After Trump won, a lot of self-identified progressives argued that Trump had won because the DNC had gone for a centrist, rather than a candidate much further to the left, and, they said, that was the mistake that led to Trump’s win.[1] And this argument was made with some version of: “If you want people like me to vote for a Democrat, you should run my candidate.”
That’s actually a really weird argument for someone who self-identifies as progressive or social democrat to make, since HRC won the primaries. It’s either saying that everyone who supported HRC didn’t have real political beliefs, but were just dupes, or else the DNC should have rejected the primary votes and imposed a different candidate.
I think it was the first. I hope. I really hope that fellow progressives didn’t want the DNC to reject a popular vote. Although coming to realize that people who, like me, self-identify as progressive are prone to thinking about only our political views, that people who disagree can’t possibly do so for good reasons, as “real” is really troubling. Since it’s profoundly anti-democratic.
Now that there are a lot of people, all over the political spectrum, making that same arguments about how Democrats can win, I’m thinking it’s the first.
I’m seeing people who claim that they have always voted GOP saying, “If you want me to vote, you have to give me the candidate I want” (by which they mean a Reagan GOP), centrists saying, “If you want me to vote, you have to give me the candidate I want” (by which they mean third way neoliberal”), and Sanders supporters saying, “If you want me to vote, you have to give me Sanders” (oddly enough, I haven’t seen this for Warren, but maybe I’m hanging out in the wrong places). In other words, an awful lot of Americans don’t really want a democracy. They believe that they, and only they, have a real position about politics, and everyone else is in the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. They support a “democracy of the faithful”–that is, a “democracy” of people with their political ideology, an oligarchy of “real” people with “real” views.
Democracy is a system grounded in the premise that real people really disagree because we, well, really disagree. We really have different needs, interests, values, religions, goals. And, because real people really disagree, there is no one position that is the only real one. Democracy is, at its best, a vexed and uncertain stumbling through how to engage in reasonable inclusions of all the various points of view, including ones with which we really disagree.
The argument that, “If you want me to vote for you, you have to give me a candidate who promotes my political agenda” is not an argument grounded in valuing democracy. It’s one grounded in wanting an oligarchy of me.
Saying that a political party should give you a candidate you is asking for a non-democratic process for determining a candidate. If you want a candidate, vote for them, but telling other voters that they shouldn’t vote for the candidate they want because it doesn’t please you, or the DNC should ignore how voters actually voted and “give you” the candidate you want is saying that you don’t want a democracy—you want an oligarchy of me. Because you are the only real voter.
Just to be clear: I’m not talking about someone saying that they need to believe that a candidate won’t completely ignore their group. For years, political figures would go into black communities and say, “Vote for me because I’m not as racist as they are.” And, while that was literally true, it wasn’t usefully true. Mayor B is less racist than Trump, but so are both of my cats. If you’re part of a group that has been actively demonized and persistently ignored in political discourse, then it makes sense to insist on something like evidence that this candidate isn’t just talking pretty right now in order to get your vote, and will then ignore you for four to six years. People who are arguing that the Dems should stop counting on the black vote while doing little or nothing that actually helps the black voters aren’t saying they’ll “only vote for a candidate who appeals to them”—they’ve had way too much of candidates appealing to them. There is a world of difference between a centrist, or third-way neoliberal, or a democratic socialist saying, “If you want me to vote Democratic, you have give me a centrist/third-way neoliberal/democratic socialist” and someone saying, “You have to show that you will actually do something for black voters” because “black voters” aren’t a specific point on the political spectrum. They’re all over the political spectrum.
And that’s oddly shown by the fact that, while Trump is openly racist, the current Democratic candidates—all over the current spectrum—suck when it comes to issues of race. Perhaps Dems should consider that? That seems kind of important.
I’m also not talking about people who are saying something like, “I would like the candidate to support some policy that would help young people see a path toward home ownership,” or “I’d like a candidate who will do something about global warming.” It’s reasonable to ask that a candidate be open and public about their policies, especially about policies that matter to you. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that you, and only people who agree with you, have the right policy about complicated issues.
