The Case Against Casey in the Primary
I have long thought that the mahoffs of the Democratic Party were making moral, strategic, and tactical mistakes in supporting Bob Casey for Senate. The moral issue is clear. I do not subscribe to the view that lifestyle and liberties issues like feminism, abortion, civil liberties, civil rights for African Americans, gay rights, stem cell research and gun control are distractions from the economic concerns that animated the New Deal coalition. While I would agree that our focus on these issues in the last thirty years has cost us politically, I would argue that the cost has been worth it. When historians look back at the last third of the twentieth century the will be impressed by the incredible strides we have made in making this country more tolerant and inclusive. And they will note that feminism has brought about the most incredible, rapid–and peaceful–political and social transformation we have ever seen. I also think that if we were better at articulating the case for economic liberalism, the political costs of our lifestyle liberalism would not have been as severe.
The Strategic and Tactical Case Against Casey in the Primary
So I am not happy with the Casey candidacy on moral grounds. Nor am I happy with it on strategic grounds. Going after lifestyle conservatives in the middle of the state is likely to cost us with economically moderate lifestyle liberals in the greater Philadelphia region. And, on tactical grounds, it is a mistake to support a politician who seems reluctant to come out swinging, whose candidacy seems to be packaged by his handlers, and who, to begin with, is not all that dynamic.
Why Progressives and Liberals Should Support Casey Now
For these reasons, I initially supported Alan Sandals in the primary and then organized for Pennachio when Neighborhood Networks endorsed him. But right now I want to urge Democrats, liberals and progressive not only to vote for Bob Casey but to work actively to make him our next Senator. I recommend this path for four reasons.
1. Whatever the trouble with Casey’s view on lifestyle and liberties issues, a Senate lead by the Democratic Party would be far more supportive of progressive views on these issues than the Republican Senate is now. A Democratic Senate would investigate the initiation and conduct of the Iraq war. It would be aggressive the a Republican Senate in standing up to the Bush administrations violations of the US Constitution. Those old enough to remember the sixties, it was Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, led by Senator Fulbright, that helped spark widespread opposition to the Vietnam War. A Democratic Senate, would, in other words, help us set the stage for Democratic victories in 2008 and beyond.
2. While Casey is conservative on lifestyle and liberties issues, he is more moderate that Rick Santorum and is not likely to be an aggressive right wing leader on this issue. Casey, for example, doesn’t see anything morally wrong with contraception. Santorum does.
3. Rick Santorum is a rising star in the Republican Party. And that makes him all the more dangerous. He is a possible Republican nominee for President. We need to block his path to greater influence in Washington.
4. Casey is a strong liberal on economic issues. He will be another voice and vote for an increase in the minimum wage, for saving social security, for more equitable taxation and reduced budget deficits, for more aid to our cities, for protecting and enhancing the rights of labor unions, for reducing the number of Americans without health insurance.
The Responsibility of Political Action
I want to emphasize the last issue. As I said, I don’t think that economic issues are more important than lifestyle and liberties issues. But, by the same token, I think the moral case for economic liberalism is compelling. And I really do object when I hear liberals and progressives say that we should not actively support Casey, or not vote for him or, God forbid, support Santorum, because there is no difference between Casey and Santorum. There are important moral differences between them. And, frankly, I am especially upset when I hear liberals and progressives who do not need the protection of the social welfare state and who, in fact, may benefit from Republican economic policies, say that they will not support Casey. In the political tradition I come from, that stance is called infantile leftism.
It is simply wrong to act politically in ways that we know will make it more difficult to do justice to working people and the poor. It is a failure–a moral failure–to fail to act politically to make the world as good a place as we can make it under the circumstances we find it in. It is moral failure to act politically with the hopes that, if things get worse in the short term, they may get better in the long term. If a reading of the history of the left had not show us that the Leninist notion that “the worse the better” is bankrupt, we should be convinced by the recent errors of progressives and liberals whose distaste for Al Gore helped elect George Bush and brought us war, torture, and serious violations of our constitution and civil rights.
Casey and the Long Term Strategy of Democrats
There are some liberals and progressive who say that if Casey wins, the strategy of running economic liberals who are lifestyle and liberties conservatives will come to predominate in the Democratic Party. I don’t think that this is likely at all. Most of the Democratic Houses and Senate delegation is liberal and progressive on both sets of issues–although they are also somewhat feckless and lacking in the courage of their convictions. We have to strengthen them in their convictions. But we are much more likely to do this if the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. For the main reasons the Congressional Democrats are so reluctant to strike out in new direction is that they don’t see any hope for success and have no responsibility to govern. That changes as soon as the Senate majority leader is a Democrat.
I should also note that anything the Democrats do to enhance the bargaining rights of labor unions will go far to strengthen our party on all issues. Most union leaders are progressive on lifestyle and liberties issues as well as economic issues. Casey will strongly support the bargaining rights of unions. If the labor movement begins to grow, we all benefit.
As I have explained in a more recent post, I also don’t think that we should be concerned that supporting Casey harms the progressive movement in the our state and I don’t think that progressive groups will betray their ideals if they support Casey.
Casey Can Win If We Do Our Part
With Ed Rendell carrying him in Philadelphia and his own base of support Bob Casey has a good chance to win election to the Senate. But Santorum is a great campaigner and has come from 40 points behind twice. The election is going to be close.
So please, for the sake of our city, our state, our country and, in fact the whole world, support Casey for Senate. Start now.