1. Polarization Matters

“One thing I worry about among progressives,” said President Obama, is that “we sometimes start creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad,’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and [the] movement weaken.”

Shoot at your allies, test their purity, and the movement weakens. Somehow, it seems, Obama read this book a year before I wrote it. The only quibble I have with his summary is that the firing squad is not exactly circular. Of course, Obama was being characteristically tactful.

In fact, the progressives, who I’ll often refer to as radicals, are shooting at the Democratic Party with the intent of taking it over. The Party itself, whose members I will often call liberals, tries hard to avoid internal discord but sometimes feels threatened enough to shoot back.

Note Obama’s conclusion that “the overall effort and [the] movement weaken.” His concern, my concern and I’m sure yours too is that any weakening could mean a return to power of Trumpism. 

So that is the purpose of this book — to stop Trump, the most dangerous president this country has seen.

Although I focus on problems among Democrats, I do so only for the reasons Obama pointed out. These problems weaken us dramatically whether we win or lose. And if we lose, those will be the things we could have changed.

Unfortunately, Obama’s wise words did not put an end to the radicals’ sniping, and they are continuing to weaken the Democrats’ efforts to defeat Trump. Of course, they don’t admit this and have many excuses and arguments for what they do.

My goal is to make clear how they operate and where they go wrong. But I am just as intent on fixing this problem because we would be far better off if the radicals joined us in a unified effort. They see no possibility of this. But I believe many can be won over because of a fortunate alignment between their goals and ours.

Growing more concerned, in November 2019, Obama added this to his April remark:

This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement … the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.

He’s not criticizing the radicals for their goals but for their revolutionary approach to achieving them.

That is the key to understanding this book.

There are two sides to radicalism, its positive-side desire for fundamental progressive social change and its dark-side belief that the only way to achieve this is with a revolution. The dark-side belief in the revolution was recently articulated by Sean McElwee, the up-and-coming Berniecrat theorist and pollster:

Look, in 2020, mistakes were made … the progressive movement wasn’t yet powerful enough to win a Democratic [presidential] primary. … Eventually, we will be powerful enough, and we’ll … pass a lot of laws.

He also tells how they will gain power over the party “not by trying to flip red districts but by ousting moderate Democrats in relatively safe blue seats.” So his plan, which aligns with the plans of the three Berniecrat PACs, is to forget about defeating Republicans and just shoot at Democrats in safe blue seats. That, he believes, will bring the radical revolution, and after the revolution (not before), fundamental social change.

The positive side of radicalism is more surprising. But this doesn’t apply to the radical fringe, the core of which is the openly Marxist Democratic Socialists of America with 50,000 dues-paying Berniecrat members, an organization that has vowed not to support Joe Biden. The positive side only describes the vast majority of Bernie’s and Warren’s followers who have sense enough to support Biden. But that’s most of the Democratic radicals.

 The surprise is that this positive side aligns almost perfectly with liberal goals and aspirations. As I’ll show, this is because Bernie has sold them on FDR liberalism, and that’s been central to the Democratic Party ever since FDR invented it.

Once this near-perfect alignment between (non-fringe) present-day radicals and present-day liberal Democrats is understood, the only disagreement is over tactics. And that’s not worth shedding blood over. Even the radicals know that. They’re firing because they mistakenly think we are corporate shills or controlled by the party establishment that they believe is entirely corrupt. And that’s what causes all the trouble.

So we must convince them that we share their goals, we are not evil, and we just believe we have a better way of achieving these shared goals.

Our argument for “improvement,” as Obama calls it, rather than tearing down the system to remake it, is on solid ground. All the fundamental progressive social change made in America has been made under liberal (not radical) presidents, starting with Lincoln ending slavery. And the progress has been enormous.

We have come from a point where most White men could not vote to where nearly everyone can; from no regulation of capitalism to a huge body of regulations; from no safety net to Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and more; from slavery to electing a Black president. These changes would have been literally unthinkable in 1820. They are more than “fundamental;” they are astounding. And it was all done with incremental changes — thousands of them.

During this 200-year period, the revolutionary approach, which dates back just as far, has done nothing remotely similar and has often set us back, sometimes for decades.

For many years, I was a radical, but I’ve left that religion. What has changed? None of my goals or aspirations for justice, equality, or liberty. The only thing that changed is my understanding of what has worked and what has failed. My aspirations are still far more radical than Bernie’s public agenda, but I now see his revolutionary approach as something that has never worked in the past and is almost sure to fail now and in the future.

So keep this in mind as you read this book. Taking cautious steps along a difficult path does not mean we’re about to stop. It means we know what it takes to go the distance. It means that we do want to go far. And hoping for the revolution before leaping forward to our final destination does not mean that day will come. If anyone thinks it has, history promises a rude awakening. 

Worse yet, those who attack fellow Democrats only slow our progress, and could make Trump the winner. Joining forces does not require compromising principles, only giving up some fond illusions.