This myth is built upon the belief that the two parties are sufficient to represent all sides of the issues.
Until the election of 1852, everybody understood that only a Whig or a Democrat could be elected. The Whigs, however, were unable to find consensus on the issue of slavery; and their house, divided against itself, could not stand. A similar thing is happening now with the Democrats around the issue of oligarchy – and it might spell the end of the party.
Barack Obama has warned progressives to avoid in-fighting – “circular firing squads” – that weaken the overall progressive effort. Where, though, should we compromise? Where should we hold firm? Where do we draw the line between purity and pragmatism? Nathan Locke proposes a simple, common-sense litmus test.
This article matters because if the Left wants to secure victories in upcoming elections, taking note of how this will affect progressives is imperative. Plus, a future of peace is always an urgent matter.
Until they outlaw public monitoring of vote totals completely, this is one of the few methods we have to isolate problems ourselves.
I simply want to illustrate why Democrats must accept that this lawsuit must proceed, and be decided against the DNC.