There has been quite a bit of discussion on this site regarding criticism of 2020 candidates. There have been diaries critical of candidates. There have been negative comments about candidates. There have been very positive candidate diaries that with comment sections filled with criticisms of the subject candidate. There have been negative comments about candidates in diaries totally unrelated to the candidate.
There have been calls for unity both by individuals and groups on the left. Alyssa Milano and George Takei have asked their Twitter followers to avoid speaking negatively of any candidate. Indivisible recently launched theirs for both candidates and for the grassroots. Here are the 3 "tenets" of that pledge for the grassroots:
Make the primary constructive. We'll make the primary election about our hopes for the future, and a robust debate of values, vision and the contest of ideas. We’ll remain grounded in our shared values, even if we support different candidates.
Rally behind the winner. We'll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whomever it is — period. No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats.
Do the work to beat Trump. We’re the grassroots army that’s going to power the nominee to victory, and we’ll show up to make calls, knock doors, and do whatever it takes.
Let’s focus right now on the first one, since that’s where we’re currently at in the process.
Make the primary constructive. We'll make the primary election about our hopes for the future, and a robust debate of values, vision and the contest of ideas. We’ll remain grounded in our shared values, even if we support different candidates.
Can criticism can be constructive? Would criticism go against the pledge Ms. Milano and Mr. Takei have asked people to take? Is there such a thing as “unfair” criticism? Is criticism fair if its valid?
The answer to all of these questions is yes. And that is the problem.
Party primaries are where ideas need to be hashed out in our own house. It’s where a party decides what it stands for, and who we want to represent us in the general election against Donald Trump in 2020. Is discussing someone’s voting record (or lack thereof) off limits? Is questioning someone’s stance or position (or lack thereof) considered to be off limits?
Slate recently had a good article on this whole topic you can read here. Fair warning, it uses Biden as an example but makes the point.
Conventional wisdom has usually held that a vigorous primary is good for the eventual winner because it toughens them up and better prepares them for the GE. Does that still hold? If a candidate isn’t allowed to be touched in the primary, will that better prepare them for the onslaught from Republicans in the GE and Trump’s particular brand of nastiness?
Lastly, exactly who will be the arbiters of what is fair and what is not? That is probably the most interesting question, especially on places like this site.