View this post on the web at [link removed]
We’re nearing three weeks since the United States elected Donald Trump and JD Vance to lead the country for the next four years. For many of us, the initial responses of shock, rage, and grief have yielded way to the next, inevitable stage of the Democratic Party’s election postmortem: when competing factions within the party begin pointing fingers, while using the results as confirmation that their end of the ideological spectrum is what’s right for the party moving forward. And no matter where somebody falls on that spectrum, there’s plenty of evidence to reinforce their argument: progressives can point to Harris and her supporters’ over-reliance on Liz Cheney, camo hats, and guns to explain why she lost—just as easily as moderates can critique the consequences of woke policies and point to the fact that conservative Democrats, like Jared Golden or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, ran far ahead of Harris in their respective districts. There’s enough confirmation bias to go around.
We can argue in circles forever about why our own ideology has more merit or would have produced a different outcome—and if I know anything about Democrats, that’s precisely what we will do. But it’s time to drop the conviction that any monolithic ideology is the correct one. As Democrats, our blessing and our curse is that we exist and govern beneath a big tent, one which includes perspectives and priorities ranging from Joe Manchin’s to Bernie Sanders’. For a party that purportedly values living in a pluralistic society that thrives because of variety—not in spite of it—we must adapt to embrace it as our strength. With that comes the responsibility to recognize the necessity of making concessions to people with whom, under that expansive tent, we don’t always see eye to eye.
If that means an official like Manchin, for example, is only aligned with the majority of the party 70 percent of the time, as a Democrat from West Virginia, so be it. Why? Because the alternative is a Republican from West Virginia, for whom agreement with the Democrats even 10 percent of the time would be nothing short of a small miracle.
We must stop imposing purity tests onto all Democrats to ensure that everyone aligns perfectly within whatever narrow worldview we’ve decided warrants membership in the party. I would rather welcome a Democratic leader who is fifty percent with us than a Republican who’s zero percent with us. As is well established, we are not the party who falls in line. We take pride in that. But that does not mean that we need to fall in love, either. We cannot allow our pursuit of perfection to become an obstacle. While that seems almost silly to write, that logic still seems to elude many Democrats.
In our elected officials, we’re not seeking a spouse, partner, or spiritual leader. This isn’t the realm of marriage or church; it’s politics. The aim is to elect people who will be the most effective vehicles to get us closest to where we want to go. We’re taking a bus to the nearest stop, not ordering a car that delivers us right to our front door.
If that means supporting a conservative-leaning Democrat who, say, supports guns and fossil fuels, that person is still preferable to a Republican who supports none of the Democratic agenda—and makes a point of being immovable. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. Our pursuit of the moral high ground, while noble, counts for nothing if it costs us a position of power where we could put those noble principles into practice. When a rigid sense of ideological purity ultimately hurts the people we are seeking to help, then we must be willing and agile enough to alter our strategy.
Beware of people who are seeking to exploit this period of uncertainty by declaring victory for themselves or a sense of superiority for their preferred policy prescriptions. Regardless of where anyone on the left lies on the ideological spectrum, this is not a moment to beat our chests and claim that one set of beliefs is the correct one and that everyone else needs to adopt it if we want to move forward.
This is a moment for humility and coalition building. This is a moment to offer space for people who think differently—we don’t need to agree, but we will need to work together to form a governing majority in the future. This is a moment to drop expectations that everyone on the left accede to one narrow set of principles in order to be a Member in Good Standing of the Democratic Party.
Consensus without exceptions will never happen, nor should it. As passionately as we all believe that we are the correct ones (and trust me, we all believe that), there’s likely a Democrat who lives on your block—or maybe in your own house—whose views don’t align perfectly with yours. Nevertheless, you both belong, and we need both of you.
There are always states and districts where more conservative Democrats win (and lose). There are always states and districts where more progressive Democrats win (and lose). We can exhaust ourselves trying to outline and prove which ideology defines the entire party, or we can accept that no single one applies. And that’s okay. That is the imperfect beauty and strongest source of power of our big tent.
Put simply, I would rather be in a position to wield power with a party that I agree with 75 percent of the time than be relegated powerless to the minority with a party that I agree with 100 percent of the time.
We claim to be the party of tolerance. It’s about time we prove it.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
