YOU CAN DO ANYTHING BUT DON'T

At the height of his popularity in 1956-57, Elvis Presley’s concerts made legal authorities nervous.  Their teenage children were being driven into a frenzy by this outlandish young man, who carried on like nothing they’d ever seen on a stage before.  In Jacksonville, a judge even threatened to arrest Elvis for impairing the morals of minors unless he stood still while he sang.  Elvis responded by standing still and waggling his fingers, driving the kids crazy that way.  But he knew where to draw the line.  At one venue, he was about to launch into “Blue Suede Shoes,” with its famous line “you can do anything, but don’t step on my blue suede shoes.”  But when he noticed that some kids were getting rowdy, he said, “This song says you can do anything.  But don’t.  Just don’t.”  

That is advice that progressives would do well to keep in mind as the stakes in future elections keep getting higher. 

I take an occasional look at a handful of conservative websites to see how much distance they’re willing to put between themselves and Donald Trump.  Even from Trump’s opponents on those sites, there are a lot of “tu quoque” arguments.  “Tu quoque” is Latin for “what about Hillary Clinton’s emails.”  Actually, it means “you also.”  It’s a way to change the subject by claiming that whatever my side did wrong, your side did too, only worse.

The conservative tu quoque response to the Nazi-Klan terrorism in Charlottesville has taken the form of a complaint that “the Left” (by which they mean everyone from Hillary Clinton to radical anarchists) has failed to adequately denounce something called Antifa.  I’d never heard of Antifa, so I looked it up.

It appears that Antifa isn’t exactly an organization.  It is, rather, a movement of sorts, dedicated to fighting fascism by acting like fascists.  This year, they’ve disrupted events in Berkeley and Portland, and they were apparently present to some extent in Charlottesville.

Antifa seems like less of a threat to American democracy than Nazis and Kluxers, but that’s mostly because there are fewer of them than their right wing counterparts.  We saw their like in the 60s and 70s, when crazy-angry members of legitimate organizations splintered off into small terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Cutting right to the chase, I denounce them.  I reject their tactics.  I don’t condone violence except as a last resort self-defense effort.  Their tactics validate the Nazi/Klan paranoia and make it easier for the fringe right to recruit new members.  They also force progressives to spend valuable time and energy trying to explain the difference between members of the responsible resistance and nihilistic anarchists. 

As long as I’m denouncing, I’ll extend my disapproval to the silly things that left-leaning celebrities sometimes say.  Show biz types who are accustomed to running their mouths occasionally toss off what they think is clever quip and the right wing propaganda machine springs into action.  Fox & Rush turn every ill-considered comment into a cause celebre. 

Just because we have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s smart to do it.  All of us need to think twice – at least – about venting in ways that will force Democratic leaders to spend time and energy defending an exercise of free speech that hurts our cause more than it helps. 

Is it fair that Republicans get to say (and do) outrageous things, while Democrats are held to a higher standard?  No, of course not.  But it’s the hand we’ve been dealt, and until we can shuffle the cards, let’s try not to make things harder for ourselves.

This is not to say that I want progressives to shut up, or to express themselves timidly.  There are conspicuous exceptions – Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to name two – but most national Democrats are overly cautious.

Paul Waldman, in the Washington Post, wrote: “Democrats are forever worried about whether they might be criticized, whether Republicans will be mean to them, whether they might look as though they’re being partisan, and whether they might be subjected to a round of stern editorials. Republicans, on the other hand, just don’t care. What they’re worried about is winning, and they don’t let the kinds of criticism that frightens Democrats impede them. It makes Republicans the party of ‘Yes we can,’ while Democrats are the party of ‘Maybe we shouldn’t.’”

So what should Democrats do about an opposition party that has become shamelessly authoritarian?  Conventional wisdom always argues that Democrats should be more like Republicans.  I beg to differ.  If we can’t offer a better alternative, and explain it so that voters understand it, we deserve to lose.  And we do not deserve to lose.

But while I don’t want the Democratic Party to turn into the mirror image of the Republican Party, I do wish Democrats (and progressive independents) could find a way to focus more on winning and less on ideological purity.  If we want to take back Congress and the White House, fratricide has to stop.   It’s important to recruit and support candidates who can compete effectively in their state or congressional district, even if they stray from party orthodoxy on some issues. 

Let me put that another way.  The most important vote our Senators and Representatives cast is for the party’s leadership in the House and Senate.  I would welcome 20 or 30 additional conservative Democrats in Congress if it meant that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House instead of Paul Ryan, and Chuck Schumer rather than Mitch McConnell was Senate Majority Leader.