Lately I've been in a political malaise and I think one reason is because I've been hanging out too much in the left side of the blogosphere, where the sound of a thousand keyboards typing in lockstep is sometimes deafening.
There's a progressive orthodoxy (sadly, that's not an oxymoron) that demands 100% compliance on the issue of the day: John Roberts' confirmation is the latest example. Any politician who dares to buck the prevailing mandate is tossed aside like a 7th grade boyfriend. Senators and representatives who once were admired are shunned forever after one vote, often with a "You and your little party too!" denunciation of the entire Democratic party. (The all-or-nothing attitude is rampant in the vegan blogosphere, too, though I doubt it reflects the views of most vegans.)
Today, via The Washington Monthly, I learned someone else understands how I feel:
When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
Thank you, Senator Obama, for saying what I've been feeling. (Do read the whole thing, it's all quote worthy.) Maybe I tend to be more forgiving of politicians, both left and right, because I've known a few, but, unlike Nora Ephron, one vote does not end my infatuation. (It took me several years to fall out of love with Bill Clinton, and even now I'd take him back, seeing as how my current boyfriend president is a wife beater.)
This willingness to forgive doesn't make me a pragmatic Democrat. It's not pragmatic to feel strongly about the death penalty, universal health care, freedom of (and from) religion, the sanctity of life, both human and animal. As Senator Obama says,
I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough.
I disagree with anyone who doesn't share my views, obviously, yet I might consider voting for him or her, just as I would vote for someone who listens to jazz, or likes raw tomatoes, or wears cologne. I vote for someone who, for the most part, shares my basic values, and is beholden to as few special interests as possible—including me.
My search for a perfect politician ended about the time I realized my kids weren't perfect either, but I support them anyway. As a wise politician I once worked for said, "If you want a candidate you'll always agree with, you must run yourself." Since I'm too busy to run for office (on a platform of eliminating perfume use worldwide), I'll be voting for someone else.
CLEAR-LIGHT-OF-DAY ADDENDUM: Maybe I should add that when a politician gives heartfelt reasons for voting the way he or she does, I'm a lot more willing to forgive, even admire, that vote. Which is why Feingold and Obama (who voted against Roberts, he says) get my deepest admiration. But Biden, whose only reason for supporting the bankruptcy bill seems to be his MBNA-enhanced campaign coffers, just gets my derision. (I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank.)
Also, hat tip to Intous for the Nora Ephron link.