The Road From True-Believer to Pragmatism

I registered as a Democrat in 2001, largely for two reasons- one was that everyone in my family was, so it was just a matter of habit, but the second reason was the stolen 2000 Election. I was so disgusted by Kathleen Harris, the Butterfly Ballots, the purging of voters on the rolls, and all the other shenanigans that Jeb Bush pulled to deliver Florida to his brother that I actually had a reason to join the Democratic Party, as opposed to many generational members who do so, and find later they don't like it.

I quickly got involved in the political process though, and stayed in the process, after 9/11. My reaction to the horrible events, not far from home, was not like most of the country's- I went anti-war left. I got out my peace sign shirts, I went to protests, and I joined the campaign of an anti-war, union leader candidate for Congress by my college. He didn't win, which was disappointing, but it did teach me a lot. I was at an age where very often passions control the actions of politically minded people, but also was truly motivated by the well-being of my friends- friends who went to Iraq and lost limbs, and sometimes their minds. The entire war was built on a series of lies and half-truths, and the fact that our nation's leaders had made peace with that still bothers me to this day.

Admittedly, professional politics changes a person. You learn to accept certain things that you wouldn't otherwise, and you give more room for candidates to stray from liberal or conservative orthodoxy than activists do. That is often times portrayed as a bad thing, a sell-out, by people who stay "outside" of the process. "Political maturity" as they say, is the point when you sell out your values. They are incorrect though, in a major way. The "political maturity" of which they speak, the point when you allow for compromise with the other side and political leaders to not always do what you want, is the point at which you move from complainer to do'er in politics.

Not a single major political achievement in our history was done perfectly. The Civil Rights movements' early victories in the 1960's were not perfect legislatively, but they were vast improvements that were made better over time. The Affordable Care Act is indeed imperfect, but is a vast improvement over the previous health care system. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 should have provided paid leave for all workers, but the legislation has helped millions. In the case of any major legislative victory, from the 2009 Stimulus to the passage of Social Security into law, compromises are made. Congress used to horse trade votes, and we pretend that's an awful thing now, but that's how bridges get built, workers get hired, and problems get solved. You don't have the Civil Rights victories of 1964 without MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech" at the Lincoln Memorial, but you also don't have it without LBJ's deal-making in Congress.

In short, politics and governing require that sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. Purity is not a virtue. Purity is something that leads to gridlock- because if both parties are pure in their ideology, then neither can make the kinds of deals you have to in order to get things done. The Republican Party decided after 2008 to become purely ideological. They invited in the Tea Party protesters. They raged against the norms, they refused to work with this President, they committed to his destruction. Yes, it won them elections, and on matters from education reform to ending Medicare, they will have the chance to do what they want in 2017. On the other hand, it has completely changed the identity of their party, and given rise to Donald Trump. Sure, they can win elections, but only by embracing walls on our Southern border and bans on Muslim travel. The Republican Party is now an unbridled conservative party, one that has no adults to insist on the norms being respected. As a result, they saw all of their elected candidates overtaken by a demagogue. It is victory, but the party that won is not even the extreme right-wing party that left the White House in 2009- it is something far louder, angrier, and unchecked than before.

For me, the road from anti-war warrior to pragmatic liberal began during the 2008 election, and accelerated with the 2008 economic crash and inauguration of President Obama. President Obama did a lot of things as President that I would never have accepted in early 2007- a surge in Afghanistan, bailing out the banks and automakers, not re-instituting Glass-Steagall, a more measured withdrawing from Iraq, acceptance of almost all of the Bush tax cuts, not getting rid of No Child Left Behind, not repealing the Patriot Act in full- to name a few. Today though, I admire President Obama as one of the greatest leaders of my lifetime, and in American history. It is a huge leap politically for me, but it's a leap based on achievement- the Iran Deal, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, normalizing relations with Cuba, unprecedented investment in renewable energies and infrastructure- to name a few things. Yes, Barack Obama had to accept limitations to his ability to govern and lead, but the reward of that is that he improved America as President, greatly.

Making change is hard, much harder than complaining. I guess it's frustrating to reach this point in my political being at a time when the anti-establishment forces on the left and right are selling people the idea that change is easy, and we just need to want it more. I started to actually understand politics around 1994, the Gingrich Revolution, and I've seen how hard progress is. I saw that marching in the street in 2002 didn't get rid of George W. Bush or his war in 2004, and that the harsh compromise of giving up the "Public Option" was part of President Obama passing the ACA in 2010. I've seen movements for minimal gun controls and a living wage have met fierce federal resistance, despite popular support and massive demonstrations in the streets. The idea that any one candidate and their movement will sweep into power and cause a "revolution" that changes Washington, and sweeps their ideals into office, is ridiculous to me. If that were possible, we'd have saved the world by now.

Being a pragmatist isn't always fun. It's certainly not the cool thing to be right now. There are times where it can be a trap- for instance, we shouldn't give President Obama room right now for not intervening in the Dakota Access Pipeline situation. On the other hand, we should not have been tough on him for taking the version of the ACA that he got to his desk- while not perfect, that was clearly a good bill, as industry insiders wanted to roll back it's regulations immediately. The point is that part of it means knowing the difference, and knowing when to say when. It's been a long road to get here, but I'm glad that I did.