This is the debate Democrats are continuing to have following the 2016 losses.
As Democrats attempt to craft a winning message for 2018 and beyond, the internal debate within the Party is focused on how far left they should or must move the Party’s messaging. The debate spans issues from women’s reproductive choice to support for globalization and trade.
The much larger question is whether the Party can move left and simultaneously remain a big tent that includes a broad range of viewpoints. For instance, is there room for pro-life candidates in our party?
Recently we saw an example of how compromising on issues played out in the Omaha mayoral race with the campaign support by Senator Sanders. Heath Mello, the Democrat running for Omaha mayor had a record supporting pro-life, anti-abortion positions. Yet he also had a strong progressive message on many other issues and had the overwhelming backing of a diverse group of Democratic caucus groups. Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Mello and came to Omaha to appear with him at a campaign event. Sanders received considerable backlash from many Democrats, especially pro-choice advocates, but Sanders defended Mello’s overall progressive record.
“If you have a rally in which you have the labor movement and environmentalists and Native Americans and the African American community and the Latino community coming together saying, ‘We want this guy (Mello) to become our next mayor,’ should I reject going there to Omaha?” Sanders asked. “I don’t think so. It was a great rally, and I hope very much he wins.”
Following the event Sen. Sanders defended his backing of Mello. Sanders reminded Democrats that he has been a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood funding and pro-choice candidates. He made an exception for Mello because he was by far the superior candidate to the Republican on other progressive issues. Sanders understands that in a red state like Nebraska electing an imperfect Democrat advances progressive goals more than electing another conservative Republican.
This is the question Democrats must answer. Can Democrats push a powerful progressive agenda yet have a large enough tent to accept candidates that may deviate occasionally from that agenda?
Sanders demonstrated that Democrats can be the Party that promotes progressive values while accepting candidates that may not follow the Democratic Platform 100% of the time. This year’s Democratic Platform is one of the most progressives in years but it’s a roadmap to a goal not a contract signed in blood.
Women’s reproductive rights are just one of many issues that Democrats may need to agree to disagree on, without blowing up the Democratic Party. Is there room for candidates that believe free trade is essential for economic growth? Is accepting corporate and PAC campaign funds unacceptable even if the money comes from Unions or corporations run by liberals? (That’s a column for another day.) Can progressives accept candidates they agree with 80-90% of the time or will they attempt to purge them from the party?
Answering these questions will likely determine how successful Democrats will be in winning back red America. We know that with the Trump win much of the country including Iowa has turned markedly more red. If the Democratic Party is moving further left and the country is moving further right, how can Democrats win in future elections? Can Democrats win in red America or a redder Iowa without acknowledging that a strict progressive agenda may not win over the rural voters necessary to be successful?
Former Majority leader Mike Gronstal was a master at protecting vulnerable Democratic Senators from defeat in rural Iowa. If one specific issue would jeopardize a Democratic Senator’s reelection in his home district Gronstal would attempt to find the needed vote elsewhere.
Remember, all politics is local and occasionally candidates must compromise to meet the needs of local citizens on certain issues. Look at all the different positions local Iowa municipalities and counties implemented on the new firework’s law. Democrats generally opposed legalizing fireworks and Republicans generally supported legalization but it was far from unanimous by either Party.
Remember, even Senator Sanders was forced to compromise on gun control laws in Vermont where guns are part of their state’s culture. Senator Sanders was accused of bending on gun control measures because he supported local gun stores policies. No one would accuse Sanders of violating the progressive agenda because he compromised on gun control laws in Vermont.
Politics is the art of compromise and abandoning that essential feature will end in gridlock. That’s exactly where the Republican Party is today. They have rejected compromise and as a result they can’t even find common ground within their own party. If Democrats follow that same path and insist on their candidate’s pledge of uncompromising Party purity on every issue, they will meet the same dead end.
It certainly appears the majority of the party is ready to embrace a more forceful progressive agenda. We saw the Clinton campaign move considerably to the left during the 2016 cycle due to the influence of the Sanders’ electoral successes. It appears the party is continuing that momentum toward a more left of center position.
There seems to be wide spread agreement that the party must move to the left. We know that based on the enthusiasm Senator Sanders generated among young people and independents with his progressive messages. Democrats are hungry for more aggressively progressive ideas. Clearly, Sanders campaign’s focus on promoting hard left issues like the fight for $15, unfair trade agreements, free college tuition, ending corporate campaign donations, support for womens’ reproductive choice and single payer health care resonated with a large portion of the Democratic base.
It’s a false choice for Democrats to force candidates and elected officials to choose between a progressive agenda and embracing a big tent. They can have both! They must push their candidates and elected officials to passionately pursue their Party’s progressive agenda but be willing to occasionally compromise to drive that agenda forward. Democrats can’t win if they allow the perfect to get in the way of the good.
by Rick Smith
Posted 7/6/17
5 Comments on "Can Democrats Move Further Left And Retain The Big Tent?"
Last paragraph sums it all up. But there is a difference between embracing a little diversity in viewpoints (i.e. compromise) and accepting candidates who pander to get a vote.
In any case, I do have to take exception to one thing author Smith writes. He says, “No one would accuse Sanders of violating the progressive agenda because he compromised on gun control laws in Vermont.” Untrue. Sanders was dinged rather vociferously, about his stand on guns. And he got the flak from the Clinton camp AND the Progressives in his own camp. Purity tests just don’t work. We’ve had years and years of politics moving rightward. It’s gonna take time to move them back leftward. (now does this viewpoint mean I must turn in my progressive card?)
No one has to turn in their progressive card, moderate or traditional card.. There is room in the Democratic Party for people of all thoughts and viewpoints. If we don’t allow all points of view we won’t have to worry about who is left or who is right because the Democrats will have lost all of their clout in doing good things for people. We will lose all ability of producing thoughtful, mindful, mature candidates and office holders to govern our local, state and national governments. It is time for us to quit fighting over some of these issues and move on to a progressive, mindful, responsible agenda that will move people to better lives.
From my perspective the issue is not whether the position of the Democratic party is more Left or not, It is rather whether it articulates a vision that addresses the needs and imaginations of our citizens. In her article in the current issue of The nation magazine (July 3/10, 2017) Naomi Klein articulates this very clearly—“Daring to Dream in the Age of Trump.” as she points out “many of us are clearly ready” for an approach that articulates “a captivating ‘yes’ that lays out a plan for tangible improvements in daily life.” I believe if we do that it will cause an incredible uprising that will do much more for the party than all the requests for all of us to donate $$$!
I agree with the point this article makes, and Sanders view of things democratic !
Democrats don’t need more cheap talk about either big tents or progressive policies. They need a concise message to which voters can relate.
Republicans stand four-square for limited government–mostly through tax cuts for the rich. Democrats stand for everything else. And I do mean everything else. That’s why more and more Americans (and, especially, Iowans) ignore the party. Trump won Iowa in 2016 by more than he won Texas. Since the 2008 Iowa caucuses, Democrats have lost the governorship, control of the legislature and Senator Harkin’s seat. And all the while we’ve heard constant talk about big tent versus progressive ideas.
A focused message would require that Democrats set priorities. I realize that this is a very, very alien and strange concept. The GOP has done it with great effect, even though their policy positions are awful. How about Democrats agreeing on the three to five (and NO MORE) issues that will be MOST important to electing Democrats? Transgender bathroom rights might have to give way for at least one election cycle to economic policies that help the little guy. Such a choice assumes, of course, that Iowa Democrats would actually like to win some elections going forward.