I was going to write about this piece by Andrea Pitzer that’s been making the rounds but it seems everyone in the world has already weighed in so I decided to let it go. I pretty much agree with Josh Marshall here and you should read it and come to your own conclusion. But Josh goes on to make another point that I think is vitally important (and have written about myself in the past.)
It’s about the necessity to understand how to lose well:
So what do I mean when I saw that being prepared to lose well is usually the prerequisite to winning well? I mean two things by it, first a recognition and second a calibration, a heuristic. First it’s a recognition that we live in history and sometimes — actually, a lot of time — you can have the right values, a great strategy and give it your all and still lose. That’s history and that’s life. It’s a recognition and a reminder that perseverance is a more important quality than cleverness or ingenuity.
The calibration point is a bit more idiosyncratic. If you lose an important fight you want to know you did everything you could. You left it all on the field, as they say. You don’t want to have made any dumb mistakes you’ll be kicking yourself over later. In a football game you can have a great strategy, the whole team gives it everything and you come up short. There’s no shame in that. Disappointing but no shame. You want your politics to work the same way.
The additional factor is that dignity — knowing who you are, not being lost — is an essential part of both winning battles and the perseverance that is necessary to endure and come back from defeats. The one thing you never want to do is fight over something important, see reverses, freak out, trade away all the things and the values that are most dear to and still lose. Then you’ve sort of lost everything. Your dignity, your sense of who you are … all in addition to the thing you were fighting over in the first place. If you’re on the wrong track and you ask yourself this question, you’ll know.
Democrats faced such a question in early 2005 when George W. Bush appeared to be on his way to phasing out Social Security in favor of a system of 401k-like private accounts. Responding with a flat “no” to any version of this kind of phaseout wasn’t just good political strategy, as none of it was popular. It also gave the Democrats a clarity of purpose and a mix of morale and motivation that added to their power. Various actors quickly bullied straggling members of Congress to adopt that line. It worked.
This isn’t or should be a straightjacket. There’s a certain kind of person who thinks that any accommodation of public opinion or tactical adjustment is a betrayal or abandonment of this or that group of value or whatever. That’s at least not how I see it. Or it’s not what I’m saying. When I ask myself these kinds of questions it’s really, Is this the most effective approach available? Am I focused on what’s most important?
I may be too much of an instinctive pragmatist that quizzing myself about my “values” feels too treacly or precious. How will I feel losing on these terms, with this approach is probably my version of it. If you look at what you’re doing and the beam is straight and true, you’ll know. And it’s not just a matter of being at peace with yourself, though that’s nice. You really don’t want to lose. Because losing may mean losing a lot. When that beam is straight and true it has a way of bringing everything into alignment. It makes people motivated. It drives morale. Because everything being in alignment, being prepared and ready to lose well is the best way to win too, and not just in some touchy-feely way. It aligns motivation, commitment and a sense of solidarity.
When you have no institutional power you make the case, stand up for principles, stick together. You might just win and if you lose at least the American people know what you stand for.