MoveOn, liberalism, and the Democratic Party
Norman Solomon has written an article in Counterpunch that highlights the blatant inconsistency in of MoveOn's approach towards Democratic Party politicians. While they joined in with other anti-Lieberman liberals to defeat him in the Connecticut primary, MoveOn is remarkably silent about another prowar Democratic Senator, Hillary Clinton. Clinton has an upcoming primary election in New York, and she is facing an antiwar challenger. But her challenger, Jonathon Tasini, is in fact more seriously antiwar than Lamont. Yet all the liberal energy was focused on supporting Lamont in Connecticut, while ignoring the Tasini campaign.
Any attempt at "reforming" the Democratic Party mysteriously stops when it comes to challenging Hillary Clinton. Or is it so mysterious? Was Lieberman just a scapegoat by liberals who are only willing to go so far in "reforming" the Democratic Party?
I would suggest that for many Democrats, criticizing Hillary Clinton hits a little too close to home. She is the spouse of the last Democratic Party president to win an election, and liberals who are so solidly attached to the Democratic Party are largely willing to overlook his triangulation, his corporate whoring, and his attacks against the poor. Her association with Bill Clinton makes her immune, at least to some degree, to liberal objections to her warmongering. Although it is an open question as to whether she can win a presidential election, the fact that her husband won twice gives her a glow to many liberals who would rather support a winning Presidential candidate than support progressive politics. The willingness to overlook Hillary Clinton's failings really seems to boil down to loyalty to the Democratic Party. It is a little too discomforting for some to openly condemn a politician who is so intimately associated with recent electoral fortunes of the party they love. The fact that she, in many ways, epitomizes the modern Democratic Party, and everything that is wrong with it, just gets overlooked in the process.
Any attempt at "reforming" the Democratic Party mysteriously stops when it comes to challenging Hillary Clinton. Or is it so mysterious? Was Lieberman just a scapegoat by liberals who are only willing to go so far in "reforming" the Democratic Party?
I would suggest that for many Democrats, criticizing Hillary Clinton hits a little too close to home. She is the spouse of the last Democratic Party president to win an election, and liberals who are so solidly attached to the Democratic Party are largely willing to overlook his triangulation, his corporate whoring, and his attacks against the poor. Her association with Bill Clinton makes her immune, at least to some degree, to liberal objections to her warmongering. Although it is an open question as to whether she can win a presidential election, the fact that her husband won twice gives her a glow to many liberals who would rather support a winning Presidential candidate than support progressive politics. The willingness to overlook Hillary Clinton's failings really seems to boil down to loyalty to the Democratic Party. It is a little too discomforting for some to openly condemn a politician who is so intimately associated with recent electoral fortunes of the party they love. The fact that she, in many ways, epitomizes the modern Democratic Party, and everything that is wrong with it, just gets overlooked in the process.
Post a Comment