Carney's been wooed by several of the presidential campaigns, but has no plans to endorse anytime soon.
His personal choice, though, would be a ticket featuring independent-minded Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"It's kind of where I think government should be. More independent, less partisan-oriented, just wanting to do the right thing," said Carney.
As for the impact of Clinton on his re-election, Carney says he's not worried.
"Certainly we are not Hillary Clinton," he said. "We don't govern like she does."
Wow, we certainly have a turkey on our hands here, as Carney endorses a ticket containing two non-Democrats for President. This passage brings to mind the bylaws of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party (PDF), where I serve on the state committee:
[Section 2A]: No person shall be eligible to serve as a member or officer of any Democratic committee as provided in Section 1 of this rule who: (…)
[Section 2A (3)] by voice, vote, financial support or otherwise has, within two years, supported a candidate in a general or special election opposed to the duly nominated candidate of the Democratic Party in that election, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this Section.(…)
[Section 2C] Those Democratic candidates who cross-file for an office in which cross filing is permitted by law and Democratic candidates running as write-ins and those persons supporting such candidates are exempt from paragraph (a) of this Section.
Through this statement, Chris Carney has now rendered himself ineligible to hold Democratic Party office in Pennsylvania for the next two years. If he sits on the state committee, which I do not believe he does, I will introduce a motion at the next state committee meeting to have him removed from the committee.
Instead of going into the specifics of either case, I would rather discuss in a more generalized way both the dangers I see in moving outside the Democratic coalition for progressives, and how ideology and partisanship are not incompatible concepts. First, dealing with the former, I primarily view the Democratic Party as a set of agreed upon rules for handling intra-coalition disputes among progressives, liberals, and moderates. Through the primary system and open elections for Democratic Party office, progressives, liberals and moderates have a, available, democratic, and legal means of settling disputes that include, but are not limited to, what ideological positions local and national parties adopt, what candidates will represent the coalition in general elections, and who will hold leadership positions within the coalition. I feel strongly that if we do not respect these means of intra-coalition democracy, no matter which ideological direction we are abandoning it from, control of the coalition will further devolve primarily into a series of power structures determined by personal relationships and money. If we have no agreed upon, democratic rules for settling disputes between coalition members, the threat of Naderism and Liebermanism becomes all the more extreme. This is why I feel very strongly both about increasing intra-coalition democracy, and about always availing one's self of the channels in place of splitting off and acting independently.
Second, operating within the partisan framework I describe above, which I view as primarily a democratic, coalition building structure, is not incompatible with an ideological outlook on American politics. As I see it, there is nothing stopping anyone from taking an ideological approach within a partisan framework. Through primary challenges (such as we saw in Connecticut last year or Maryland 4th this year), runs for local party office (the silent revolution that I have engaged in with so many other local activists), having elected members of the coalition hold of legislation (as the progressives did for a while on the Iraq supplemental) and other means, there are many ways to try and leverage progressive strength within an intra-coalition, democratic, partisan framework. In my very strongly held view, it is only when those avenues of intra-coalition / intra-party democracy break down or cease to exist that one can justifiably leave the coalition and begin taking steps independently of the will of the coalition. Until that day comes, and I will fight like hell to make sure that it never does, I will consider myself a partisan, progressive Democrat to the core. Further, as I discussed last week, the historical development of the current manifestation of the two partisan coalitions is intimately connected with ideological concerns, anyway.
Now, I know that individual attachment to political parties has been in decline for decades, as has been the relative influence of political parties over the broader political ecosystems. The rise of self-identified independents and the rise non-party committee organizations within our political system have both been documented for time now. Further, failures of the Democratic Congress on FISA, and the inability of the Congress to begin troop redeployment in Iraq, has left many disillusioned with the new congress. As such, it might seem strange to many that I am making the case for progressives to avail themselves of the Democratic Party even more than they have in the past. However, in closing, I want to argue that the case I am laying out here is not simply strategic, but also progressive and values-based. It is, as I see it, an argument that we progressives support democratic means of settling our internal disputes. If we do not use democratic means of settling our own disputes, then what means do we have to root out injustice and power imbalances within our own midst? The progressive coalition, in order to be progressive, I think must also be a democratic coalition. From what I understand it, the decision by Blue America was democratic within their operations, and so I don't have any particular argument with them in this case, especially since I am not a member of that PAC. That was their autonomous decision to make, even if I think it weakens their hand in future Democratic primaries. However, I will never support the Chris Carney's or Steve Porter's of the world even before ideological issues are taken into account, due to their rather flagrant flaunting of intra-coalition democracy. They have not respected those rules themselves, and have, in a rather undemocratic and unprogressive fashion, taken their own personal interests as more important than those of the coalition as a whole.
I hope that makes my positions on ideology and partisanship clear. I am eager to see what others think on these matters. Oh, and before you ask, Bernie Sanders won the Vermont Democratic primary for Senate last year. He just turned down the nomination, and there was no Democratic candidate.
