Barack Obama (HuffPost, 6/4/19) accused progressives of “shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues.”
The Democratic primaries are heating up, and dozens of candidates representing all manner of political positions have entered the ring hoping to be the party’s 2020 presidential nominee. One notable feature of the race is the strong presence of progressive candidates, a sign of the rising influence of the left in the party.
This phenomenon has many in the establishment wing of the party worried. Barack Obama, the most recent Democratic president, recently decried the “purity tests” of the left, which he called an “obsessive” ideological fanaticism that is setting the party up for failure. Obama told an audience in Berlin, Germany (HuffPost, 6/4/19):
One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States…is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, “I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,” and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a circular firing squad, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues, and when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.
In the political world, the term “purity test” has a very specific meaning, largely used by elites to chastise and attack the left, or to gaslight them into supporting more centrist or right-wing policies. Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi (4/24/17), for example, bemoaned the ideological “activists” infiltrating the Democratic Party, undermining “more pragmatic party leaders everywhere” with their “purity tests.” She highlighted the supposed “danger” in “pushing the party too far to the left and imposing rigid orthodoxy,” warning that they are creating a “one-size party suitable only for zealots.”
An example Vennochi gave of an intolerable and self-defeating purity test was leftists’ pressure on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to change her mind about supporting Trump nominee Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Apparently opposing one of Trump’s most stridently right-wing appointees constitutes a “demand for ideological purity.”
“The demands for anti-corporate purity keep increasing,” wrote the Atlantic‘s Peter Beinart (12/18/18).
Much has been written about Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ refusal to accept corporate donations for their presidential campaigns, with many outlets (Atlantic, 12/18/18; 3/5/19; Politico, 2/25/19; The Hill, 8/24/17) describing this as a new Democratic “purity test” to establish progressive credentials.
2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (CNBC, 2/5/16) scorned Sanders’ test, claiming, “Under his definition, President Obama is not a progressive because he took donations from Wall Street!” Some might argue that is accurate, particularly as Obama describes himself as a 1980s-style “moderate Republican.”
Another key issue in the primaries is healthcare. A lack of health coverage kills around 45,000 Americans yearly, and hospital bills drive the large majority of bankruptcies in America. Many Democratic candidates, including Warren and Sanders, support a European-style Medicare for All system. But corporate media have been resistant, even hostile.
Writing in the New York Times (3/21/19), Paul Krugman demanded that we “don’t make healthcare a purity test,” warning that Democrats who do not support a single-payer system may not be seen as progressive, or be viewed as a corrupt “shill” for the pharmaceutical industry. According to Krugman, this would be inaccurate. The Washington Post (2/11/19) was more scathing of the Medicare for All “purity test,” attacking the leftist “cranks” using “empty slogans instead of evidence-based policy.”
It is often made explicit that “purity test” is merely code for the Democratic base wanting more leftist policies, and being disgruntled with politicians who block them. The Denver Post (1/31/19) described Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper as a progressive, pragmatic and “moderate problem-solver” in favor of “bipartisanship,” under attack from the “hard-core” left who demand “drastic” change. Their “purity test,” wrote the Post, will destroy a candidate with perhaps the most “credible” chance to beat Trump.
In contrast, behavior or policies imposed on the left from establishment Democrats are rarely if ever framed as a “purity test.” For example, Sanders appointed Briahna Joy Gray as his press secretary, who had previously declared she voted for the Green Party’s Jill Stein in 2016. Instead of this being seen as the party expanding its appeal to third-party voters, it produced a scandal among liberals on social media. For many, it was proof, as they had been saying all along, that Bernie was not a real Democrat—in other words, it was an opportunity for them to excommunicate an ally for being insufficiently orthodox.
On this story, New York magazine (3/20/19) described Sanders’ campaign as an “irrational cult” of “left-wing factionalists” that were attempting to “split the party” by “intentionally misleading” voters. These kind of attacks are not seen as “purity tests,” however.
Neither was the anger generated by the decision of candidates like Sanders, Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke not to attend the AIPAC conference presented as such a test. Nor were corporate media demands that the left embrace Trump’s regime change strategy in Venezuela lest they be accused of supporting a “dictator” (FAIR.org, 3/5/19). When these things are imposed on the base from the top down, they are not framed as purity tests.
Instead, the left is browbeaten and cajoled into supporting business-friendly right-wing Democrats, and told their preferred policies are either unrealistic or unpopular. The Hill (8/24/17) warns us, “If Democrats want to destroy any chances of winning national office, establishing purity tests is the quickest way to do it.”
