If you have been following the Democratic primaries, or Democratic politics in general for the last few years, you will be aware that there has been an upsurge of progressive sentiment within the party. You will also have noticed that the more traction these ideas get, the more resistance they encounter from the neoliberals who have a stranglehold on the levers of power within the party.
One of the most common tactics used by the neoliberal wing of the party, is to claim that any attempt by progressives to insist on principled positions — such as refusing to take corporate cash, or standing firm for Medicare for All — amounts to a “purity test” and can be dismissed on that basis.
The “purity test” epithet takes many forms. In one recent instance, for example, President Obama worried that the Democratic Party is becoming a “circular firing squad”, targeting those “straying from purity” on certain issues. This formulation is really code for “those darned leftists are really annoying when they insist on talking about issues that we would rather not talk about”. Or, in other words, any criticism of establishment Democrats coming from the left is characterized as destructive, and harmful to party unity. You will be hard pressed to find the same concern when the criticisms come from the more right wing elements of the party; in fact, in these cases, the neoliberals tend to take them seriously and commence triangulating to address the issues of the Serious People.
We have primaries so that we can choose our preferred candidates. How can we make a determination of who we want, without comparing and contrasting the candidates’ views? Besides, it has historically been the Republicans who march in lockstep, not the Democrats!
Another line of argument is that we cannot expect “purity” from anyone with a track record in government, because (a) it does not allow for the possibility of growth, and (b) politicians must compromise to “get things done”. But the fact is, not only progressives but voters in general are sick and tired of politicians who glibly say one thing to get elected, and then do something entirely different once they are in office. Also, while it is true that compromise is a reality in politics, an effective negotiator starts from their preferred position and compromises from there. What we see, time and time again, is that many of our Democratic politicians compromise before they ever begin bargaining with the other side. Also, it is worth noting that we have a very strong counter-example to the idea that a politician with a track record cannot be expected to have shown consistency: namely, Bernie Sanders, whose positions on issues like civil rights, gay rights and Medicare for All have never wavered.
Another tack is to argue that this “growing list of litmus tests” threaten to make the eventual nominee less electable. While the main objection in the cited article is assault weapons buybacks (which is more popular than before, at least among Democratic voters, due to the recent spate of mass shootings), the piece also cites Medicare for All and tuition-free college education — both of which are hugely popular, not just with Democrats but with Independents, and even more popular than one might think among Republicans. But the real question here is, do our political representatives stand for anything or not? It is easy to take positions based on polls. I would argue that people are more likely to vote for someone they see as a straight shooter, even if they do not agree with them on everything, than for someone whose positions change with each new poll.
Finally there is the argument that the fight in the Democratic Party is one of “pragmatism” versus “ideological purity”. This framing fails to acknowledge that 40+ years of pragmatically “getting things done” under the neoliberal banner has resulted in the decimation of unions, the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs, and the gutting of the middle class. The top 10%, the professional and managerial class, have done just fine; the top 1% have done great; but the bottom 90% have languished or slid further down the economic ladder. While typical CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978, typical worker compensation has grown only 12% in that same time period. Among other things, worker compensation no longer reflects productivity growth; and even after Obamacare, rising health care costs (including co-pays, deductibles and drug prices) have made health care unavailable for many who technically have coverage. In fact, “getting things done” has not worked so well for the great majority of the population in the United States, and the rank and file are starting to sit up and take notice.
Both parties have worked against the interests of the majority. President Obama chose to bail out the banks at 100 cents to the dollar while leaving the vast majority of homeowners high and dry. Both parties voted to gut financial regulations, which led to the 2007-2008 crash in the first place. Both parties voted for trade agreements that decimated the American manufacturing sector and that resulted in the loss of millions of good paying jobs. The so-called “pragmatists” have presided over the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 10% in our nation’s history.
In fact, as Ted Rall argues, what right-wing Democrats call “purity tests” are what used to be called “standards”. Finally, I will note that one of the antonyms of “purity” is “corruption” — as in, the corruption of our politics by the monied interests who buy politicians and write the legislation and trade agreements that have been selling out American workers for the last 50 years. I, for one, intend to continue insisting on standards from my politicians. If the neoliberals want to call it a purity test, so be it. In the context of current day politics, I find principles and purity preferable to amorality and corruption.
Hey there ,danke