The only way to fix the Democratic party

Glenn Greenwald has written a worthwhile article that pins a good share of the responsibility for the Bush administration's atrocities exactly where it belongs: on the shoulders of the Democrats.  This naturally led to a fix-the-Democrats-or-abandon-them debate, with one person ("alyosha") taking the former position: "We have to do as the far right did to the Republican party, in other words, take over the Democratic party. It won’t be fast, and it won’t be easy, but it is happening, and we need the patience and perseverance to see it through."

My response (in comments):
________________________________

I'd agree that working to take over the Democratic party is a good goal to have, even though I myself am a proud and absolutely unrepentant Nader voter and expect never to vote for a Democrat again.  But: you don't further that goal one inch (and in fact you render it all but unattainable) when you actually vote for Democrats who are doing the wrong thing.  Participate in your local Democratic party, work with them in the primaries, make sure they hear you in a thousand ways--but you must not give them your vote at election time unless they've given you a candidate who actually deserves it, or you're defeating your own purpose.

Consider just one example: what message do you think the Democrats received from Kerry's performance in 2004?  They ran a candiate who was so much like Bush that it was difficult to discern a meaningful difference--and frightened progressives flocked to him in droves, no matter what their politics may otherwise have been.  The message couldn't have been clearer: the Democrats can count the progressive votes before the election even starts, so there's certainly no need for them to move in that direction.

Now take the flip side: imagine what would have happened if millions of voters like yourself had withheld their votes from Kerry.  Imagine that Kerry had lost not just by a few million votes, but by tens of millions.  And then imagine that all of those people who withheld their votes wrote to the Democrats and let them know that they had refused to vote for Kerry because of his craven, opportunistic embrace of Republican positions and values.  The outcome would have been identical--Bush in the White House, again--but the Democrats would have known exactly why they had lost.

Which scenario do you think was more likely to strengthen the position of progressives within the Democratic party and move the party to where progressives want it to be?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that a more progressive Democratic party would be a guaranteed outcome of that second scenario; the Democrats are fully capable of drawing the wrong conclusions from any outcome, because they're institutionally inclined to do so.  But the fact is that the strategy that you and others pursued failed spectacularly, just as it has failed in the past and it's guaranteed to fail again in the future.  Given a choice between a strategy that's guaranteed to fail and one that has even a tiny chance of succeeding, it's clear which is the better option.

So I ask you and all other progressives who held their noses to vote for Kerry in 2004 (and even Gore in 2000) to consider the harm you've done, and to be willing in the future to do what it takes to make it right (no matter how difficult it may seem at the time): withhold your votes from Democratic presidential candidates who do not reflect your values and beliefs.

UPDATE: Dennis Perrin rightfully skewers Greenwald's article for its pie-in-the-sky claims about the righteousness and Democratic-independence of YearlyKos attendees.  I gagged on those bits as well, but still thought the article was worthwhile for its fairly robust Democrat-bashing; it's a good sign when even someone as mainstream as Greenwald is willing to throw that kind of abuse at the Democrats.

Comments

[ms_xeno]

...I myself am a proud and absolutely unrepentant Nader voter and expect never to vote for a Democrat again...

There are about six of us left. I think the zombies finally got all the rest, but I'm afraid to put down my rifle long enough to peek between the window boards and look outside.

Ironically, Election 2000 is pretty much an end-of-the-century Woodstock. If everyone who now claims to have voted Nader back then Before Seeing The Light really HAD voted for him, I'm pretty sure the Greens would have gotten their 5% with plenty left over for a fleet of old VW campaign buses. Flower decals optional. :D

[Enoch Root]

Quoth: "...I myself am a proud and absolutely unrepentant Nader voter and expect never to vote for a Democrat again...

"There are about six of us left. [..]"

Seven. And I was 'blogging about it at the time, so screw Kos.

[dcnataro]

I voted for ralph in '00. I have gotten grief for this. I have to admit that
ralph exaggerated when he said that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference
between the parties.

A quarter. That's about right.

Although I succumbed in '04 to the idea that electing ANY democrat was better than
a continuation of Bush, I will not roll over again in '08.

I now require more than 25c worth of difference.

[John Caruso]

dcnataro: You're the first (and only) person that I've heard say that they voted for Kerry in 2004, now think it was a mistake, and won't make the same mistake again. Thanks; you've given me genuine hope.

Now if only these people would have the honesty and humility to come to that same conclusion, and to publicize it as well as they did their Kerry/Cobb strategy in 2004....

I actually felt strongly in 2004 that John Kerry needed to lose, and wrote up the reasons why here. Unfortunately he didn't lose decisively enough to have much of a positive effect, so we ended up with the worst of all possible worlds: Bush in the White House, the Greens deeply compromised, the antiwar movement eviscerated, and the Democrats having received no serious blowback for their continued strategy of running to the right.