I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

-Martin Luther King, Jr.,  Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

The following is the second of two commentaries I recently shared with the rest of our Democratic Town Committee.  Several people replied to my initial commentary.  Thoughtful replies but I disagreed with a couple points:

1. That there weren’t substantive differences between Sanders and Clinton on policy issues and
2. That we need to work appealing to “non-partisan”/”independent” voters

While there’s significant common ground between the Sanders and Clinton camps (e.g., strongly pro-choice, civil rights, voting rights) there are profound differences when it comes to what we want when it comes to legislation and public policy.   I’ll attempt to speak for the Sanders side (but emphasizing issues that are particularly important to me).   A short list of priorities and my perception of where Clinton stood/the Clinton wing stands:

• Priority:  End the state of perpetual war.   Look to diplomacy before war.  Perception:  While Clinton apologized for her Iraq War vote she appeared to have learned nothing from it.   She continued to advocate aggressive foreign policy positions while in government, see, e.g., Libya and Syria.
• Priority:  Rein in big banks and, more generally, the financialization of the US economy.  Perception:  Clinton and the institutional party are comfortable with top-down control of capital and it’s impact on people’s ability to control the course of their lives, so long as executives are progressive on social issues.   I don’t see the Clinton-wing ever getting behind a financial transactions tax or a 21st Glass-Steagall act or being aggressive on prosecuting white collar crime (e.g., people responsible for the 2008 crisis).
• Priority:  Affordable health care for all.  Single-payer looks like the best bet but open to other possibilities.  Perception:  ACA is good enough – very concerned about 23 mil who will lose coverage under AHCA but minimal concern for 28 mil who currently have no coverage as ACA didn’t work for them.
• Priority:  Trade agreements which prioritize workers and environment over capital.   Perception:  To her credit, she came around to oppose the TPP.   That stated, if left to their own devices I believe that wing of the party would support it with considerable enthusiasm.   The acid test:  “With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe that NAFTA was good or bad for the US and Mexico?  Why do you believe what you believe?“
• Priority:  Stop the devastation of our environment.  Perception:   At the leadership level (less so among rank-and-file I think) the Clinton wing of party pays lip service to environmental issues but when faced with a choice between making money and the environment will choose making money every time.

All:  I encourage you to rebut those perceptions if you believe they’re off-base.   If I’ve left off key Sanders (Sanders/Warren?) wing priorities or misstated them then please edit the list.   Also, I’d value a list like the above with Clinton-wing priorities with perceptions of the Sander-wing on those issues.   My intent is to get differences out in the open and to negotiate a mutually-agreeable path forward.   (And if you think it’s all water under the bridge then say so to.)

On to the merits of attempting to appeal to “non-partisan”/”independent” voters.   I would like for them to join us but I have no enthusiasm for making particular efforts to win them over.   Why?  Because they consistently demonstrate godawful judgment.   Let’s look back to the turn of the millennium…  A sizeable fraction of “non-partisan”/”independent” voters liked Bush because he’d be good to have a beer with.   How’d that work out?  Initial support for the Iraq War was what?  >90% ?   That despite the fact that the premise of it was based on lies, lies that were obvious to anyone who care to pay attention.   Beyond the specifics of the Iraq War, I’ll wager that most of those precious independents are entirely with our (for lack of a better word) imperialist foreign policy.   They’re fine with bombing the shit out of other countries so long as the bombs don’t fall on them.   Do we say, “Well, okay, I suppose we’ll go along.”?

How many non-partisans/independents lift a goddamn finger when it comes to doing something about gun violence?   How many of them consciously think about what legislation candidates will support for the sake of reducing gun violence when they (independent voters) pull the lever in the voting booth.   Second Amendment rights?  You bet!  Make it a bit more difficult to massacre schoolchildren?  No thanks, too pinko.  I look at the composition of Congress and state legislatures and I say to myself, “Independents don’t give a rat’s ass about actually reducing gun violence.  Lip service is enough for them.”

How many independents/non-partisans had Obama’s back when the fiscal stimulus bill was coming up?  How many said “Yeah, this is an appropriate time for government to spend more on goods and services people need in order to compensate for depressed private sector demand?”  How many said that as opposed to “We can’t increase the deficit!  That’d be irresponsible!   We’ll turn into Greece!”   (BTW, the two things we can do that would “turn us into Greece” are 1) giving up control of our currency, e.g., by adopting the gold standard, and 2) not collecting taxes, e.g., either by disempowering the IRS or by slashing tax rates.  Greece has high tax rates but only chumps actually pay their taxes.)

Bottom line:   I support engaging independents to try to win them over but history suggests that their judgment sucks shit.   Under no circumstances should we be deferential to other people’s awful judgment, even that’s what it would take to get them to like us.   We should engage them with the goal of helping them to develop better judgment.

My preferred path forward is to make forceful arguments for what we believe – e.g., end the state of perpetual war, affordable health care for all, unqualified support of a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have children, a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work (e.g., $15/hr minimum wage), phase out fossil fuels – and engage natural allies.   I hope we can win others over but I don’t think it makes sense to expend much time and energy trying to win over people who, history suggests, are unlikely to ever be more than fair weather friends.   Reach out to people who, if we do right by them, will stick with us even if we don’t always agree.   Let’s focus our efforts on winning over people who will make the Democratic party their party and try to make it more to their liking rather people who will leave the moment they encounter something which makes them uncomfortable.

Chris