There are three worlds in which the “I won’t vote in the election unless the Dems give me the candidate I want in the primary” seem sensible.
The first, and most common, is a kind of political/ideological narcissism. Many people believe, not only that their political position is right (and, of course, we all should), but that our position is the only right position, that all right-thinking people agree with us, that people who disagree with us have no legitimate reasons. Everyone who disagrees with us is a dupe, stooge, or liar. People who disagree with us don’t have real positions, or don’t really hold those positions. People who disagree with us aren’t real Americans.
This is purity politics, and it’s anti-democratic. Authoritarian politics is grounded in the notion that there is only one political agenda that represents the real ethos of the nation/religion/group.
That rejection of democracy begins with people believing that, for every complicated question, there is a right answer, and only this group knows it. Various forms of authoritarianism (and there are lots, from theocracies to political oligarchies) are grounded in the belief that there isn’t really legitimate disagreement because only one group is really American, white, working class, evangelical, German, or whatever, and only those positions should be considered because only those positions are real.
Democracy is a system that says we really disagree because we really have different interests, beliefs, and values. We are all real Americans, even if we really disagree.
So, let’s just be clear: if you believe that only your political/religious/ideological group has the real understanding of the situation, and that all other groups are unreal, then you don’t really support democracy. You’re an authoritarian.
I’ve spent a lot of time wandering around various kinds of authoritarians (17th century New England Puritans, neo-Nazis, Athenians abandoning their democracy, Nazis), and they all sincerely believe that they aren’t doing anything unjust: they’re enacting the policies that every real [Christian, Athenian, American, German] knows to be right. Authoritarians believe that there is only one right answer for every political question, that disagreement weakens the group, that people who disagree are just doing so from bad motives, and so anyone who disagrees with them shouldn’t count. Authoritarians say that anyone who votes against them did so out of bad motives, and so their votes don’t (or shouldn’t) really count. Authoritarians say that people who disagree with them aren’t real people, or don’t have real arguments, or are dupes of some larger entity and therefore don’t have real opinions. Authoritarians aren’t necessarily “extreme” as to where they are on the political spectrum—I’m seeing a lot of authoritarian arguments for “centrist” politics.
People who believe that there is only one right position in regard to the vexed, uncertain, and nuanced world of genuine disagreement in which we actually live are people who don’t want a democracy. They want what is sometimes called a “democracy of the faithful.” Anyone who says that they are the candidate whose supporters are real people is saying that people who disagree with them aren’t real people. They are denying real disagreement.
Clinton won the nomination because more people voted for her than voted for Sanders. To say that the people who voted for Clinton only did so because the DNC made them do so is to say that only people who supported Sanders can reason; everyone who disagrees with them is a dupe and stupid. Some people are saying that supporters of Biden are cowardly centrists duped by the system. Some people are saying that supporters of Sanders or Warren are naïve young people duped by misleading rhetoric.
And my response to that argument, regardless of who is making it, to the argument that only people like you see the truth, and everyone else is a dupe, is that you can farking fark the fark off.
Or, another way of saying that is: who died and made you God? Really, you are omniscient, and you know how every American feels, and you have, from that omniscient position, considered all the interests and passions and beliefs of all Americans, and you know that you aren’t just arguing from your own particular worldview, but representing everyone? You know that everyone other than you has bad motives, and doesn’t understand their own interests? Or, are you just unwilling to admit the possibility of legitimate disagreement? Are you unwilling to admit the basic premise of democracy?
People are duped, but that people disagree with you is not sufficient proof that they’re idiots and duped.
People are duped when, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, they believe they’re getting an outcome they aren’t getting, they’re going to get an outcome they can’t get, they’re in a state of existential threat when they aren’t, they’re persuaded not to listen to anyone who disagrees with them.
So, if we were going to map dupes onto the political spectrum, there would be dupes everywhere. And there would be people who are getting the outcome they want, and who aren’t duped.
In other words, the first kind of political narcissists believes that only their political agenda is legitimate, and political narcissism drifts into authoritarianism inevitably.
