I’m slowly scrolling through my dashing reading your arguments over leftists vs liberals/Always Vote Democrat in reverse, and I was reminded of a moment about a decade ago, when I got involved in liberal campaigns where I lived: the glorious state of Texas. There were multiple candidates running in the Democratic primaries for the federal representative seat of my district, and I had narrowed the field down to two options. One matched my politics more (I’m pretty leftist), but I feared she was too left to win. The other was more business friendly/centrist, but I thought she had a greater shot. Which one to choose?
I chose the centrist. She won. I think she still holds the seat (don’t live in Texas anymore).
When you’re trying to flip states, or are just running in perennially purple states, a lot of times you gotta make compromises. I love AOC and her politics, but she couldn’t flip a pink Texas district—and thanks to an absurd amount of gerrymandering, most Texas districts are at least light pink. Texas Republicans go through hell and high water to make sure that Democrats never ever EVER get elected, so by definition you’re playing on an unfair game board and you just gotta roll with it. Which means making compromises. Online leftists don’t seem to get that.
And honestly? I kinda understand! Because there are things that you shouldn’t compromise on, yet you might be asked to do so anyway. Remember the gay marriage struggle in the aughts, when Democrats supporting civil unions was the liberal option? What bullshit!! What is this separate but equal nonsense 🙄?! But what if actual equality seems unachievable in your local elections? Do you push for civil unions as a middle step, or shoot for the stars to get gay marriage?
In my experience, there’s never a one size fits all answer. There are times when shooting for the stars is a feasible option—a very difficult one, but still a possibility—and there are times when you can only accomplish half steps. You might even get punished severely for shooting for the stars. And you never know what time it is. It’s extremely frustrating. The last decade (which has been spent entirely in the South, fwiw) has also frightened me out of the optimism of my youth. It makes me vomit blood to say this, but I think the next Democratic candidate MUST be a straight white man. Not because straights, or Whites, or men are inherently better presidents—because I’ve lost faith in my country’s ability to elect anyone else.
But keyboard leftists don’t seem to comprehend this push-pull over when to compromise and when to fight. No, it’s more like they refuse to do so. I genuinely want to be convinced that a woman, queer, and/or POC has a shot at the White House, but instead I get called weak, a traitor, etc etc etc for reaching this miserable conclusion after bitter experience. There’s no interest in the political process, or even the dynamics of convincing people to choose you. Of course, these are the same people most likely to write off the South entirely as unsalvageable shitholes that should be abandoned to rot. Wow, thanks guys!
What's the end of that stupid saying? The wisdom to know the difference?
The serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Boy we all want the wisdom to know the difference. These answers are not simple. 2020 and 2021 turned all of the accepted wisdom of what-we-cannot-change upside down in the criminal justice system for like a second -- suddenly we made huge strides and passed crazy shit and instantly fucking stalled out. We were changing the rules on jury trials so juries could know the sentencing range before they made a decision, some honestly groundbreaking shit, and now we're fighting over whether the organization that locks up juveniles should develop guidelines for how long they can lock a juvenile in solitary. Not even what their guidelines should be. Should they develop them.
There's some virtue in being the group that's constantly pushing for slow change, especially if you can shift to big change when the moment calls for it. But it's exhausting, isn't it?
The wisdom to know the difference. And the other thing I wish for is that politicians would just listen to the people who have to deal with their laws for, like, a second. When we say "this law about assault and battery on cops is producing absurd results, like mentally ill people going to jail instead of hospitals, so we want it reduced to a misdemeanor if the officer is not actually hurt in any way during the battery" the answer is "that's a non-starter, I can't be seen as anti-cop." Okay. Your reputation is worth more to you than the lives and bodies of my clients. I can still hear the snap of my client's arm when the police broke it after she called to try and get help. And you can't be seen as anti-cop.
What can you do? Pick up your shit and move on to the next Senator's office. Approach it a different way. We want a Marcus Alert. We want a different team for mental health. We want mental health-related A+Bs to be permitted in diversion programs. Then they start listening, maybe.
We just have to live in the real world.
Anyway, I really feel you.
Have also lived in Texas. I know it's a bunch of cities held prisoner by a highly hostile gerrymandered government. I don't write it off. It's a real education in how people justify voting for corrupt windbags. Seems like some potentially interesting shit going on right now, though!
