“Go out and make me do it.”
-
FDR
As a socialist, a proud constituent of Keith Ellison, a
Sanders supporter in the primary, and a contributor to Our Revolution, I have been challenged by recent articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post, recently included
in Clippings from N. Boulder indivisible. They have caused me to think about
the principles and practicalities of threatening with primary challenges
Democratic incumbents who will not say they support single-payer health care
now. I have also heard the views of close friends, who have dedicated their
lives to public service, who share the perspective of these articles. I have the
deepest respect for their views and I want to say that I think they may be right,
and that I may be mistaken in what follows.
The disagreement is over strategy not principle. We all
share the goal of universal, government-sponsored health care. Frankly, I like
the idea of Medicaid for everybody,
as advanced by Prof. Sparer [what a delightful aptonym!]. The question is how to get there.
Pressuring sitting senators and representatives sounds
reckless, but is it? It wouldn’t be that hard for such people to “take the
pledge” and then to negotiate a compromise. Their position would be all the
stronger for their ability to point to the significant proportion of their
constituents demanding real advancement toward universal health care.
Negotiations could also take place with the Our
Revolution wing in terms of tactics (timing, alternative proposals,
practical realities). Congressional
members who took the pledge but did not perform to Our Revolution’s standards would then be primaried two years later –
or not – depending on how persuasive they could be about the practicalities.
In terms of practical realities, one remembers FDR’s famous
request of A. Randolph Philips: “I agree with you completely: now go out and
make me do it!“ I offer the attached
article by Peter Dreier on the importance of this kind of pressure and
“taking it to the streets.” [Although dated – about Obama in 2009 – it can be
translated easily by reading “Democratic incumbent” for “Obama.”] The
historical section about FDR in the middle of the piece is especially
interesting in our moment. Here’s the conclusion.
Like any successful politician,
Obama is constantly evaluating the political climate and testing the nation’s
appetite for change. Like FDR, he will be bold when he thinks the political
climate is ready for bold action. The unions, community organizing groups,
netroots groups, environmental and gay rights groups need to create a climate
that will make it easier for Obama and Congress to be bold. As FDR said, their
job is to “go out and make me do it.”
Could that be precisely what Our Revolution is trying to do?
******************************
As a postscript, I would express
slight neuralgia about the tone of the Post
op-ed. [I recommend to everyone an essay by Thomas Frank, which appeared just
before last November’s disastrous election: “Swat Team – the media’s extermination of Bernie Sanders – and real
reform”, Harpers, November
2016. The criticism is mostly based on Post
coverage of the primary campaign.] That exasperated tone communicates the view
that we on the left should just shut up
and go play in our sandbox while the adults figure out what to do. The prospect
of our “going out and making (Congress) do it” is impertinent and wrongheaded.
But what is our alternative? I have suggested one above, but I
have the feeling (and it is mostly a feeling) the centrist wing of the Party
seems to want us to become back-bench centrists, and to forget about the
amazing hope and sense of possibility the Sanders campaign engendered among the
young. It is not at all clear to me that this is the best way forward form
progressives. [In fairness to the Post
it also reported that “In the 2016 campaign,
Sanders won more votes among those under age 30 than the two presumptive
major-party presidential nominees combined. And it wasn't close.” - “The
Fix,” June, 2016.]
My problem with the “adults in the room” is that not only can their
experience provide practical insight, but it can also make it difficult to
imagine a fundamentally new situation. As James Russell Lowell wrote in 1845,
“time makes ancient good uncouth.” On the other hand, those with political
experience know that the center is not fixed: it has moved to the right
significantly in our own time. It may be big mistake to imagine that the point
triangulated by the New Democrat neo-liberalism 25 years ago is still the
center. There is no reason to expect even sympathetic elected leaders to move
left without our willingness to “go out and make them do it.”
