Purity Tests: What do you think?

"And people who sit out or crank on some candidate because they did this or that that wasn’t to their purity test are basically turning their back on the very people they pretend to represent," -Howard Dean (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/345484-former-dnc-chair-calls-progressives-whiny)

“Ideological purity tests are things that are raised by people who have nothing to lose if the status quo is maintained,” -Debra Cleaver (https://www.bustle.com/p/what-kamala-harris-critics-dont-understand-about-female-politicians-74317)

“We have not made an effort to cultivate a [Democratic] farm team in the south and rural areas where pro-life Dems used to come from,” said one top party strategist, who asked for anonymity to avoid becoming embroiled in the debate. “After being wiped out in 2010, no one has focused on growing the next generation of leadership from those areas. And [it] doesn’t help when people have purity tests.” -Democratic Strategist (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345231-anti-abortion-democrats-fading-from-the-scene)

Finally, there's the issue of persuasion. The DCCC believes that winning seats is "more important than any Democratic purity test for potential candidates," Bloomberg reports. -The Week reporting on the DCCC (http://theweek.com/articles/713180/why-blue-dogs-destroy-democratic-party-again)

In the party’s struggle to regroup after last November’s shocking loss to Donald Trump, the “purity” test — what it takes to be a Democrat — is pitting liberal activists against more pragmatic party leaders everywhere, including Massachusetts. “The energy is on the left,” acknowledged Neal in an interview. “But having said that, if you don’t start saying, ‘How do you get to 218?,’ the energy is for naught.” And Democrats certainly can’t risk losing any seat they now hold, he said. -US Representative Richard Neal (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/04/24/impure-thoughts-about-democrats-purity-test/rkOBR7jdAooTEsI9AgedBJ/story.html)

From yesterday's discussion in the "ALERT: Kamala Harris Hobnobs in the Hamptons with Top Hillary Doners, Fundraisers" thread, we even saw this term lobbed around by users on reddit:

/u/imliterallyfive – "This very much. Do people not remember 2016? Focusing all your energy on purity tests and slagging anyone who fails is how you make an election emotional and personal and you wind up with people thinking that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are indistinguishable, or that it's worth throwing away your vote on a 3rd party so you can have your personal moral high ground."

/u/AlphaQ69 – "This thread needs to fuck off with its purity tests."

/u/joemama1333 – "Thanks for reaching out and I appreciate your position. But honestly this place is getting worse by the day to the point where it's like the other side of The Donald. Purity tests and the like are for tea partiers. I can only see this place getting more and more extreme as people like myself leave. Sometimes people have to be pragmatic not psychopathic."


It would seem to me that purity test is going to be the new Establishment-endorsed buzzword to fling at Progressives who have misgivings about a candidate's past. Whether they be concerns about voting history, source of campaign funds or any other frustration-inducing research into a candidate, I fully expect to have this current darling of the shortcut-to-thinking snub world lobbed towards the Progressive Left.

In channeling the spirit of Robert Reich, I must ask: What do you think?

submitted by /u/thirteenbastards
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – None

Add your comment