What’s the difference between a pragmatist and a sell-out? When do you defend your line in the sand and when do you move away from it in compromise or for pragmatic reasons? What happens when others don’t see things your way? Do you take your marbles and go home? Invoke the nuclear option?
These questions confront us all the time when we consider how parliamentary democracies, our own Congress, our own party, and factions within it struggle with issues. We need not return to the 2016 Primary to see a Democratic party still licking its wounds and hashing out differences. Many of those differences are significant and painful ones that will require balancing principles and pragmatism.
As the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention approaches, two issues in particular have generated some heat. The first is abortion rights as a litmus test for Democrats, and the second is condemnation of Israeli settlements as a taboo for Democrats.
Choice as a Litmus Test
The first controversy was triggered by the endorsement of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello by Bernie Sanders. Mello was an opponent of abortion whose views on the subject, like both Hillary Clinton’s and Tim Kaine’s, have supposedly “evolved.” Sanders made the case for “pragmatism” in endorsing Mello but many, including Ilyse Hogue of NARAL, pushed back. In a party without much tolerance for disagreement the issue is seen as “divisive.”
But compromising reproductive rights should be controversial – and painful. After all, these rights are written into not only the national party platform but the state party platform. It’s no trifling matter.
In an online discussion among “Our Revolution Massachusetts” (ORMA) members, which was a miniature of the national debate, one man drew a line in the sand, writing that support for abortion should be a litmus test for any Democratic candidate. But Betsy Smith, who signs off as a revolutionary grandma, answered him by suggesting that a constellation of progressive views might be more appropriate:
You wrote: “Even though I am a diehard Sanders supporter I wouldn’t vote for an anti-abortion candidate regardless of his otherwise progressive views. It’s one issue and one compromise I’m not willing to make.” So are you saying that if a candidate supported funding for science and the arts, proposed or signed onto legislation for single payer health insurance, was in favor of free college for all and a living wage, rather than just $15/hour, which is not always a living wage – are you saying that if a candidate who supported all these and other progressive ideas but was not pro-choice, you wouldn’t vote for them? What would you do? I’m assuming that it wouldn’t be to vote for the Republican. Would you write in your own name (or mine) as a protest or just not vote? I cannot understand, even as a woman who has seen friends damaged and unable to have children subsequent to an illegal abortion, being willing to throw everything else positive in the trash because of this one issue.
Israeli Settlements
The second controversy concerns an amendment to the Massachusetts Democratic platform to condemn Israeli settlements. It’s an issue that pits peace and human rights advocates against a party with strong links to AIPAC, including former AIPAC lobbyist Steve Grossman. Once again the party hopes to censor the debate by sticking a “divisive” label on it, pronouncing it toxic.
But settlements and, more broadly, the Israeli occupation, are human rights issues every bit as important as a woman’s right to choose. In a video seen this week a group of armed settlers descends on a group of Palestinian shepherds accompanied by a rabbi. They club and wound the rabbi. An Israeli helicopter immediately appears after the attack, reminding viewers that Israel’s government is complicit in settler violence and uses American “defense” gear to perpetuate an occupation and secure settlements.
Despite the reality seen in the video, the Democratic national party platform is filled with references to defending Israeli “democracy,” protecting it from Iran, assuring its military superiority, even insisting it be called a “Jewish” and “democratic” state – quite a departure from the usual separation of church and state the party and the nation stand for. Surely with all this love a little constructive criticism might be in order. But apparently it’s a bridge too far for some Democrats, particularly those receiving lobbyist cash.
Principles and Pragmatism
These two issues illustrate two very different ways of balancing principles and pragmatism.
In the case of reproductive choice the Democratic Party has a progressive principle some are willing to bend (or even abandon under the right circumstances) to win an election. Those who cry “divisive” the loudest are not willing to abandon that principle – and they’re right to cling to it tightly. Moreover, every one of us knows a woman, has a daughter or a niece. The issue has a personal dimension.
In the case of Israel, the party hold a deficient, even reactionary, principle that promotes militarism, occupation, and betrays the principle of separation of church and state. Those who cry “divisive” the loudest are not willing to abandon that principle – but it’s one that needs fixing. What’s different about this issue is that many Americans – and this includes Democrats – have little idea or much interest in knowing what really goes on in the rest of the world. Only about five or six percent of Americans care about foreign policy, and most don’t see the connection between foreign policy and our domestic reality. But just this week Democrats signed off on a $1.1 trillion spending package that sacrifices many domestic programs, and more than 60% of that package is money for war. There’s a connection.
Bernie Sanders took considerable flak for endorsing Heath Mello, particularly by party centrists. But if Democrats want to take back the cities, states, governors’ offices, and Congress, many argue it requires a 50-state strategy. As long as the candidate does not actively oppose a central principle (and Mello is not), the party can endorse him or her. But what if the candidate strongly opposes reproductive rights? Or marriage equality? Or some other Democratic constituency. What then?
Such a “pragmatic” approach includes the issue of Israeli settlements as well. If, for example, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Bill Keating have deficient views on Israel – and they do – progressives might nevertheless support them because their good deeds outweigh their sins. Bernie Sanders’ positions on Israel anger some progressives, for example. Just last week Sanders voted with the entire US Senate to defend Israeli settlements from UN censure. Is it pragmatism or selling out? When it comes to resolutions and not legislation, can’t the party at least defend principles worth defending?
A party platform must be a document that serves not as a litmus test but as a set of principles representing our best values. A platform embraces principles that should never be compromised – or only compromised in the most extreme and critical of situations. Was the Omaha mayoral race critical? Doubtful. The Democratic Party must never espouse principles opposed to fundamental American values – and certainly none that violate human or civil rights. Which is why the party’s positions on Israel are so shameful. And if Mello had still been staunchly anti-abortion, Sanders’ endorsement would also have been shameful.
I hope we will have forthright and uncensored discussions about matters of principle at the MassDems convention on June 3rd. Those of you who are fellow delegates, please support the settlements amendment proposed by peace activist Carol Coakley. Alternatively I have proposed that the Massachusetts Democratic Party adopt the Washington State Democratic Party’s foreign policy planks. There are many more planks relating to economic and social justice issues worthy of support.
The Democratic party not only requires new and better management, it needs some new and better principles as well.
Comments are closed.