I want them destroyed.
I despise the rise of the perpetually angry, vengeful, dissatisfaction-fetished rabid Left as much as I detest the hateful repugnant madmen of the Tea Party Right. Why? Because though the Left's fringe is far fewer in number, both of these loud fringes that drown out reasonable voices make it more difficult to compromise and forge a path forward for the good of the country.
And because the Left's fringe is far fewer in number, we do not have to get to Donald Trump-level panic to put them out of their political misery. When they show their true colors, we should, and do, believe them.
After Bernie Sanders lost narrowly the Democratic primary in Massachusetts to Hillary Clinton, these rabid Leftist Berniebros descended on her with the ugliest of claws out. They believe that Bernie Sanders, as the trademarked self-proclaimed progressive gatekeeper, deserved - nay, was entitled to - Warren's endorsement, that it could have made the difference for Bernie to win instead of lose, and that her not having done so is a calamitous sin.
That this pronouncement actually belittles their own candidate - this is admission that Bernie can't win a neighboring white liberal state on his own - seems never to have occurred to these angry ideologues. Nor, I imagine, has it occurred to them that one of their mouthpieces in the media for this diatribe, The Boston Herald's Adriana Cohen also praises Guantanamo and goes around calling President Obama the "apologist-in-chief."
The moral of the story? The loud ideologues on the Left are not our friends. The purity progressives are as vitriolic and useless a group as right wing Teabaggers. The sufferers of Perpetual Disappointment Disorder care far less about policy than stroking their own egos and their political personality cults, and one such cult is built around the junior senator from Vermont, even if the majority of his supporters do not fall into this category.
That they believe that silence in a presidential primary overrides all of Sen. Warren's progressive advocacy and accomplishments is evidence that they do not care about policy. That they cannot accept Hillary Clinton as a fellow progressive even though she has a lot more progressive achievements to show than Bernie Sanders for her time in public life is indicative of their tunnel vision. That they are willing to use a non-endorsement as a litmus test is proof that they believe in the lowest, dirtiest, ugliest version of transactional politics: they believe that Sen. Warren owes them because they credit themselves with her political success.
If some of that sounds familiar, it should. What Sen. Warren is now getting a small taste of is what President Obama has had to face throughout his presidency. In addition to the right wing hatred and obstructionism Barack Obama has had to deal with, he has had to put up with this destructionist Left fighting progress on the account of insufficiency: from health care reform to financial reform, from credit card reform to student loan reform, from ending wars to LGBT military service.
Let me be clear. I do not view Elizabeth Warren as some hero. I do respect her and like her, but I haven't been shy about calling her out when I have believed she's being a calculating politician and wrong on an issue (trade, for example).
So no, I'm not Elizabeth Warren's greatest fan. But you know what? I would not find it hard to vote for her re-election as Senator because she didn't back my Democrat for president or to another office. All of her value as a largely progressive Democrat would not evaporate suddenly because my candidate for president couldn't put her state away on his own. Heck, I wouldn't even lose all hope in Warren because she is pandering to the anti-trade Left, which in my judgment is exactly what she's doing.
My point is that I'm a pragmatist. I understand that aside from running for office myself, I will never agree with a politician 100% of the time. I understand that to get things done to make progress - which I consider to be the quintessential purpose of public policy - compromises are essential. I do not believe that my political beliefs are so sacrosanct that the future of the country should be sacrificed should my party not back my views on a given issue. I would much rather have people who I don't always agree with but are willing to compromise to make progress than people I agree with who will uncompromisingly stand in the way of progress.
This is what the dudebro entitlement (to Warren's endorsement for their candidate) and their ugly attacks on Warren upon their candidate's loss tells us. It tells us that we cannot have progress if all we have are two extremes refusing to compromise and demanding complete compliance from their legislators. It tells us that big money in politics is far from being the only critical impediment to democracy; that ideological dogmatism is just as much of a brick wall.
That brick wall needs to be torn down. I sincerely hope that Berniebros continue to show their true colors. The sooner leaders like Elizabeth Warren is disabused of the notion that there is anything to be gained from being their hero or pandering to them, the sooner this faction's power within the Democratic party and within the progressive movement is diminished, and the sooner we can get on with the country's business.
Their call for Elizabeth Warren's head - a woman who was canonized until yesterday - will serve as not just a reminder to her that the rabid Left is useless, Warren's easy survival of these attacks will show other Democrats that they are clawless as well. That will help reduce them back to the inconsequential fringe movement they are.
And that's good for America.
Like what you read? Chip in, keep us going.