But I don’t think it’s necessarily (all) “political ambition and expediency”. Sometimes it’s just realism.
Suppose you genuinely believe in a certain cause, and as a practical matter in your area and arena no one who denounces Farrakhan has much chance of getting into position from which they can advance that cause. What do you do?
Point being that sometimes these associations are simply about balancing one cause and issue against another, and don’t speak to the position on any one issue in isolation. That’s not a justification if you take an absolutist position on “association with racists” but not everyone takes that position. In fact, my point is that very few people take that position, when the shoe is on their foot.
But let’s suppose he genuinely and honestly meant his repudiation of his past defense of bigotry but continued to feel it was appropriate for him to interact with Farrakhan for practical reasons? That would be consistent with both his repudiations and his subsequent actions.
Well I recognize your post for what it is too.
The old “you said one thing but I’ll impute some other meaning to it which is easier for me to attack” shtick.
So Farrakhan, who has no elected position, and no influence in the Democratic party leadership, or influence into its policies is the same as Trump who is the President and leader of the GOP? Those are equivalent situations? Really? Same same?
And that’s fine if you sincerely believe your interests are better served (or at least not as potentially mis-served) with him as President and not Hillary Clinton. Is it really “support”, though, or more like “we tolerate his flaws because he overall serves our interests better than the alternative.”
Are there circumstances where you’d cut off your support, whatever its extent? Would it have to be when your personal interests are no longer optimally served, or could it come about when he hurts other Americans, though you personally still feel profited?
I find it a bit difficult to find anything to praise about Trump, just because… what’s he actually done that was positive? Cut taxes while creating an immense deficit? Were I American, I could see myself personally gaining but I’d remained concerned about my country’s long term loss.
Soooo…No other prominent Democrats at all-just everybody that voted for Davis? Do you have any evidence at all that the reason they voted for Davis was because he didn’t denounce Farrakhan to your satisfaction, or is this just broadbrush number puffery?
Assuming his opponent vigorously denounced any prominent figures in his own party (like, say, Donald Trump) who have repeatedly said bigoted things, I wouldn’t vote for Davis. If his opponent had not done so, then I’d be forced to choose between two bigotry-apologists, and I’d delve deeper into their positions on other forms of bigotry and other political issues altogether to make a choice.
The realist in me acknowledges that this is realpolitik.
The optimist in me hopes and wants this to change and has no qualms in calling those with whom my political views generally align to a higher standard.
The cynic in me usually gets the last word.
Okay… so this seems to be turning into a “how bad would a Democrat have to be before Trump is the preferred choice?”
I don’t mind admitting that for me personally… they guy would have to be pretty bad for me to prefer a political dilettante like Trump. I’ll gladly rule out Farrakhan himself, but an avowed supporter of Farrakhan better have a lot of positives. A tepid supporter could get by. A candidate who tolerates Farrakhan as one might a crazy bigoted great-uncle, I’d likely be okay with. Trump himself doesn’t bring any real positives to the table, so I’d have to choose if the Democrat was overall acceptable or not.
OK, but how about if it’s not a “political dilettante” but just someone you vehemently disagreed with about issues, e.g. Ted Cruz? Does that still hold, or are you saying it’s only personal qualifications but that issues are of lesser importance?
I’d easily put Cruz (and many, many other Republicans currently in office) into the same category as Davis, with regards to being wishy-washy about denouncing bigots and bigotry in their own party.
That wasn’t the question. The question was if a Democrat like Davis was running against a Republican who was ideologically similar to Cruz (or whoever - basically someone you vehemently disagreed with about issues), but didn’t have manifest personal failings.
I remember something similar back when Obama was first running for president and it came out that the pastor of the church he attended had said some racist things.
Obama handled them by first working to distance himself from him and next by saying he was just some old man talking and next he quit his membership at that church. In the end it didnt hurt him any.
Presuming your Cruz-clone had vociferously denounced Trump and others in the Republican party who had promoted bigotry, and presuming no other serious moral failings (e.g. credible allegations of sexual assault) then I’d vote for the Cruz-clone.
Those might be the only two issues – bigotry and mistreatment of women – that, IMO, override every other issue, due to the incredible harm they’ve done to our society. Maybe there are others (advocating for nuclear war, perhaps?), but those are the two that I can think of that actually are reasonably frequent.
I would not vote in that election. Might even write a strongly worded letter to the DNC & CBC and include my spoiled voting ballot (Is that allowed?) to drive the point home.