But this is demonstrably not the case. Seventy-five percent of Americans (and nearly two-thirds of Republicans) support Medicare for all. Three-quarters of the population support higher taxes on the wealthy, while tuition-free public college is popular even among Tea Party supporters. One can make a strong case that these policies would tend to attract rather than repel Trump voters to the Democratic cause.
The dichotomy between credible, pragmatic centrists and the fanatical, inward-looking left demanding ideological purity is a framing generally made in bad faith to shield corporate-backed candidates from criticism. FAIR (2/26/19) has already highlighted the “Republican best friend” trope, where Republicans offer supposedly selfless advice to the left on how to win next time—which turns out to be by doing and saying exactly what the right wants.
“Purity test” is a common talking point for these fake friends. The Associated Press (2/21/19) published an article from a Republican consultant who warned that applying “intense” leftist purity tests to “pragmatic” candidates capable of beating Trump was self-defeating: “As the Democratic presidential candidates move further to the left, it will make President Trump’s path to re-election clearer.”
Meanwhile, writing in Yahoo! News (3/19/19), conservative National Review writer David French claimed it would take a “brave person” to withstand the “attack” of the “vicious,” “scornful” and “toxic” left and their destructive purity tests. Proposing free healthcare, a Green New Deal or other popular left-wing policies would surely lead to Trump’s victory in 2020, he advised Democrats.
Carolyn Dupont asks in the Washington Post (2/14/19), “Where are the Perfect Ones who can pass a lifelong purity test?” In other words, who hasn’t appeared in blackface in their college yearbook?
This purity test trope is so blatantly used to defend anyone in power it sometimes stretches credulity to the breaking point. In a Washington Post op-ed (2/14/19) headlined “The Left’s Quest for Purity Could Destroy Potentially Worthy Leaders,” Carolyn Dupont bemoaned the purity tests of the “rigid, self-righteous and blind” left after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was criticized for wearing blackface. The column compared this censure to the guillotines of the French Revolution that killed many “righteous” politicians for “small blemishes on their ideological purity,” describing Northam’s blackface as a “moment of imperfection.” The desire to have policies affecting people’s lives crafted by people who haven’t ritually ridiculed and devalued them, apparently, is another purity test.
Democrat Bill O’Neill, an Ohio Supreme Court justice, also made headlines after defending politicians Roy Moore and Al Franken (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/17/17). O’Neill decried the unreasonable “purity tests” for “sexual indiscretions” (multiple sexual assault charges, in Moore’s case, from some as young as 14) . He claimed those calling for Franken’s resignation were “dogs” involved in a “feeding frenzy,” chasing out good politicians (USA Today, 11/18/17).
The term is used much less frequently in reference to the right wing, but when it is, it is used in the same manner: to describe policies supported by a party’s base that corporate media disagree with. Many outlets (New York Times, 11/23/09; Wall Street Journal, 11/24/09; US News, 12/23/09) described the attempt to get party officials to endorse a ten-point bill, including opposition to abortion and firearms regulation, as a “purity test.”
When you hear the phrase “purity test” in the media, be on the alert. The phrase is code for elites being pressured in ways they don’t like, and is often a shield against legitimate criticism of corruption or dependence on corporate power.
As pure as the driven snow job
““When you hear the phrase “purity test” in the media, be on the alert. The phrase is code for elites being pressured in ways they don’t like, and is often a shield against legitimate criticism of corruption or dependence on corporate power.”
The old ad hominem attack has been around since Roman times, at least … A personal, besmirching character attack when you can’t argue against the facts is the illogical retort. “Purity test” is just the code word term used by the neocons to undermine the opposition or their arguments when they have no cogent response. What is most disturbing about it is that “reporters” are using the term. Doesn’t come close to neutral reporting of the facts …
Is it not possible that the real difference is between progressives and progressives? What about this: Of the 40 House seats won in 2018, 33 were not Sanders, AOC, Warren type Democrats. They were elected by the people in their districts. Are those voters “establishment” or “corporate”? No, the majority of Democrats are progressive. Indeed the whole country is trending liberal/progressive on all major issues. They’re just not all the same because districts differ in terms of their wants and needs. This author assumes every district is the same, or should be. He also assumes that when people support Medicare for All they’re all supporting single-payer. That’s just not the case. For most it’s an aspiration only and a higher priority is placed on preserving the ACA and undoing the Republican damage. If that’s what they support, does that mean they’re not progressive? If Obama once referred to himself as a Republican does that mean he’s not progressive? If a candidate takes contributions from people who listed their employer as a healthcare provider is that the same as taking a contribution from that industry? The problem with the purity progressives and this author’s view is that they presume to define other people by labeling them (people tend to resent that) and they think in terms of one-size-fits-all progressive politics. Obama is right and this article proves it. There’s no attempt here to unite, only more divisive rhetoric.
