Person Whom I Respect:
I am not endorsing Pressley nor Capuano.
I am renouncing the arrogance & ego of partisans who think some have a “right” to serve.
More people should challenge incumbents. It’s good for democracy.
T. McGinty
I disagree, respectfully, and therefore come down pretty much in agreement with Barney Frank. Why? I don’t think such a blanket statement:
“More people should challenge incumbents. It’s good for democracy.”
holds up.
There could be situations, maybe even many, where such an internal party challenge of an incumbent, is beneficial in every way. But I think the blanket statement is a problem for the following reason:
You can have a wonderful, healthy, primary battle that increases the health of a party, and then end up with a weakened candidate who gets beaten by a Trump. If such a victor then dismantles democratic protections, or the social safety net, or public education, how is that good for democracy?
For me, what matters is whether people get health care etc., or, in the alternative, are protected from terrible public policy. That’s more important to me than the health or vitality of a political party internally.
So it’s not about entitlement to an office. It’s about the question: what is the greater good?
Person Whom I Respect:
The difference between our opinions is that I’m not taking a partisan position. Democracy, not the Democratic nor Republican parties; nor an advocacy position. Democracy would be healthier and better served if every incumbent had at least one challenger in every election.
T. McGinty
True. But I still disagree, when the opposing party poses a threat to democracy itself.
I cannot believe we are here, but in its failure to stand up to Trump on collusion with a foreign power to undermine our very elections, and its increasingly apparent failure to call him on his obvious and blatant emollient-related corruption, we are finally – and amazingly – at that point.
And in my opinion, having worked in countries with high levels of endemic corruption, it is actually THAT which is the more important and pernicious threat to our democracy in the long run. It is incredibly difficult to root out corruption once it takes hold. We have never seen corruption remotely resembling this in our history.
Were it not for all of that, I would actually agree with you. But this is different. Very different, and should be treated as such by the media. Otherwise the media is just another tool at their disposal.
The more I think about it, if I were being partisan, I would be advocating a primary challenge like this, precisely because you are correct that it is healthier for the PARTY in the long run.
This year, THIS YEAR should be the focus, not the future. This is an emergency.
PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER ADVISED TO SPEND THEIR MONEY AND TIME ON THE SWING DISTRICTS IN PA AND THE MIDWEST.
Person Whom I Respect:
if you are rooting for one side to win. I’m rooting for a better, healthier democracy. If we had focused on a healthy democracy, with more candidates, with more voter involvement, with more discussion about issues and solutions, we may not be here today. Now is the time.
T. McGinty
Well, I understand. But we’re not going to have a democracy at all if this corruption is not checked and the rule of law and transparency and ethics rules are not enforced.
As I said, these are not normal times. I’m not at all sure our country will successfully respond to this situation over the next 2-4 years.
Just speaking for myself of course, I am far more concerned with responding effectively and resiliently to the very real threats posed to our nation at this time from within and externally, than I am with the Democratic Party. You’ve made your point well. But this remains my perspective on this.
There’s a scene in Ducks Soup where Groucho Marx is asked how his country will respond to foreign provocation. “I’ve a good mind to ring their door bell and run away. ” he replies.
Your post reminds me of this. You paint a picture of the Apocalypse and demand that in response we forego a primary challenge to Mike Capuano.
Do your concerns about massive corruption threatening our Democracy also extend to things like the 17 Democrat Senators who voted to gut Dodd-Frank last week? Or the 38 Democrat House members who did the same? I think that type of corruption has been doing far more damage for longer than what we’ve seen so far in the Trump administration (and yes, it’s magnitudes worse with the GOP than with the Dems, but none of it is good). You seem to think that Trump is a new unusual thing rather than a symptom of a corrupt system and a spectacularly corrupt and dangerous GOP.
We need better people in office. Including better Democrats.
Your arguments could so easily be used to apply to any race at any time. And to consider Trump a unique and dangerous threat is a little funny because he hasn’t shown to be anywhere near as bad as the guy who was President 11 years ago.
I think positions like yours are going to help make primary challenges like the one we’re seeing in MA much uglier than they need to be, and for no good reason.
I’m going to spend my time and money this year supporting the candidates I think would be best in Congress (here and elsewhere) and not sending a dime to the DCCC (who seem to be completely incompetent). I’ll also be pushing my reps and candidates to provide a clear vision for what their leadership could be and not just be anti-Trump. If Democrats really want to win this year, they should be critical of Trump AND the GOP AND ALSO putting forth a compelling vision for a better country. There seems to be little interest in doing that last part other than saying “we’re obviously better because we’re not them.”
