Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Twit Fears, Creates Firing Squad

Prepare your keyboard for a flood of wet salty tears:

For the second time in less than a week, a Democratic leader is calling on liberal groups to back off in their efforts to target moderate Democrats who have been skeptical of President Barack Obama's ambitious budget.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen ... said that a wide range of attack ads by groups like could hurt potentially vulnerable Democrats in their 2010 races.

“What I’ve been warning people very clearly is, beware of forming a circular firing squad,” Van Hollen said. “We believe people should be focusing their efforts on expanding the Democratic majority, and that should be their singular focus."
To which three responses seem appropriate -- a short one, a longer one, and a tactical one:
  • Fuck you, Chris Van Hollen, you whiny, craven twit.
  • Any political party that defines its "singular focus" as expanding the number of seats held by its nominal members deserves a well-armed circular firing squad. Such a party is not worth expanding since, by definition, it is not expanding for any nameable purpose beyond mere expansion -- this is the political program of the cancer cell. Such a party is no longer even a party as properly understood, but a pointless sort of pyramid scheme or subscription service.
  • What's to say the "potentially vulnerable Democrats" for whom you shed such wet salty tears would not benefit from liberal activism? Wouldn't some criticism from the left achieve the triangulation so beloved by "moderate," craven, whiny, Democrats? For that matter, what's to say that people will want to vote for the candidate from party A over the candidate from party B, when candidate A promises to spend his time ignoring his own party's commitments and pursuing compromises, concessions, and surrenders to party B's program? Why not just vote for the candidate from party B in the first place? Or consider this tactic: what if these "moderates" place their "singular focus" on making things better? When did being able to say to voters, "our party and my votes helped bring needful changes and demonstrable benefits" become something other than a promising political tactic?
Politicians who campaign as Democrats should take time to review the party's platform. It came about through a democratic process of give and take; any given Democrat should expect to agree with parts and disagree with parts. But nominal Democrats who disagree with substantial portions of that platform should exit the party, not moan at people who expect them not to subvert it.

No comments: