It's the Issues, Stupid!

After my somewhat vainglorious experience at caucus on Saturday, speechifying on behalf of and voting for a candidate who won't be on ballot in November, thereby sacrificing any value my actual vote might have had, this post resonated with me like the call of returning springtime migrant.

I'm going to run this back-to-front; my motive for posting was the trailer, but there is some thought-provocation in the lede also, on the score of the "Clinton Rules," so designated by the invaluable Paul Krugman.

This from Big Tent Democrat at Talkleft:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

We live in a time of the personality-cult. Glitterati-worship is a national obsession! People magazine and the like are truly abominations. And, alas, this unfortunate phenomenon is pervasive in politics too. Thanks to BTD for spelling it out so emphatically; it has to be our issues and platforms that matter.

Candidate X may have the charisma, Candidate Y may have the political machinery. So what! Tell me what they stand for! Do they give a damn about fighting poverty and reversing the appalling disparity between the haves and the have-nots, pushed to point of absurdity by thug-bush, the frat-boy bully, but also strongly fostered by Clinton and Reagan, among others?

What would it take for our candidates to face down the corporate sponsors who have donated hundreds of thousands to their campaigns? As one specific example, are they prepared to act in defiance of the almost-certain "contributions" (i.e., in every respect, payoffs or bribes for their complicity, just "the way it is done") they have received from those telecommunications corporations who wilfully broke federal laws to the tune of huge profits in aiding the bush cabal in illegally spying on us?

My vote goes to the one who acts on a people-first, corporations-second program, with a progressive rather than regressive tax structure, a pay-as-you-go approach to the federal budget, and a return to checks-and-balances. That latter is critical, and will be possibly the toughest of all. bush/cheney/rove have done everything in and beyond their power to enlarge the hegemony of the executive branch, and we the people cannot afford to allow that to persist. Even when it is power that will be wielded by our candidate. It will be bitter, but we are going to have to force a take-back of the egregious power-grabbing by fear-mongering that these little vermin have promulgated (incremental usurpations by Clinton et al similarly need redress).

But, getting back to the Clinton Rules, where my linked post actually starts:

I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire. Worse than that, they have not only NOT held the Media to account, too often they have echoed what Paul Krugman labels the Clinton Rules:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

If folks wonder why I rail about the Media and the progressive blogs on this, I think Krugman offers an explanation:

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

But more important even than that for me is that we are not engaged in politics to see particular candidates triumph. We are engaged in politics to see particular ideas and issues triumph. When we accept, even echo, the biases of the Media, in order to serve a candidate we prefer, we debase our commitment to the issues we claim to care about.

Paul Krugman understands this and has spoken faithfully to his views on the issues and to basic fairness. He is wrong on many things. But he is not shading his views to support the candidate of his preference. He argues for his issues and supports candidates based on how he perceives the issues he argues for will be effected by particular candidates.