Strategery

Can I get your attention for a minute?

For the last few blog posts, we’ve discussed what it takes to be part of an equitable society, and why that matters. Let’s take a break here and discuss something that even Don and Chuck have been having a problem figuring out: when to be strategic versus when to be tactical.

Here’s the situation. Read the whole thing. By now you all know that at Right and Freedom, we universally denounce people who try to overthrow our government. So at this point, we’re kind of perturbed at the Republican Party. Being staunch independents, it doesn’t have to stay that way. The Republicans can fix their problems, denounce those who planned and participated in the coups, and thereby get back in our good graces. Oh, and stop pushing a Theocracy Agenda on everyone.

So here’s the problem.

Nancy Pelosi financed Henry Cuellar’s campaign in Texas, and the net result was she basically pushed him over the top, dealing an institutional defeat to a more progressive incumbent.

The good: Henry has been re-elected every year since 2005. He’s the man to beat, and chances are that he will win re-election.

The bad: Henry is basically another Manchin. He votes with the Republicans almost 90% of the time, and is Democrat quite certainly in name only.

The argument we’re having is this.

Don is a purist. He wants folks in office who will do what the people, including him, want. He’s pissed that Pelosi backed Cuellar and by all accounts is the main reason that Cuellar emerged victorious. Seriously, there was only a difference of a few hundred votes. Without Pelosi’s money, Cuellar would not have won.

But...here’s the deal. Incumbents are elected over 90% of the time. This means that by supporting Cuellar, Pelosi just got one practically-guaranteed seat in the House. She has a way to go to maintain leadership, but that’s one less she has to worry about.

The problem?

He’s going to vote Republican. No doubt. Every time.

So my (Chuck’)s argument was that Pelosi did the right thing. My reasoning is if Pelosi doesn’t have a majority, then there’s no chance at all that we’ll see any of the reforms we desparately need. Don makes an equally valid point though. He says that the people we’re electing out of an abundance of caution (fear) are not committed enough to make the changes we need.

So if you listen to either of the two most recent episodes of our podcast, you’ll hear Chuck and Don fighting over this. Christina typically sides with me, but that doesn’t mean we’re right.

I ask you, reader and intelligent human. What’s the better approach here? Should we be doing strategic things like Pelosi is trying? Or should we stick to our principles and run the risk of being not elected at all? What are your thoughts?