“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
–Pres. George Washington
Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
“It’s fine to debate policy, this thinking goes, but it’s not OK to criticize governing records, question priorities or impugn motivations. Any hint of intra-party infighting, it’s argued, would only weaken the eventual 2020 nominee.”
Hmm … yet the 2016 Republican™ primary was essentially a pie-throwing tournament contested by circus clowns. Was its ‘eventual nominee’ weakened by his teeny hands?
"The good news is, . . . Booker. . .Gillibrand. . .and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have all sworn off corporate PAC money in their 2020 campaigns."
This is an odd claim. It is immediately followed by a) a statement that Warren has gone further and b) the implication that Booker, Gillibrand and Harris have refused to go further than swearing off corporate PAC money.
Can’t we draw the conclusion that the only reason it is good news is because it indicates that Booker, Gillibrand and Harris are only trying to trick voters into thinking they don’t want corporate donations in general, that this is likely their M.O. in with respect to all of their campaign promises and that those of us who are paying attention now know better than to consider voting for them?
The strength of the Democratic Nominee in 2020 isn’t what’s most important for the Democratic Party.
What’s most important is how progressive their platform is and how and who it will benefit.
You now the whole premise that is mentioned in the quote is a lie.
I have seen this constantly over the last few weeks. I’ve had long debates over it with Facebook posters that lean Democratic and think I must be a ‘tRump’ supporter for calling crap on it.
I’ve seen that people get apoplectic over someone pointing out Warren wore a ‘puffy’ jacket as some sort of misogyny at work. I’ve seen party apparatchiks calling for hot tar and feathers over David Sirota pointing out O’Rourke’s voting record.
Yet a barrage of smear articles are posted in the Washington Post the day Bernie Sanders declares and NO ONE in the establishment calls crap on that as violating this new orthodoxy. NBC slanders Tulis Gabbard with nonsense about Russian Bots from New Knowledge, a discredited organization that bragged about their dirty tricks of creating fake Russia Bots so they could then say that Russia was meddling in the special Alabama Senate race, and NO ONE in the establishment calls crap on that violating this new orthodoxy.
All Democratic Candidates should be equal and free from attacks from other parts of the Party, but some Democratic Candidates are more equal than others and should be more free from attacks.
“Voters will eventually decide whether they prefer “incrementalism” or “leapfrogging,””
By leapfrogging, you mean serious solutions to existential problems like climate change and people dying because they can’t afford health insurance. And by “incrementalism” you mean half-baked lip service when what’s needed is action.
I was to write some of the very things you did in your post so thanks for saving that time. You are absolutely 100 percent correct. This call not to disparage the candidates is 100 percent typical DNZ sleaze.
Zack Carter is The Huffington Post’s Senior Political Economy Reporter.
Caption for the photo above.
“Yep it called the Lolita express and you can fly for free!”
Regarding power, of a broader sort,
Great article! Thanks for the link.