The Primaries That Everybody Forgot

Or, Why Progressives are going to have to vote for Kerry
A Speaking Truth To... Well, Not Impotence

Tomorrow are three more primaries - Hawaii, Idaho and Utah... and, apparently, nobody really cares, including the candidates. Granted, Utah's Democrats are running their campaign out of the public library system because the (Republican-controlled) legislature decided not to fund primaries this year, Idaho's Democrats are just downright rare and Hawaii... sorry, if I was running for President I'd visit Hawaii at least once to 'canvass'. Just like Dennis Kuchinich, who's apparently the only one who bothered - I'm telling you, this entire primary is apparently just one long Spring Break for this guy. If I was single, I'd be deeply envious.

Anyway, there are three primaries tomorrow, and everyone's assuming that Kerry will win them, but nobody really cares too much by how much. So be it: I'll say Kerry by double digits in all three and no three-way splits, just to keep up with my usual obsessive look at the primaries. We'll discuss the alternate title of this post under the fold. Warning: you may not like it, much. I'm in Giving Advice That I Know Probably Won't Be Followed Mode again.

Ah, you joined us. Excellent.

Erm. Tough days, huh? Dean's out, Clark's out, Nader's in and you probably wish that he wasn't. Down to Kerry and Edwards, and Edwards can't really win; he can probably only stop Kerry from winning. But voting for Kerry seems sort of futile, yes?

No. More accurately, not yet.

The 'problem' - well, I don't think that it's a problem, but then I'm an evil, evil member of the rapidly-expanding Centrist Division of the VRWC - is that there's more than one kind of victory, and if the progressive movement want to have any chance at all in having an input in the Democratic candidate, they had better pick the right kind of victory. To simplify: Kerry is the front-runner and the smart money for the nomination, but he does not enjoy this position because of the hard delegates that he possesses. He enjoys this because of the pledged delegates that he's won and the super-delegates who have promised their support.

Note the distinction. His pledged delegates have to vote for him on the first ballot, the super-delegates don't. In fact, the latter can switch at any time... and if you don't think that this means that Kerry has to keep them sweet, whatever the cost, I'm honestly impressed by your trusting nature. Their vote comes with a price, which obviously I don't know, but can guess: their votes in exchange for whatever each holds dear to his or her heart. Now, bearing in mind that Democratic super-delegates are Senators, Representatives, Governors and Party muckety-mucks, and that Kerry's been in the Senate for two decades, ask yourself these two questions: how many of these votes were traded in exchange for support of progressive positions? And how many of them will be so traded in the future?

Now, as I see it, progressives would have three options. First, you could do nothing and hope for the best. If you follow this path, then as a Republican all I can say is, "Much obliged". Second, you could try to throw everything that you have behind the last remaining serious candidate in the race and hope for a brokered convention. To be honest, even if that worked I don't know what would happen then. I'm not sure that anybody else does, either - and experimentation is not exactly an optimal choice for you guys right now, eh? Third, you could just rip off the band-aid quickly and endorse Kerry now: if he doesn't need to make deals to get the nomination, he won't. The sooner that becomes clear, the less he'll have to promise and the less that you'll lose.

Some readers will probably be muttering, "Gee, Moe, this just sounds like you're telling us how to minimize the damage! How do we get Kerry to adopt more progressive positions?" right now. Alas, the answer is: you can't. The activist base gave up the ability to dictate policy in that regard when they declared that their primary operating principle was Anybody But Bush; Kerry can call your bluff. Worse, he knows it. Like it or not, this is crunch time for the ABB people: they now either have to abandon that principle - and watch George W Bush get re-elected - or else get used the prospect of eight months of sitting up straight, plastering big smiles on their faces all the while, giving Kerry 120% in both time and money and keeping their mouths firmly shut except to chirp out (on the proper cue) about how much they love John Kerry and his wonderfully progressive vision for America.

(pause)

Oh, stop glowering. It's not my fault that a Lowest Common Denominator meme went through the Left side of the spectrum; it's also not my fault that my side has collectively decided to wait until 2006 for our own ideological grudge match. I am merely the messenger, and my biases are on my sleeve for all to see. Heed or ignore as you please.

