An open letter to my Party
OK. So long-shot becomes inevitable and inevitable becomes impossible. Hillary Clinton’s historic moment came and went, or hasn’t happened yet. I would betray my bias if I admitted that I am rolling my eyes a bit today as I think about all the smug Obama people, their BAs still warm from the printer, with their cargo shorts and clipboards. So I won’t, and it’s beside the point anyway. The point is that we are not the party of tired old men. No matter who our favorites have been (mine was actually Richardson—what a long time a year is!), we can all be proud of what we have shown to a watching world.
I’m still not sure which side I’m on in the good-for-democracy argument that has been all over this particularly close, particularly contentious (by contemporary standards, anyway) Clinton/Obama contest. The high voter turnout that has characterized the season is a good symptom. It indicates energy, initiative, and, most importantly, a belief that things can change, can get better if people will it to be so. Those things are enemies of cynicism, and cynicism is the enemy of a functioning democracy. If people won’t say what they want, be it because they don’t know, or don’t think it’s possible, or don’t care if they get it or not, it’s hard for the government to deliver. I’m not sure that we have said, conclusively, what it is we want, but we’ve at least pledged that we will. That, as Democrats, we care about figuring it out. In that pledge, the organism of democracy stirs, breathes, and lives.
This all sounds pretty high-minded, and it is, but I have a confession to make. My hesitation in the good-for-democracy argument is basically because what is good for democracy is not necessarily good for Democrats, electorally speaking. Of course I want the democratic process to thrive, but I want it to do so in a way that will deliver a Democrat to the White House. At the bottom of it all, I’m a partisan. I would be able to express purer ideas perhaps, and more original ones definitely, if I weren’t. But I am, and partisanship, in my case, means that I believe that we are all basically better off when a Democrat—any Democrat, nearly—is elected, and that how much better off we are is roughly proportional to the scope of the office he or she (!) assumes.
I have forfeited my right, and thankfully, my obligation, to have any specific ideas about the strategy involved in getting someone elected. After having a fairly marginal role in a single campaign, I left professional politics for the armchair. I had the heart for it, but not the stomach. So I’ll speak from the former.
We are the party of the educated middle class, but we are also the party of new arrivals, of people trapped in the closing walls of generational poverty, of laborers and single parents and people who always get their own seat on the subway because they smell. Not every single one of these people will vote in November, but if we say that our party is big enough to hold the weak, the radical, and the marginalized, we have to mean it. Some things are too important.
So, to the Obama people: Congratulations on a fair and square win. Have a drink and toast yourselves and your hero. But just one. The smugness and the pumping fists are just annoying to people like me, and absolutely alienating to people like the ones in the paragraph above. You can afford to annoy people like me who will vote Democrat no matter what, but you can’t afford to alienate people who have nowhere to turn. And furthermore, you shouldn’t want to. In short, less audacity, more hope, please.
To the Clinton people: I have loved the idea of shaking up good-ole-boy Washington as much as anyone. You are still as much a part of this historical moment as you were yesterday, before Obama got his magic number. You still get credit for half of it. It’s time now, though, for the stiff upper lip. You, too, should have a drink and toast what could have been. But, for you too, just one. If you are going to say that Clinton’s campaign has been about the “other” Democrats, you have have to mean it. Because they still need a president.
To my party: Among the things that makes us the party of the angels is that we perseverate on an ideal of fairness. It is also part of our difficulty in getting our people to Washington. It’s tempting for us all to continue to squabble and gloat and lament about who is on the top of the ticket and why and how and by how many votes and by which bylaws. But if we do, we risk losing sight of the enormous historical possibility which has been offered to us. In the end, it’s us or the tired old men. Which will it be?
Too often we Democrats have been the spiritual heirs of Henry Clay—the guy who said he “had rather be right than president.”
The need to be right, specifically to be in tune with the correctness du jour, has been endemic in our party for a generation. It has a lot to do with our ending up with eight years of Dubya.