Doesn’t this violate the no two posts by the same person about the same topic rule? We have a robust debate on the other thread where I have respectfully disagrees with my friend Terry. No need to double that up here.
I think it’s a perfectly consistent position for progressives to advocate primarying those who aren’t progressive enough while opposing the idea of a primary because an incumbent is not absolutely pure or just on a principle that contests are good just cuz.
Who draws that line? I can see that line being drawn by DCCC types as not having a primary against anyone with a D next to their name.
Each voter has to make his/her own decision on that. Obviously we can’t and shouldn’t prevent someone from running.
I do not think that is the argument Pressley is making. She is making the argument that the district is majority woman, majority minority, and majority Boston based while being represented by someone who is none of those things. He votes the right way, but has he been the kind of drum major for the resistance that people are expecting? Has he been tough enough on banks and local power brokers like Partners, GE, Amazon and real estate developers? I think that is her argument.
His argument is that he has a strong track record and took some tough votes that were unpopular at the time like on the Patriot Act, the war, against Pelosi and against some budget compromises Obama pushed. That he gets urban issues and transit issues and has fought for projects like the Green Line Extension in Somerville or the Silver Line Extension in Chelsea. I think that is his argument.
I think this is an argument we need to have, especially as our district has drastically changed in the last 20 years. The idea that our district is not as deserving of a competitive primary is an insult to its voters. Let them have a choice and make a choice. This campaign is getting my students excited, especially since both campaigns have reached out to my Civics coordinator to arrange a possible forum or meet and greet.
This activity simply would not be happening if Capuano was on auto pilot for re-election. To his credit, he is working caucuses in Mattapan and coming out to the communities beyond Cambridge and Somerville where he is more well known. If he wants to win that is how he should campaign, not by sending out surrogates like Barney Frank who bizarrely insist that the district is too Democratic for a primary.
I haven’t heard anyone make the argument that “our district is not as deserving of a competitive primary” — the keyword there being “deserving”.
You upbraided me a few weeks ago when I wrote that the major thing I see driving the campaign of Ms. Pressley is that she is a black woman. In this comment, you write (emphasis mine):
It sounds as though you make the same summary today that I made then (I’m perfectly happy to add “Boston-based” to the list of irrelevant and distracting “issues”. I think that’s a terrible motivation for a campaign and a terrible reason to distract Mr. Capuano.
I make no argument that Ms. Pressley does not “deserve” to run. Instead, I say simply that I oppose her campaign and will do all I can to defeat her in the primary. That’s what we do during campaigns.
I think Mike Capuano is the better candidate on each and every issue you mention in any comparison between Mr. Capuano and Ms. Pressley.
Further, I think that on each of those issues, Mr. Capuano is arguably the best and most effective member of our entire state congressional delegation. On many of these issues, he is a NATIONAL leader.
That’s why I find support for Ms. Pressley’s campaign bizarre, and that’s why I oppose her primary candidacy.
Mr. Capuano did not vote to gut Dodd-Frank. Instead, he led the fight retain it.
I enthusiastically agree with you about the DCCC and DSCC, and I’ve been refusing to contribute to them for more than a decade for the same reasons you cite. Mr. Capuano is one of the people I give to.
Mr. Capuano is among the most eloquent in putting forth a compelling vision for a better country. He’s been walking the walk to make the vision concrete for decades. Working-class families of all genders and ethnic groups in Somerville are far better off today than they were before Mr. Capuano was mayor precisely because he has always walked the walk while talking the talk. In his long and illustrious service as our Representative, I can’t think of any issue where I opposed him.
We have real issues and real villains to fight. We have a real vision to advance, and real existential attack on that vision being mounted by the right.
We should not therefore waste our time, money, and energy on senseless primary campaigns against stereotypes and cardboard cutouts.
I find this headline incredibly counterproductive and partisan. Trump is mostly saying and doing what Rs and many Ds have been doing without saying or saying without doing for a long time: deporting economic refugees, sabre rattling, imprisoning people for personal choices (drug war), putting natural preserves on the table for resource exploitation, printing money for Wall St, and so on. Yeah he’s breaking the usual political rules about eloquence and sexual conduct, but if anything his bluster is bringing positive effects with mayors and AGs fighting back harder than ever.
We are at Code Red with climate change and the influence of big money in Congress, but those didn’t come with Trump. We must not lose sight and focus on the priority of making democracy work again: that is, campaign finance reform and voting system reform. If anything, now is a good time to clean house in the Democratic party, while we don’t have to support a thin majority at all costs.
That isn’t to say I support this primary challenge specifically, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.