ideological purity

pop quiz: what does 'typical white person', Rev. Wright, 'bittergate', Ayers, thousands of emails flooding ABC (to attack George Stephanopolous), Barack Obama's middle finger, the Daily Kos, and Hamas all have in common?

The funny thing about this election is how I can never quite be sure what's really going on. It's like reality stops connecting together into a coherent picture - but a few things seem to fall into place here and there, and so I think it's safe to say this: that after 8 years of Bush, the Democratic party is not about to settle for merely winning. It's got to be this candidate or that candidate or no other.

And I think we can see why: because one of the candidates is zero-sum. You are either with him or you are his enemy. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that this candidate's followers are willing to destroy the entire party rather than compromise. In fact, they want to. They are alight with some sort of fires of holy vengeance, come to cleanse the nation or something.

This man describes himself in messianic terms. He speaks of epiphanies. His campaign is not a campaign but a "movement". He describes what he is offering as a "new" kind of politics. He calls this "unity". What are we unifying for? He calls this "change".

His supporters describe this "new" kind of politics as more like - well, a purge.

• The old people must be disabused of the notion that they matter. Baby Boomers especially, but also older Gen Xers. The Baby Boomers are, it turns out, vile and immoral. And they're the past, not the future. Democrats attacking Democrats: old people are now to be viewed as tainted.
  
  
• The yokels in flyover country must be disabused of the notion that anyone needs Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan - the traditional labor voters in the Rust Belt. Oh - and so-called Reagan Democrats. Democrats attacking Democrats: all these are tainted, too.
  
  
• White voters who are racist (i.e. don't support Obama). Taint, taint, taint. Who needs proof? If you're white and not voting for Obama, you are GUILTY!
  
  
• Female voters who are not ready and willing to...well, the women will fall into line. They're just women.
  
  
• Anyone named Clinton Is. Just. Evil. Hillary must go. And so must anyone who fails to understand why.
  

Key words here are arrogant and assumption and idealism. I keep thinking of what a relief it must have been for General Robert E. Lee to finally be free of that pain-in-the-neck pragmatist Stonewall Jackson - you know Stonewall means old fart getting in the way and not moving when he ought to, right? As soon as that guy stopped his endless nagging Lee was free to go charging up any hill he liked. He had GOD on his side. We all know how that turned out.

Or maybe we don't. It seems to me however highly educated, my "betters" don't know squat about how idealist movements run amok tend to turn out. People think they are joking when they call this group "Jacobin". People talk about bloodshed and riot as if this might somehow shake things up - in a good way?

This is a bad sort of unity. This is maybe why Clinton's supporters are just as adamant, in their own way - okay, we might have been good with Obama earlier, but we don't want him now. We don't want this guy. We don't - really don't - want his version of "unity".

His toxic "coalition of the bitter" brand of unity makes it fashionable to bash on "white trash" and to speak of anyone who gets in the way as an obstacle to be removed, an enemy, a threat. Evil.

Traditional Democratic constituencies are found unworthy and must be purged. They are unwilling to recognize the true vision. Traditional Democratic values are tossed aside or rewritten; Obama fans both individual and collective (Daily Kos, Huffpo) think they have the power to determine what does or does not constitute a "real" Democrat.

"Real" Democrat means the future, not the past. The future, of course, as envisioned by those who would purge the unwanted. Their future "is" what being a Democrat really means. Anyone who doesn't like that needs to be removed somehow.

The soul of the Democratic party is perceived to be at risk. Losing in the general is better than letting evil win.

But, of course, we're all sure that once Hillary Clinton's supporters recognize there's no way she can win (even if every voter left votes for her and every superdelegate votes for her, the nomination will be Obama's)...I am sure we'll all come together and vote Democrat. After all, good loyal Democrats can surely agree that anything is better than letting McCain win.