This week, when Senate Dems split 22-22 on John Roberts’ confirmation vote, there was, shall we say, some consternation from grassroots activists, particularly online. In some circles this meant frustration; in others there was some debate over who should even wear the “D” label.
In response to the concerns, Barack Obama wrote a fascinating item on “Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party.” The senator suggested it’s a mistake to “vilify good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.”
[Because blocking Roberts was not a realistic option], attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.
The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully – and voted against – the Iraqi invasion. He isn’t somehow transformed into a “war supporter” – as I’ve heard some anti-war activists suggest – just because he hasn’t called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn’t become anti-choice because he or she isn’t absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn’t become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.
Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?
Obama went out of his way to explain that he’s calling for Dems to aim for some mushy middle — he rejects the idea of “compromise for compromise sake” and says Dems have not been bold enough on a variety of issues — but seems to suggest the criticisms of other Dems from Dem activists can be excessive and counterproductive.
Does Obama have a point or are grassroots activists helping keep Dems honest?