Moe

Comments

[Chris in TX]

Moe,

Nice post, but for part deaux I think your assumption is slightly off. Namely, that "progressives" (or liberals or what the hell ever) don't like Kerry b/c of his platforms. I think it is much more to do w/ his vote for the Iraq resolution which was perceived as a self-serving betrayal by someone who they thought they could count on. (And don't get them started on Dick Gephardt.)

On the other hand, that could just be me projecting. But you know, it sounds good so I'm gonna go w/ it.

[Moe Lane]

"I think it is much more to do w/ his vote for the Iraq resolution which was perceived as a self-serving betrayal by someone who they thought they could count on. (And don't get them started on Dick Gephardt.)"

That's a take I hadn't considered... although I don't know if it changes the final bit of advice all that much.

[Chris in TX]

Well, I think the corrollary to said vote is that it was our guy bending over for the GOP, yet again.

The early campaigning by Kerry et al gave no sign that they would be any different on the campaign trail come the general election.

Then Dean came along, and long story short, the other campaigns started to pick up some of his rhetoric. (Along w/ other things that made the rhetoric seem a) useful at the time and b) not fatal later)

So now Kerry, especially after last weekend, has put the GOP in its place (the head of the RNC saying "we have repreatedly praised his patriotism"), so to speak.

I think that is what the progressives were looking for, at least the serious ones. After all, we've ('we' being the progressives) all seen The American President, and I think we all agree that Micheal Douglass' final speech is what we've been waiting to hear for a long time. Dean did it in the primaries, and if Kerry does it in the general, then I couldn't be happier with him.

[carpeicthus]

How many people don't go into an election hoping for the best they can get out of a field of imperfect candidates? As a strident ABB-er, I don't feel I'm loosening my standards anymore than any other election. For more of us, ABB isn't broadly literal -- we wouldn't vote for Saddam Hussein or Godzilla if they happened to be the Democratic opponent. But what we saw was a huge field of people who would be better presidents than Bush. For some, like me, there were certain exceptions, such as Sharpton or Kucinich, whose nature as a cosmic joke far outstrips his principals (plus I'm a lib, not a leftist, and think a Department of Peace is a really silly proposal as proposed), but they were so marginal as to not merit mention. Then there were candidates that even the non-Blue Dogs of us wouldn't support over many Republicans, such as, for me, Gephardt, but would probably end up supporting over Bush because we really are that displeased with the way things have gone and would rather cast a wild die. So, ta-da, ABB, which seems like a wild-eyed mantra (and, in some cases, is) for most is just a practical look at the field.

[Moe Lane]

"So now Kerry, especially after last weekend, has put the GOP in its place (the head of the RNC saying "we have repreatedly praised his patriotism"), so to speak."

Man, did that little episode look different from over here. :)

But if you guys here are genuinely relaxed, relieved and ready to go Waltzing Matilda for Kerry, I'm glad to hear it. Sometimes the posts end up being written for the Google searchers anyway...

[Jordan]

For me, there are two problems with Kerry (no, three - he's ugly, but that never stopped Steven Tyler): his past record and his foreign policy.

His Vietnam-protest years are a liability in the WoT, so he'll have to overcome that in the general, or the incumbent's own Vietnam years have to become more of a liability.

Kerry's foreign policy, vis a vis al Qaeda & Iraq especially, are currently undefined. I don't buy the "waffling" meme on Kerry, as you'll find the same seeming contradictions in the career of any longtime legislator. But very much of Kerry's chances in the general will turn on how much credibility he's able to bring to this issue.

And full disclosure - if his platform turns out to be withdrawal from Iraq and downsizing the military, I'll have severe misgivings about voting for him, ABB as I am.

What Dems in general need to do most of all is steal the military from Bush & the GOP. The post-Carter brotherhood-in-vengeance between the GOP & the armed forces is probably the sine qua non for GOP success in the red states. Under Bush, that happy relationship is strained, to say the least.