Why I Mostly Align With the Democratic Party

There has been a lot of confusion, and frankly misinformation, posted lately about my political leanings and the reasons for them.  So here I'm going to set the record straight.

I mostly align with the Democratic party.  I mostly vote for Democratic candidates (with occasional exceptions).  I do so because of only one reason, which is the following:

ON MOST OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES, I ALIGN WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL, ON BALANCE, PURSUE POLICIES THAT ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES I WANT.  Those outcomes are 1) scientific and technological advancement, 2) environmental sustainability, 3) quality infrastructure, 4) the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and 5) a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living.

If you feel tempted to ascribe any other motivation to my political positions and voting patterns - such as Obama worship, racial guilt, Jewish tradition, my parents, being dropped on my head, trying to impress a girl, or anything else - you must reread the above passage until you learn.  If you have proven unable to learn this, in spite of me stating it clearly for years, then the fault lies with your intelligence.

-----------

Do I agree with the bulk of the Democratic Party on every issue?  Absolutely not.  Do I disagree with some Democrats on some issues.  Absolutely.

But this is where people who try to pick apart the Democratic party and my support for it over any particular issue start to be either stupid and/or dishonest.

In America, we have a two-party political system.  Our first-past-the-post district-based election system guarantees it.  Except in a few fringe cases where a handful of cities have instituted rank choice voting for local offices, we have a two-party system.  Third parties are simply not happening, and the only other alternative is not voting and withdrawing from the process, which just means your voice disappears.

So recite it with me:  In America, your choice in any given vote is either Republican or Democrat.  Period.  Because of this, claiming to be against Democrats but not for Republicans is nonsense.  So is claiming to be against Republicans and not for Democrats.  In American politics, you are either for one or for the other.  Period.

There is simply no such thing, if one is being intellectually honest, as being against the Democratic party but not for the Republican party, unless one is proposing to withdraw from the political process.  Your choices are Democrat or Republican.  One or the other.  Period.

If we are honest and admit that stark choice, we must then choose which of the two to support.

So which should I support?

---------

Well, some people out there claim that the Democratic party has embraced anti-Zionism, and that makes it so that one can not support the Democrats.

Clearly the claim that the Democratic party as a whole has embraced anti-Zionism is nonsense, since the Democratic Party platform and every single national Democratic elected party official openly supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, even those Democrats who are more hostile to Israel than I would like.  So the claimants try to step it back by saying that the Democratic Party is just as guilty because it has "let anti-Zionism into the progressive netroots tent" or somesuch.

Now, I will be the first to say that the sad fact that anti-Zionism nonsense has gotten a toe hold among a certain portion of the liberal netroots is absolutely shameful, and should shame those who have let it in and who tolerate it until the end of time.  But it is a huge leap from there to saying that anti-Zionism has infected the Democratic party.  Clearly, most netroots anti-Zionists themselves align with either Ron/Rand Paul or fringe parties such as the Orwellian-ly named Peace and Freedom Party, and do not, in fact, support the Democratic party.  Also it is important to restate that zero national Democratic elected officials have embraced anti-Zionism.  In fact, in a recent House vote on the Israel Strategic Partnership Act, all Democrats voted in favor and the sole opposition vote was cast by a Republican Rand Paul devotee.

However, much to my dismay, it is indeed the case that some of the netroots anti-Zionists do actually support the Democratic party, notoriously including, as far as I'm aware, anti-Zionist netroots extrordinaire David Harris Gershon.  So the question stands how one should respond to this fact.

--------

At this point, for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, I'm going to actually accept the charge that the Democratic party is somehow culpable for the presence of anti-Zionism in a portion of the grassroots /netroots.  Remember, I am only accepting this claim to move the argument along.

So, accepting that the Democratic party is culpable for anti-Zionists being allowed into the tent, what does a sober person such as myself do?

Well, as discussed above, since the only two possible alternatives are to either align with the Democratic party or align with the Republican party, let's examine who the Republicans have 'allowed into their tent':

- Creationists
- Climate Deniers
- Pseudo-Anarchist thieves such as Cliven Bundy and his supporters
- Those who seek to use government to control others' sex lives
- The extraction industries

But it is far worse than that, because the Republican party has not simply allowed these interests into their tent.  They have turned the entire tent over to them.

We've accepted for the sake of argument that anti-Zionists are in the Democratic Netroots tent, and that it is the Democrats' fault.  And yet in spite of this, as of now, zero national Democratic elected officials have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists.  In contrast, almost every national Republican elected official is a declared climate denier!  Zero Democratic presidential primary candidates have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists, while a majority of Republican presidential candidates in the last primary election declared that they do not accept evolution.

Do you see the tremendous and crucial difference in degree here, even if we do accept the charge that the presence of anti-Zionists in the Netroots is the fault of the Democratic party?  Anti-Zionists are loud, obnoxious dillbags, but they are not as of now in a position of real power in the Democratic party.  In contrast, creationists, climate deniers, sexual moralists, and the extraction industries hold the balance of power in the Republican party.

So I face a choice between the Democratic party, which we accept for the sake of argument is culpable for having allowed anti-Zionists into its tent but without giving them much actual power, and the Republican party, which has actively ceded most of its platform and actual power to creationists, climate deniers, the extraction industries, sexual moralists, and pseudo-anarchists.  Given this, which one should I support to have the greatest chance of furthering my goals of scientific and technological advancement, environmental sustainability, quality infrastructure, the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living?  Gee, that's a hard one.  If the answer is not obvious to you, then there is probably not much that can be done for you.