I think one of the biggest challenges for progressive voices in the age of Trump is how to keep pressure and a unified front against Trump nationally, but also strive to be better locally. Over at Blue Jersey, I’ve been trying to shine a light on some of the internal inconsistencies and strategy decisions the Democratic party is making in South Jersey. This week, in the midst of the inspirational March for Our Lives events, we saw another example. Here’s an excerpt from my piece over at Blue Jersey:
At the Haddon Heights march that Phaedra Trethan at the Courier-Post picked up on that’s flown under the radar:
U.S. Rep. Donald Norcross, D-Camden, spoke at the rally, turning what organizers had insisted was not to be a political statement into one. He called upon Republicans in Congress to buck the National Rifle Association and enact reform.
Some in the crowd, however, yelled that Norcross supports Jeff Van Drew’s bid for the seat in New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District — despite Van Drew’s 100 percent rating from the NRA.
The chant speaks to the delicate dance that the South Jersey Democratic Party is doing on gun control. Leaders in safely blue districts are visible at marches (good), and voting for gun control at both a state and congressional level (better). But those activities walk the fine line of signaling support to progressive constituents without doing the risky, hard work to create change on the margins where it is needed. When the South Jersey Democratic Party had a chance to throw their weight behind a congressional candidate in CD2 that would flip from a pro-NRA vote to a gun control vote, they declined. Instead, they supported Jeff Van Drew: a Democratic candidate with an A+ rating from the NRA.
This is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to gun control discussions. In South Jersey, the Democratic Party line has been to talk about how red CD2 is. But Trump only won the district by 4.6% and Obama actually won the district in 2016 by 8.1% and in 2012 by 7.7%. With longtime representative LoBiondo retiring and a potential wave election for Democrats, it’s certainly possible to imagine a candidate winning the seat who supports gun control. But South Jersey Democrats have uniformly backed Van Drew, or not spoken on the race at all.
That piece goes on to dive into the strategic choices here in a purple district — and to discuss what a courageous approach to gun control would look like (hint: it goes beyond safe votes, and into considering bucking party leadership by speaking against an NRA-approved candidate).
But I wanted to make a wider point here. Living in Camden City, I see the daily fruits of how the local Democratic Party struggles to uphold it’s progressive ideals, particularly around racial justice. I, and the other residents of Camden, can’t vote for my our school board. There is no community control over our police department. I feel the impact of a history of politics that pits segregated communities against each other. It’s so visible and visceral. But it’s also cleverly done. The posturing, the subtle retaliation, the locking out of progressive voices or making them out to be extreme, it’s all done in a way that the local party can plausibly claim to be fighting Trump while keeping iron-clad control locally. That’s why I think it’s so important to occasionally slow down and document the inconsistencies and the challenges. If the party is going to improve, if it’s going to live up to it’s language about being boldly progressive, these moments need to be visible.
Share it!