The second kind of political narcissist is the kind that is (perhaps vaguely) aware that people disagree, and doesn’t care. They know that other people have other interests and values, and don’t think it’s their responsibility to vote in a way that looks out for anyone other than them.
They approach voting as though they’re buying a car.
When you’re trying to buy a car, you want a company that will sell you a car that is right for you. And if the salesperson can’t persuade you that this car is right for you, then you’re making a good decision to walk away from them. If you refuse to buy a car from this company because they didn’t really make a compelling case as to why you should, then the decision you made as a consumer affected you as a consumer, and the company (to a trivial degree), and that’s about it.
Refusing to buy a car that isn’t exactly what you want is a rational decision, as a consumer. As a consumer, it doesn’t matter if other people want the car you don’t want. They can get the car they want, and you can get the car you want. You know that other people want other cars, and it’s fine if they do—you aren’t going to force them to drive the car you want, and they won’t force you to drive the car they want.
Personally, I think even in buying a car it’s useful to include considerations about long-term consequences for the community as a whole, but I know a lot of people don’t think about their consumption that way. And I get it. You are making a choice for yourself, and you want marketing that appeals to you.
But, when it comes to the Mayor, City Council, State Rep, Congressional Rep, Senator, President, do you really want to insist that political parties market only to you?
One model of democracy, the pluralist model, says that, if people just look out for themselves when they vote—just as they only look out for themselves when they buy a car—everything will work out fine, because voting is a kind of purchase, and people purchasing what they want is what makes the market rational. The market rewards the best product because it rewards the product that most people want.
Of course, all the empirical evidence shows the market isn’t rational—especially the stock market. It’s a con game, as even Ben Bernancke has admitted. It’s all about the tulips.
For complicated reasons, I found myself in an argument with someone about whether there should be an increase in our property taxes in order to pay for important infrastructure that would make a long-term difference in our region, and the person I was arguing with was insisting that, by refusing to vote for the tax increase, he was supporting his family. He believed that keeping his property taxes as low as possible was being a good father because it meant he had more money for his family.
What I couldn’t get him to see was that his children would grow up in a community without the infrastructure that would enable them to thrive. Looking out for his short-term best interest wasn’t really helping his family.
I’m saying that the “I won’t vote for you unless I think I’m really voting for me” seems sensible to two kinds of political narcissists: people who think only they really have real political positions, and people who look out for their own short-term political interests.
I will add one point about political narcissists and how they argue. They argue from their own very specific identity, and I sometimes suspect they have a creeping sensation that their policy agenda is just foaming-at-the-mouth-confirmation-bias and therefore they assume that everyone else is also arguing irrationally from group identity. This means that you know you’re engaged with a political narcissist if, instead of engaging with your claims or evidence, they say you’re arguing from identity. Since they make all decisions from their narrow and self-centered world, they assume everyone else does.
Buy the car you want that serves you personally, and, if you want, define that narrowly, but don’t assume everyone else buys cars as selfishly as you do. And, if you want to be a responsible voter, maybe you should think about your country as a whole. And if you’re thinking about your country as a whole, you might consider that you just might not know what everyone other than you needs, wants, or values. Maybe their desires for something different are legitimate.
And, if you want to show that your support for your candidate is not just irrational in-group fanaticism, when someone criticizes your candidate, engage their arguments, and don’t dismiss their arguments on the grounds that they are bad people and have bad motives for their criticism because yours is the only real candidate or real position.
If you have a good argument for supporting your candidate, you can make it, and you can make a good argument to refute the criticism. If you can’t refute their arguments, and attack everyone who disagrees with you as dupes for some other group, you’re admitting you don’t have a good argument.
And if you think that only your point of view matters, you don’t understand how democracy works.
It’s a President, not a car.
[1] This is a vexed argument, since many supporters of Sanders say that Sanders supporters’ refusal to vote for HRC did not cause Trump to win, and yet I’ve seen the same people who make that argument argue that the failure to nominate Sanders will mean that they won’t vote for a Dem and therefore Trump will win again. So, Sanders’ did and didn’t refuse to vote for HRC, and that did and didn’t cause Trump to win.