The Big Question for Democrats: Who Do You Love?

It took me by surprise the first time that someone argued the logic of supporting people in both the establishment and the progressive wings of the party. It doesn't surprise me any longer. Now it concerns me.

As we approach the primaries, Democrats are scattered among the many candidates, and for many different reasons. It can all be so confusing. 

Let's clear it up a bit by answering some questions about the two factions in the Democratic party.

What is the biggest difference between establishment and progressive Democrats?

The biggest difference between the two factions is how campaigns are financed.

The establishment like to rub elbows with rich and successful people who support various causes. They talk of needing to do this to keep the playing field level with the Republicans. They talk about the need to get money out of politics and to overturn the decision in Citizens United. However, that is merely lip service.

We were not privy to the content of the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to Wall Street executives in 2016. Her non-disclosure of what she says to people who give her large donations is no better than the current president not releasing his taxes. In both cases, we are left wondering what it is that they are hiding.

Some things are not as easy to hide. For example, Cory Booker was among thirteen Democrats who voted against the Sanders-Klobuchar amendment in 2017. The amendment would allow Americans to fill prescriptions from foreign sources. Twelve Republican senators broke from the party and voted for the amendment. It failed because of the thirteen Democrats who voted with the GOP. Each of the thirteen Democratic senators who voted against it has accepted donations from the pharmaceutical lobby.

Progressive Democrats do not accept donations from special interest groups. The core belief is that they will then represent the voters instead of the donors. Of the presidential candidates, that would include Tulsi Gabbard and, of course, Bernie Sanders. A group called Justice Democrats was able to get many candidates elected in 2018, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. They both unseated long-time establishment Democratic incumbents who were super-delegates for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Despite what they say, establishment Democrats are fine with things the way they are in campaign finances, and progressive Democrats practice what they preach about campaign finances.

What is the difference between four CEOs donating individually and pooling their money and donating it as a group?

Is that you Adam Smith? I can answer that for you!

I bring him up because he literally asked that question at a public discussion with his opponent in the 2018 election, Sarah Smith, who ran against him as a progressive Democrat.

If four CEOs donate to his campaign as individuals, then they are donating to his campaign as individuals who support his campaign. If they align only that which they have in common - being CEOs - and pool their money, any vote he makes that benefits them or their companies becomes suspicious. 

For example, his campaign gets donations from groups that are especially interested in manufacturing weapons. His vote in favor of invading Iraq, then, becomes questionable. Everyone who voted in favor of the invasion said they believed the faulty intelligence. However, there is just something about being so wrong on a subject, and yet it was so profitable to those from whom he takes campaign donations.

I am not accusing him, or any of the other Democrats, of lying about their motives. I am just saying he took their money, he voted for something that benefitted them with a lot of money, and it turned out that the invasion was a based on faulty information. That is a series of events that proves only that it happened in that order.

What I can also submit in argument as another series of events is that Bernie Sanders did not take special interest donations to his campaign, and he voted against the invasion of Iraq. 

The difference, then, is that any votes that turn out to be wrong but make these four individuals rich cannot be attributed to him accepting donations from these groups of people who have similar interests that are special to them.

Shouldn't the first objective be to defeat Donald Trump in 2020?

I won't argue that as an objective. I will argue the best way to do it philosophically and mathematically.

The people who support Donald Trump are pretty much entrenched in their thinking. However, there are also those who consider themselves conservative but who do not support Trump. The establishment portion of the wing is telling voters that the best way to win in 2020 is to go after these disgruntled conservative voters. The argument is that these people will almost certainly vote in 2020, and each vote gained from that group is also a lost vote for Trump.

The error in that reasoning is that we cannot get the best candidate for president if our focus is on nominating someone who is similar to what we already have, albeit much less despicable. I have long likened this thinking to sitting in the same cesspool with the Republicans and arguing the side the Democrats are on smells better.

Progressive candidates have actually been proven to draw people from both sides of the cesspool. Sanders would draw back any voter who voted red as a protest. Gabbard could actually draw Trump voters away from him because she is the personification of an American warrior. She isn't interested in making herself the topic. She addresses the issues directly. She takes on the same people they hate in the Democratic party.

Mathematically, it is clear that Bernie Sanders draws the largest crowds. He is still considered an outsider by those who dominate the party today, but his policies are largely supported across the board by majorities of people. Despite that, there are those who contend they would vote for Trump before they would vote for Sanders or Gabbard. 

Strategically, we should let them vote for Trump. Half of them, perhaps more, are only saying that, anyway. The gain of voters who will vote for the Democrat if the Democrat is progressive will likely be more than a hundred to one in ratio of votes actually lost. Besides that, the votes that will be gained will be the votes of people whose lives depend upon sweeping changes in society. 

Going after the votes of the tens of millions of progressive people who reject the corporate doctrines of the Democratic party is mathematically sound and lacks the philosophical flaw of repeating past mistakes with greater emphasis on shaming those who don't go along.

So, who do you love?

There are many candidates from which to choose, but those candidates can be broken down into two groups: establishment candidates and progressive candidates. The biggest difference between the groups is how campaign finances are raised. The second biggest difference between them is who they tend to represent when voting on matters of great importance to individuals.

Here are some suggestions for you to consider:

• If you support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then it is illogical to support the establishment candidates.
• If you believe that people who get sick should not lose their insurance and have to declare bankruptcy, then it is illogical to support establishment candidates.
• If you believe that taxes should be used for the benefit of the people rather than to make rich people richer, then it is illogical to support establishment candidates.

It can go deeper than that, but the pattern is clear: if you support that which is best for most people, it is illogical to support establishment candidates. 

Almost all people who identify as Democrats liked the more progressive platform the party adopted at the national convention. I think that was the last time it was mentioned, although I have an image of Hillary Clinton scolding someone for bringing it up at a campaign rally.

The two most progressive candidates are Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. There are attempts to push both Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg off as progressives, but they both are backtracking on some things that drew some popular attention to them. Still, of all the establishment candidates, those two seem to be the most popular. 

When you consider that the establishment is basically putting up either Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg with the logic that one of them can draw the votes of disgruntled Trump voters, it just doesn't seem like sound reasoning. 

Based on my suggestions above, I support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I believe that people should not lose everything they have accumulated if they get sick, and I think taxes should be used to benefit society and not to make rich people richer. That leaves Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders for me to support, and I love both of them!