Compromise is hard

A few months back, there was a bit of a kerfuffle because some Hillary Clinonistas accused Bernie Sanders of sexism following his endorsement of a mayoral candidate in a red state who later turned out to have supported anti-abortion measures in the past. It was a bit of a dumb little episode, especially considering Clinton in 2016 picked Tim Kaine–a previously anti-abortion politician–to be her running mate. But, it raised some interesting questions about the concept of ‘compromise’ itself.

It’s easy to say that the Democratic Party should be a “big tent” party that does not require strict litmus tests. But, political parties do need to have some sort of standard. Where is this line drawn?

People generally seem to want to draw that line that excludes their own pet issues. But that doesn’t always work! There aren’t that many Democrats who can win in San Francisco and also in the Bible Belt. Some compromise is needed. But, where?

I don’t really have the answers to these questions. As I said in the title: it’s hard.