1.2 Win or Lose?

A quarter of those who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries did not vote Democratic in November, and half of them voted for Trump. Most radicals are now recognizing that Democratic votes matter. But the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), with over 50,000 dues-paying members, all of whom are Berniecrats, has vowed not to endorse Biden. Similarly, whenever Biden is criticized, a host of radicals pile on. Michael Moore told Vanity Fair on May 21 that “Biden does not generate the necessary enthusiasm,” and said he “may not be the nominee.”

Coming from Trump, such criticism would do no harm; we don’t believe a word he says. But millions of Democrats take Moore seriously, and other naysaying Berniecrats are also influential.

Radical myths (and there are many) that slander groups of Democrats function as expanded versions of the personal attacks noted above. In Chapters 6 and 7, we will take a close look at the radical’s crime bill myth, which has already been appropriated by Trump to attack Biden as racist even though Biden was siding with a majority of Black leaders including two-thirds of radical Congressional Black Caucus. 

A very different problem is radicals taking extreme positions to show they are more righteous than liberals or even other radicals. For example, ending private health insurance in one step, abolishing ICE, and defunding the police are three positions that make headlines throughout the right-wing press. Trump tweets them, and they fire up his base. He and the Russians back Sanders and love Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — for all the wrong reasons.

These three, radical, dark-side behaviors damage the Democrats and will help Trump win.

1. Personal attacks on Biden 
2. Myths that slander Democratic leaders and the party
3. Extreme positions that fire up Trump’s base

Elections

It’s hard to know, but my guess is that radical positions are what do us the most damage in elections. This dates back to at least the 1950s when Republicans frequently smeared Democrats as communist sympathizers.

The 2018 midterm elections are a good test of the impact of such positions. During these elections, the liberals, despite pressure from the radicals, rejected the radical positions. Meanwhile, the radicals relied on these positions to implement their plan for an overwhelming Congressional victory. Altogether the blue wave flipped 43 House seats from red to blue. 

The three radical PACs made 117 radical endorsements for the House and promised to elect Berniecrats even in deep-red states! So how many districts did they manage to turn from red to blue? Zero. As in none.

The blue wave was almost entirely powered by moderates and the New Dem PAC, which endorsed 33 of the candidates who did flip seats from red to blue.

The last time radicals gained control of the Democratic Party was the late 1960s, and I was cheering them on. LBJ had won a 61% landslide in 1964. After eight years, we took control and ran George McGovern — a wonderful person, by the way — in 1972. He polled 37% and summed that up by saying, “I opened the doors of the Democratic Party, and 20 million people walked out.” This crushed the Democrats and radicalism for decades. Of course, we hadn’t seen any of that coming; we were radicals.

Do We Need Radical Positions?

Taking positions is easy. Getting things done is hard. This is reflected in history. Consider who made the fundamental progressive changes in the last 160 years: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, and Obama. All were liberals in the sense that they compromised, never applied purity tests, and did not strive for a revolution. And Sanders’ three favorites — Teddy, FDR, and LBJ — were super-rich and at the pinnacle of their party establishments. Dark-side radicalism, if it were honest, would reject all three of those presidents, even though they now try to claim credit for their fundamental progressive changes.

There is a similar, though nearly unknown, line of notables on the radical side, but none have accomplished anything remotely close to the fundamental progressive changes brought about by the liberal presidents.

Since we don’t need radical positions — like “defund the police” or that looting is a form of reparations — to make fundamental progressive change, we should disown them or, if possible, dispose of them. That would short-circuit the bulk of the attacks from right-wing media, the Trump War Room, and Trump himself. There is nothing they like more than tying our candidates to radical positions. Consider these examples:

• “Joe Biden and the Radical Left want to Abolish Police, Abolish ICE, …” —Trump on Twitter
• “Trump wants Americans to believe Biden is a radical leftist.” —CNN
• “Hannity accuses Biden of ‘adopting the radical left’s war on police’ by ‘bowing’ to Sanders.” —Fox News. 
• “We are focused strictly on how she [Kamala Harris] completes the radical leftist takeover of Joe Biden.” —Communications director for the Trump campaign 

Eliminating Trump’s favorite style of attack would be a tremendous help with winning this election.

What Can You Do?

The most important thing is to help get out the vote. I’m not denying that. But how can you make use of what’s in this book? There are two ways. 

▪   Learn about dark-side myths and avoid spreading them.

▪   Speak up when dark-side ideas are being expressed. 

Few of the most activist radicals can be convinced by logic. But ideology spreads mostly through either social pressure or through persuasion by trusted sources such as friends.

Radicals, who argue aggressively and claim more knowledge than they possess, deliberately make it hard for the center to speak up. However, I have observed that people give voice to their views and feelings more often when they feel confident of their facts and their position. It only makes sense. The purpose of this book is to help instill such confidence in the liberal center.