|
Edited on Wed May-24-06 12:55 PM by welshTerrier2
with a few notable exceptions aside, most of us seem to accept the democratic premise that it's OK to fight hard within your own party, DURING THE PRIMARIES, for the candidate of your choice ...
but some add the tag line to that: but support the party after the primaries no matter what ...
i'm posting this with the hope that we can actually have a civil discussion about this ... i couldn't be less optimistic ... i'm afraid this will end up with one of those little "flame" icons and it will lead to nothing but more polarization ... but, i'd thought i would at least try to clarify voting strategies of those who MIGHT not support the ticket in the general election depending on the specific circumstances ...
let's start out simply accepting the fact that there are two divergent camps on this issue ... one is, "you have to support Dems in the general - do you want more republican rule?" ... OK ... that's clear enough ...
the other camp does NOT answer "there's no difference between the parties" ... the first camp seems unable to hear that message ... sure, a few may think that way but most do NOT ... of course there are important differences between the parties ... so, let's start there ...
so what's the deal with "camp 2"? are these "purists" (an absurd label) really coming from a "my way or the highway" all or nothing point of view? ... the answer is not black or white ...
i do NOT feel obligated to automatically vote for a Democrat in the general election if a candidate i supported in the primaries loses ... some think that's wrong ... they think "well, just cause you didn't win you're going to quit?" ... this fails to understand the reasoning of "non-automatics" ...
if my view is a "minority view" and it fails to gain adequate support in the primary, i don't change my view of the ISSUES i was supporting ... my commitment is NOT to party nor was it solely to the candidate i supported ... my commitment is to the issue ...
so, the question for me then becomes, "how important is this issue, or this group of issues, and what's the best way to fight for them" ... it does NOT say that there's no difference between the Dem and the republican ... it does NOT say that the Dem wouldn't be way better than the republican ... if you want to understand, you have to "get this" ...
so, what does it say? it says "if the Dem candidate actually strongly opposed the positions i care most about, even though they won in the primary, they are going to have to show some flexibility to "the minority" views or their election will further weaken the likelihood of seeing the changes i support ... FURTHER WEAKEN ...
the "automatic Democrats" don't want to put their emphasis on these issues in that way ... they want to have me focus on the "yeah, but what about all the other stuff" ... but that's the problem ... they don't get to choose the priorities of the issues i value ...
and, of course, the whole thing ends up in an unproductive screaming match ... the solution is to work for common ground ... the solution is to make sure that "minority constituencies" within the party can make at least some progress on their most critical issues ... if the door is slammed with a "deal with it!! my guy won", it's foolish not to expect some alienation and possible lack of support ...
rather than seeing those who MIGHT not support the ticket in the general election in negative ways, and some will refuse to accept that, it would be wiser to do all that can reasonably be done to find a way to compromise ... absent that, you'll get what you'll get ... "non-automatics" aren't you're enemies; they're your potential supporters ...
OK, there you go ... try not to whine and scream ... real discourse might actually build a little party unity ...
|