If I were a vegetarian, and ordered the Vegetarian Delight at a restaurant, and instead received the Meat Lovers Extravaganza, I think it’d be appropriate to wave down the waiter, point out that I ordered a vegetarian meal, and, well, I’d like the meal I ordered, please.
It doesn’t seem like it’d be a tacky thing to do.
It certainly wouldn’t be obnoxious or reactionary.
I also think it’d be O.K. to bristle if the waiter and my co-diners would get after me, saying that if I had really wanted a vegetarian meal, I should have gone to a vegetarian restaurant. Obviously, this is a cafe for carnivores, they might say.
The more moderate patrons might appreciate my concerns, but would say that I should be grateful that at least some of my meal was meat-free. Surely a few chunks of chicken, maybe some shrimp or a slice of pork, shouldn't spoil the meal. I should just ignore the pieces I don't like.
But if I continued to insist that no, really, I am a vegetarian and I am holding out for my ordered meal, and if people would then call me uncompromising, I think that it would be fully acceptable for me to point out that there’s a difference between being compromising and being compromised.
After all, I’d say, I really am a vegetarian.
So say that is our scenario.
Now, it seems to me that the weird thing in this sketch would be the “pile-on the vegetarian” part.
The weird thing would not be the expectations of the vegetarian.
Except if you are a Democrat in South Dakota.
It’s the strangest thing.
It’s positively extremist for a Democrat in South Dakota to say that we’d like to have our next Congressional candidate be a Democrat.
I know that South Dakota is predominantly Republican.
I know that often, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted Democratic.
But I also know that on the big issues, on issues central to the Democratic party, on the no-thank-you-we-don’t-eat-that issues, she voted with the Republicans.
South Dakota Democrats, please do not forget:
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004, a position which was discriminatory then and, by looking at national trends, is considered regressive now.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted against the Affordable Care Act of 2009, a bill overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats, rallied for by President Obama, and which protects the most vulnerable of our society (and, keep in mind, any one of us can become vulnerable in this way at any sudden moment). All the while, she had health insurance paid for by the very ones who could not afford it for themselves, and against whom she was voting.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (was the sole Democrat who) voted nay in 2009 to a bill that protected consumers from credit card companies’ abusive and regressive policies against which customers had no recourse.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted against extending unemployment benefits for those deeply hurting in the economy of 2010.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted against the Energy bill of 2010, which would have allowed for higher safety standards for off-shore drilling, removed a liability cap for oil companies, and boosted solar and wind power on federal land (to name a few benefits of the bill).
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2010 insisting that Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy be extended.
These are not issues like, say, eating eggs for a vegetarian, or perhaps a bite of cheese made with rennet.
Vegetarians--not vegans, but vegetarians--they eat such things.
Progressives are not political vegans.
We can work with Republicans on, say, immigration reform, on raising the minimum wage, on background checks.
But on the above issues, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted to serve us what we, in principle, don’t eat.
Her votes on each and every issue listed above adversely affected South Dakotans, and, depending on how you look at it, the majority of South Dakotans at that.
Moreover, in an unsuccessful attempt to win re-election, she threw these principles and the South Dakota Democrats holding them under her bus....or plane, as the case may be.
South Dakota Democrats, it’s O.K. to be a Democrat.
We’ve got really good things to offer to this state--if we had a chance to offer them without the interference of the Powers That Be preventing healthy conversation about our state party’s identity and direction.
What South Dakota so-called “Progressives” are yearning for isn’t extremist.
It isn’t reactionary.
It’s exactly reflective of the Democratic platform, both at the State and National level.
It’s O.K. to wave the waiter over and say, “Hey there. Guess what. I ordered a Democrat. Could I please send this back and have what I ordered?”
Maybe, if the Republicans at the next table are still waiting for their House special to finally appear, we could even graciously send our plate over to them.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin would clearly and rightly beat Noem in a Republican primary.
And if she won the seat, at least I could say that I didn’t order it, but that those who did got what they wanted.