Obama is right and the article proves it? You are full of shit and your post proves it. Did corporate daddy tell you what to write?
The US citizens killed extra-judicially would beg to differ about Obama being called anything BUT a Republican.
Making shit up and demanding corporate orthodoxy, pretending people’s fucking lives ain’t on the line when we all know someone who got screwed possibly to literal death by the insurance industry—your misanthropic slop may be gobbled up by shrieking corporate right wingers, but the rest of us in real America see right through it. Bend the knee, you bloodthirsty psychopath. Your rich overlords are just going to have to learn to live with a few cuts.
This is fine but a piece comparing coverage of lefty Dems to coverage of the Tea Party is begging….
The propaganda mills are alive and well and working full time to keep the ‘small people’ from thinking for themselves. One can see how well this works by looking at the success of the so-called ‘smart home speakers’ Alexa, Siri, etc. People are voluntarily placing corporate spies in their house to monitor themselves and paying for the invasion of their privacy. They are now too lazy to turn off a light switch. Soon enough the switch will be stuck in the ON position with no possibility of an OFF. The candidates I will support are self ruled, independent thinkers, brave enough to say NO to the powers that be. Like Ms. A.O.C., we need a thousand like her to run for office. On Health care, I don’t think it too much to ask for the same health care benefits afforded our Congressmen/women, the Senators, and the President. (Paid for, of course, by the US taxpayers) Remember that the first rule of politicians is; “Feather your own nest first”. No more Lobbies, term limits, and down with the Electoral College……
I have just begun to recommend FAIR’s website for fact-checking excellence and then today’s article by Allan Macleod raised some accuracy hackles:
1) Pres. Obama at the time didn’t describe himself as a 1980s-style moderate Republican. He described his economic policy approach as such;
2) “Popular” was the innaccurate descriptor used re. Republicans polled whether they favored tax-funded, paid 4-year college tuition. The poll numbers shown had a 47-45 ‘in favor’ rating;
3) “Ritually” was the rhetorical descriptor used re. the Virginia governor’s blackface transgression. That’s a stretch of the second definition of that word.
3
Actually, Obama’s statement appears quite vague and ambiguous; is he referring to the policies he held in the 1980s and asserting they would cause him to be considered “a moderate Republican” now, or if had advocated the same policies he held as President back in the 1980s, he would be considered “a moderate Republican” then?
Oh America—-sadly the educational level of the DeVos mind set has reached several of you posting here The Article was about the use of the words “purity tests, ” which CORPORATE MEDIA, in its pimped off selves is selling. It is a corporate politician term designed to disparage ALL viewpoints from being addressed. America, —please—remove the rings from your noses, you are not cattle!
Thank you. I love this site more every single day. Never sell out to the DNC/RNC corporatists.
Media-speak for “corporatist” is “centrist”. When I read and hear the term, it’s usually being applied to a DNC/RNC toad. … unless the center is now defined between the right and the far-right.
I have one purity test for politics: are you a politician who takes more money from super-PACs and corporate bribes, ahem large single-source campaign contributions? Means I can’t trust you’ll vote with the people when our interests conflict with corporate power.
Yet the “purity” is 3rd way DLC repub light corporatist limo “lib” establishment DINOs is expecting independents to vote PURE blue .. stop insulting progressives and independents & then you might attract them over
Great piece; this trope has been bothering me for a while!
Sadly, I also see the “purity test” accusation made by many progressives arguing on social media and in real life. They don’t have the same elite/corporate agenda, but seem to have absorbed the conventional wisdom nonetheless.
The ‘purity test’ accusation is simply a rhetorical ploy meant to try to coerce anyone with more than a superficial understanding of politics into voting for one of the two major parties, similar to “You’re wasting your vote” or “You’re effectively voting for the ‘bad candidate’ by voting 3rd (or4th, etc) party”. It’s really saying you have to vote for somebody because they might win… like that’s a criteria for a good potential office-holder. And as long as we’re on the subject of 3rd parties, I have to say it’s really circular reasoning when the MSM says we’re a 2 party system and 3rd parties can’t win so we don’t cover them. IF they covered politics in a less party-oriented horse-race perspective and a more ethical, humanitarian POV, then we might-well have a more diverse political landscape.