"We don't have political revolutions."

[I support Bernie Sanders and will vote for him in PAs primary, but will vote for Hillary Clinton proudly if she’s the nominee.  Edit: Proudly b/c she is one of the most committed public servants I’ve seen, and someone who would exceptionally good at the job.]

For the most part, since the early fall, I’ve tried to stay out of the Hillary-Bernie debate; the flames on both sides are just too much, and the energy expended might be better spent organizing, phone banking, or even just letters to the editors.  

In any case, for many, it boils down to the old pragmatism vs idealism debate that parties have.  However, this article by John Avignone at Salon just set my blood boiling, and the steam needs to escape.

He is responding in a way to Paul Krugman who wonders when idealism has ever effected change.  Avignone says:

Since the days of Ancient Greece, ideological purity in a democratic society has been the road to ruin of every political movement and every political party that has tried it

Ahem . . .

Maybe I missed that year in class, but I’m 99% sure we had a literal revolution to found our country.  Did everyone have the same ideals and the same aims in the late 18th century.  Of course not.  However, what brought the people of the various States together was the common ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  It was the dream that everyone had that sustained them through the long, hard years of defeat and uncertainty.  Perhaps Hillary would be more comfortable with John Dickinson’s stance during the Continental Congresses?  (Trolling?  Maybe.)  It certainly was the more practical stance, rather than take on the largest empire the world had seen.

Not a 24 years after the Declaration, our country had yet another revolution, one which is seen as just as monumental, not just in our country, but around the world.  The Revolution of 1800, which saw the rise of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, was most important because it represented the first peaceful transfer of power between two factions in a country.  (Incidentally, it was also responsible for the only time not two, but three presidents from the same party held the Presidency consecutively ~ 24 years.)  

As much as I hate him, in 1828, Andrew Jackson led a political revolution in our country.  While I find him to be a slave-holding racist and opportunist, he was the first president to ride the back of the people to presidency.  Up until then, our leaders were mostly chosen by the elites, the “establishment” if you will ~ Jackson’s election, in its time, was framed as a choice between democracy or aristocracy.  For crying out loud, he ran against the incumbent John Quincy Adams, one of the most eminently prepared person to ever be our president ~ sound familiar  (He was even Sec of State)??  [ed note: really, you should read about ol’ Quincy.  IMO, one of our most undervalued presidents ~ he even went back to the House after his term!]

Then, a generation later, a group of idealists, ex-Whigs, Free Soilers, and northern Democrats, were so fed up with the system, and buoyed by their belief in equality of all men, regardless of color, formed a brand freakin’ new political party: The Republicans.  As our nation had been doing for years, it would’ve been easy to punt, and compromise yet again for what was practical and doable, but Republicans achieved some of the most lasting change in our country since the Revolution ~ and they were a minority of the population in the country.

Let’s fast-forward to the more modern times that most of us know more about.  We’re all well aware of Roosevelt’s progressive, populist executive actions.  Next, came the Women’s Suffrage movement.  After the Crash, we got FDRs New Deal legislation creating the social safety net that not even Eisenhower would touch.  Then there was the Civil Rights Movement, and LBJs Great Society programs.  

My point should be clear: all throughout history, we HAVE had political revolutions from pie-in-the-sky dreamers, working together to enact change.  Even LBJ, the much-lauded arm-twister and sweet talker, had the grand vision to complement his pragmatism.  Politics may be the “art of the possible,” but you don’t get anywhere if your lodestone is “what can I get done?”  

“Shoot for the moon ~ Even if you miss, you land among the stars.”  It’s trite, but perhaps it is so for a reason ~ because it’s true.  If our goal is to climb Mt Everest, but we only make it 90% of the way to the top, did we fail?  

Note: I wrote all this, then remembered Barry said it better 8 years ago:

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a President who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

 Feeling the Bern!  Ready to go!

Please donate to your favored candidate.