DEMS: DON'T BURN DOWN THE PARTY...
EDITOR'S NOTE: I ran across and interview of Bernie Saunders by former labor secretary Robert Reich done in 2018. Bernie made some good points - espcially that the Democats must run a 50 state campaign - they ought not to cede any states to the GOP. I've been saying this for over a year in my blog posts and on my FB page. If one expands the base to those who undervote - working class folks and minorities- then winning in currently red states might happen and at the least will cost the GOP time and money to protect its base. And with Mike Bloomberg's money to fuel such an effort, whether or not he's the candidate - this is in the realm of the possible.
But Dems must not engage in their all too favorite blood sport - fighting with each other. That's why I think EJ Dionne's op ed which I read in today's Oregonian makes a lot of sense - especially Liz Warren's grace in defeat in New Hamphsire. The two wings of the party - the Clinton wing and the Bernie wing and everyone in between must unite to beat Trump. I worry that the Clinton and Bernie wings are too prone towards relliving the past of 2018. We can't afford the luxury of such revenge politics. No mater who the nominee is - All Dems must unite and vote for the nominee - and that includes Bernie if he wins...
OPINION - EJ Dionne
Diversity: the Democrats’ strength and challenge
When Sen. Amy Klobuchar broke through in the New Hampshire primary, relegating Sen. Elizabeth Warren to single digits and fourth place, the Massachusetts Democrat could not have been more gracious toward her party rival from Minnesota.
“I … want to congratulate my friend and colleague, Amy Klobuchar,” Warren declared, “for showing just how wrong the pundits can be when they count a woman out.”
It was part of an eloquent call for party unity in which Warren warned Democrats not to engage in “a long bitter rehash of the same old divides in our party,” and spoke with concern about a willingness “to burn down the rest of the party in order to be the last man standing.”
A speech that Democrats needed to hear got almost no coverage. So given what gets play (and Warren’s longstanding skepticism of financial institutions), it’s unsurprising that Warren directed some sharp criticism toward former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday. Warren excoriated Bloomberg for once saying that anti-redlining laws prohibiting discrimination against minority neighborhoods had helped cause the great financial crash of 2008.
“Anyone who thinks that,” she said, “should not be the leader of our party.”
So much for unity, you might say. Nonetheless, the party should not forget Warren’s earlier insistence that in the face of President Trump’s abuses of power, “we cannot afford to fall into factions, we can’t afford to squander our collective power.”
But it is Warren’s call to sisterhood that deserves more notice, partly as it relates to another underdiscussed divide in the party. One of the most striking findings of a New Hampshire exit poll suggested that women candidates actually do face electability concerns from voters that male candidates do not.
The Edison Media poll asked voters: “If the Democratic nominee is a woman, do you think that it would make it easier to beat Trump, harder to beat Trump” or make “No difference.”
The poll found that only 9% thought that being a woman would make it easier to beat Trump. Nearly four times as many — 34% — thought being a woman would make it harder, and 55% said it would make no difference.
This gender issue appears to have affected outcomes in New Hampshire, particularly in the battle for second place between former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who won the slot, and Klobuchar, who ran third.
The small group that saw a benefit to nominating a woman overwhelmingly favored Klobuchar over Buttigieg, 37% to 17%, and she also ran ahead of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, in this group. It gave the primary victor just 22%. Warren trailed badly with only 6%. To the extent there was a pro-woman faction it appears that Klobuchar, not Warren, was its beneficiary.
But in the much larger share that saw a woman as having electoral liabilities, Buttigieg bested Klobuchar 23% to 16%, with Sanders winning 30%.
The race was a virtual tie among those who said gender made no difference: 25% for Sanders and 23% each for Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
There are limits on using exit polls to measure causality — whether a given answer accounts for why people voted as they did, or whether voters offer an answer that conforms to the choice they made for other reasons. But it’s hard to deny that gender mattered to the New Hampshire outcome, and it will be part of the larger challenge Democrats face this year in avoiding the incapacitating factionalism that Warren counseled against.
Face it, Democrats: You are the diverse party and Republicans are the homogeneous party. Democrats include moderates and the left; Republicans are almost uniformly conservative. Among their elected officials Democrats are the party of racial and gender diversity; Republicans aren’t. In the House, 37.9% of Democratic members are women, and 36.6% are African-American or Latino. The numbers for the GOP: 6.6% women, 3.6% black or Latino.
Diversity is a source of pride for Democrats. But that pride must be matched by patience among the party’s ideological factions and its many different social groups, and by an embrace of the equal dignity of all members. The most important philosophical battles and group conflicts will be fought out among Democrats because Republicans, by the very nature of who they are, stand detached from these struggles.
Fighting exclusion while building electorally-necessary solidarity isn’t easy. But for Democrats, there is no other option.
@EJDionne; © 2020, Washington Post Writers Group