary strategy, Oliver, but I don’t think you thought this post through. Kucinich, as a problem Democrat, would make a fine target–the “not progressive enough” line is something you made up out of whole cloth and you know it.
In 2006 the Democrats decided to compete across the board and threw away the litmus tests and pushed candidates all over the country.
I agree with you with respect to the issue with Matt Stoller, but this statement is preposterous.
The Democrats didn’t decide anything. Various Democrats did various things; there was in fact a split on whether the key issue, Iraq, should even be front and center. Up until a few weeks before the election, the Beltway “leadership” were still clutching their hankies over the damage the anti-Iraq forces in their party might do to their chances.
There was not even agreement on whether to compete across the board. Before, during and after the campaign, there were regular reports that the Beltway Democrats, primarily Emanuel and Schumer, were distressed that Dean and the DNC were sabotaging the Democrats by insisting that the party compete everywhere.
What litmus tests did the Democrat throw away? They never had any litmus tests. For better or worse, the Democratic Party in America doesn’t have that kind of unity on any single issue.
The Democrats’ “success” in 2006 was by default. The Republicans failed. Led by the Idiot Prince, wrapped tightly to an unpopular war, stained by corruption, the Republicans could not maintain their control of the congress. Hardly a surprise and definitely not the result of any effective campaign by the Democrats.
My impression is that Kucinich’s West Cleveland district is culturally to his right, a blue collar, Reagan Democrat union shop kind of place. Not exactly Cindy Sheehan country, certainly not Takoma Park. NOT a liberal cultural enclave. Kucinich probably represents the high-water mark of possible left-wing politics for that district. He’s no Al Wynn and more importantly it’s not Montgomery or even Prince George’s County.
You asserted that I am pleased there is a primary against Kucinich because he isn’t progressive enough. That is false and was not my argument. I do not particularly care about his ideology nor do I have a position in the race. Now, it’s possible that ‘the primary is a waste of time and resources’ is your rationale, but that is a different argument than your first rationale against a primary challenge. These are not of course inconsistent arguments, as one could see a primary both as an unwarranted ideological attack and as a resource diversion, but the ideological claim is simply false.
To make it extra super duper clear, once again, I do not particularly care about Kucinich’s ideology nor do I have a position in the primary. I just think primaries are good things because they make voters and candidates more engaged. I welcome a debate on that level since it’s useful to hash out resource questions.