Legal Commentary

When Is Fighting For Your Principles Wrong?

By Big Tent Democrat

The other day I praised E.J. Dionne for his column embracing an open debate on principles, in that case, between Democrats and Republicans regarding the Supreme Court. Today Dionne writes a column criticizing conservative Republicans for fighting for their principles in the Florida GOP Senate primary coming up in 2010:

When Charlie Crist, Florida's popular governor, announced this week that he would run for the U.S. Senate, it was the best news the Republican Party had had in an otherwise unpleasant year. The problem for the GOP is that its right wing quickly decided that the good news was very bad news indeed. . . . Florida will be one of the clearest tests of whether rank-and-file Republican voters are more interested in doctrinal purity, or in winning -- even if it means nominating an Obama hugger.

(Emphasis supplied.) Define "winning" E.J.? Do the actual policies matter anymore? After all, Florida is not Massachusetts. Or more interestingly, Connecticut. Because, columns like Dionne were written about the Democratic Connecticut primary in 2006, when Ned Lamont challenged "sure fire winner" Joe Lieberman. Back then, progressive blogs did not much appreciate being attacked by the Media for fighting for their principles (they had principles back then.) Today they join the pile on. As in the 2008 Presidential primary, the progressive blogs find themselves in tune with the Establishment. More . . .

The problem with conservative Republicans is not their willingness to fight for their principles. The problem is in fact the principles themselves. Republican policy views and principles are stunningly bad and simply wrong. Obviously conservative Republicans do not believe that. But fighting for your policy views is what politics SHOULD be about. It should not just be about rooting for a team.

Will fighting for their extreme conservative views hurt the Republican Party politically? I think so. But should that be the primary consideration for conservative Republicans? Should they stop fighting for what they believe in? Or should they try and persuade that their views are the right ones?

To me, the answer is obvious:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

The extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party is doing the right thing - fighting for the issues they care about. That's what progressive blogs urged for Democrats. Even in the political wilderness. It's why they opposed "sure fire winner" Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary. It was not wrong then. It is not wrong now when conservative Republicans do it in the 2010 Senate Florida primary.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 14, 2009 (boomark / email).