The Struggle Continues: Getting On Board vs. Not Good Enough

The Struggle Continues: Getting On Board vs. Not Good Enough

About three months ago I was at a fundraiser in Iowa City and the conversation turned to the governor's race and pragmatism vs. idealism, or "Fallon's platform is great but he can't win." I realized that I will be having conversations like that at events like that for the rest of my life, as Progressives debate Good Enough vs. Not Good Enough.

The conversation is underway at high levels. Kyle the political madman has a wonderful post up about last week's Culver-Fallon meeting. He was one of the staffers in the room and I won't crib any of it. Just read it.

Thate conversation also continues on a couple of Iowa City's hotter political listservs. These folks are friends of mine and the opinions diverge wildly.

Richard Shannon:

Let me ask the obvious question - why is the objective to do everything we can to defeat Nussle?

It amazes me that year after year progressives refuse to learn an obvious lesson.

A group of people support a candidate in the primary process. The candidate does not win, but rather a main stream centrist candidate who may call him/herself a Democrat but might as well be a Republican wins. Then everyone says the progressives need to circle the wagons around the Democrat.

Surprise surprise - two, four, six years later the same scenario happens.

You have to wonder if real progressives continued to vote their politics instead of compromising - just maybe some of this would be stopped.

As long as centrist Democrats know they can count on progressives to give it up and support their candidate - the party will never change.

I would rather have the short term misery of an all Republican Iowa - than the long term misery of who ever the straight white boys in charge of the Democratic party think is elect-able.

Thomas Frank wrote a great book called "What's the Matter with Kansas". The principle being many Republican are voting against their economic interests for a party that never does what is says it will.

I would suggest that progressives are voting against their core values to support a party that never does what it says it will.

The only difference I can see between a progressive and a right wing
republican is that the progressive may recycle their paper products. Both
are used to their ultimate disadvantage by centrist politicians - and both
refuse to see this.

Jeff Fields responds to the list in general:

It is very easy to gripe about how unprogressive the Democratic slate is, but the real questions are a) Is the Republican Party addressing your concerns, and b) what are you doing to ensure that the Democratic party addresses your concerns?

I supported Ed Fallon in the primary. As of June 7th, I'm backing Chet Culver for Governor. I am African American. I hate the death penalty. African American males have been disproportionately sentenced to death, and nearly every reversed death penalty conviction has been an African American male. Chet Culver is in favor of the death penalty. I am against it. However, I agree with him on most other issues, and on far more issues than Nussle. So, I support Chet Culver, and every time I see him, and he will be here several times between now and November, he will recieve a personal note from me, stating that I am a registered Democrat, I support his candidacy for Governor, and that I encourage him to reconsider his position on the death penalty before a single person is wrongfully put to death. My one voice may not change the tide, but if we all address our progressive concerns to Mr. Culver, perhaps we can make him see the light on our progressive issues.

Janelle Rettig had a letter, and passed copies around at yesterday's event. With her blessing I'll pass along the whole thing.

Dear Secretary Culver:

Congratulations on your victory in the Democratic Primary for Governor. The victory is a testament to your entire team.

You might recall that earlier this year I organized a meeting with you in Iowa City with members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and allied (GLBTA) community. I went into that meeting truly undecided on whom to support. When you discussed creating a civil rights justice package, I volunteered to assist you and your staff in creating strong language.

During our meeting with you, I became concerned that you didn't quite understand the difficulties and discrimination that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people face. You seemed vague on your commitments to support civil rights for GLBT people. It was also clear that you hadn't decided on what you were willing to support to help same-sex couples. However, I took heart in the fact that you seemed so willing to create a justice package for civil rights issues and have regular conversations with GLBTA folks.

I waited several weeks hoping to hear from you or your campaign about writing a justice package of ideas. I provided the campaign with lists of all attendees so they could reach out to us. But it was not to be. I decided to back Mike Blouin because of his strong commitment to changing the Iowa Civil Rights Code to include sexual orientation and gender identity and his support for civil unions for same-sex couples. Mike embraced the concerns of GLBT people and took positions on how to help us. Hundreds of GLBTA people supported Mike Blouin because of the lack of leadership coming out of your campaign.

Later when you appeared at the Des Moines Register Debate and took a position against civil unions, I knew I had made the right choice. You see same-sex couples are denied over 1,100 federal and over 500 state rights and responsibilities automatically granted to married couples. I've been with my partner over 17 years and I still can't have inheritance, insurance, social security, or the responsibilities of marriage, yet when Brittany Spears got married in Las Vegas in a drunken stupor she automatically had her relationship recognized by over 1,600 hundred laws in every state of the union.

Frankly, it should be a minimum requirement of a good Democrat to support civil unions. Civil Unions were created by politicians looking for a compromise between doing the right thing and ending marriage discrimination and doing what they thought the public would accept. During the years that we've had civil unions in Vermont, even some conservative elected officials have become supportive of civil unions, if not marriage. Actually support for true marriage equality is on an upward trend in national opinion polls.

Perhaps you are not quite ready for marriage equality, but you certainly should be supportive of civil unions. I believe with all of my being that I should be equal to Chet Culver in every way, shape, and form. I believe my 17 year commitment to Robin Butler is every bit as important to your commitment to your spouse.

I am ashamed that our Democratic Nominee for Governor has abandoned the principals of freedom and liberty to scapegoat gay and lesbian couples. I hope you can find room in your heart to truly think about these issues away from the glare of politics and find a place in your heart to embrace civil rights for all people. I remain available to discuss this with you in person and help you find a path to mend the discontent you created in the base by opposing civil unions.

I believe my friends that are elected officials and party leaders would tell you that I am a thoughtful and committed person, that I will give you a chance to grow on these issues. However, I hope you will reach out and embrace the learning experience as quickly as possible. A fractured base on civil rights will make the fall even more difficult.

With respect and hope,

Janelle Rettig

Meanwhile, Kevin Owens of the Greens chimes in with a note about their newly minted candidate - Wendy Barth, who seems to be another of those dedicated but unknown third party activists. (Not to diss any of her credentials that I may not know about.)

A couple points:

Iowa Dems would be damn smart to get behind legislation easing the standards for third parties. Joe Bolkcom introduces it every session and it dies from a combination of apathy and residual Nader bitterness. As it stands now (lawsuit pending), third parties have to run for top of the ticket races because that's the only way to get a G or an L on your voter card. It woulldn't hurt the big parties at all - in fact a progressive Dem would find a current list of registered Greens damn useful, and certain types of Republicans (or Dems in a race against certain other types of Republicans) would target Libertarians no doubt.

I'm not going Green and not encouraging anyone else to. I did that once and given the choices in that particular race I'd do it again. But on some level I'm glad the Greens are taking this on, as it requires of Culver some accountability to the base of the Democratic Party.

Yet we progressives need to persuade more than just candidates. There's a plain and simple reason that pragmatists take poor stands on some of these issues: they're following public opinion rather than leading. Yes, some public opinion is misguided and based on faulty information and ancient prejudices. But it's nevertheless real. So we need compelling, comprehensible arguments to move broader public opinion. It would help if elected officials would show some courage, but electoral politics is only one part of the battle. A broader social movement to shift those opinions would force, or encourage, change in The System.

Overt, whites-only-lunch-counter style segregation was once as socially acceptable as homophobia is today. The civil rights movement made it unacceptable, and changed enough minds to force legislative action past the blocked schoolhouse doors and the entrenched Dixiecrat committee chairs. In spite of electoral politics, not because of it.

In any case, backseat driving is best accomplished in the car, not on the side of the road. Climb in, but as the driver insists he's not lost, keep your road map handy.