The counter attack being mounted by some Democrats on Donna Brazile, their former party chair, for her revelations about relations between the Clinton campaign and the party leadership are unbecoming. Brazile, a lifelong party loyalist, is right to call foul about the documents and secret agreements she found.

Party loyalty is one of the most important credentials any activist must offer the party, in good times and bad. It’s true that Brazile’s book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House, and her defence of it has given new ammunition to the party’s enemies. Yes, it may raise divisions about the bitter nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

But loyalty is based on trust, and that trust cannot be blind in the face of breathtakingly stupid and unethical behaviour by those charged with guarding the safety and integrity of the party.

The agreement that Brazile has revealed is unlike any I have ever seen in any real party democracy. It literally places the party — its finances, its staffing, its operations and its messaging — in the hands of a single candidate at the beginning of a presidential primary. The price: much needed cash. The Clinton campaign effectively rented the party apparatus, at a time when it was desperate financially.

Imagine if the Liberal Party of Canada, desperately broke when the contest that led to the Trudeau leadership was launched, had made a similar pledge to his campaign? Imagine the agreement was kept secret, that its terms were kept hidden from other candidates and even from an incoming party chair. Would the Canadian political world not have gasped and seen the new party chair as a hero for her disclosure and angry denunciation of it?

There is no evidence the Democratic party “fixed” the primaries to reward Clinton, but there are disturbing smoke signals. Sanders’ team was furious at the timing and limitation on the number of debates. Political junkies will recall the GOP was clawing at each other almost weekly in 15 debates. The Democrats had six real debates over 18 months — roughly once a quarter. Brazile’s predecessor, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, a known Clinton loyalist who did little to conceal her preference, was publicly attacked by some party leaders for her refusal to schedule more.

Now, party establishments often have a favourite candidate. The GOP apparatus did its level best to frustrate Donald Trump. Strong candidates do try to ensure that the party is run by their closest allies. But this is different. The DNC traded its neutrality in return for a monthly stipend.

Here is a damning quote from the document, “ … [Clinton] personnel will … have joint authority [with the DNC] over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide [the Clinton campaign] advance opportunity to review online or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate.”

It’s almost Orwellian. How “joint” will decision-making be, if the cost of disagreement is your financial lifeline? Why should one campaign get to review any messaging referring to it, or presumably any other candidate in advance?

Clintonites have insulted our intelligence in pleading that Bernie Sanders could have made a similar agreement. Oh, really? The evidence of this agreement, from the summer of 2015, which Sanders presumably would not have been shown, is that they would have been fools to do so.

Could Sanders expect to ever win any battle over spending, debate timing, or convention organization at the DNC, with the Clinton team on the other side? Brazile has done the party a favour by blasting this hypocrisy, and hopefully ensuring it is never repeated.

The sobering lesson for both parties’ about their stewards’ ethically wobbly behaviour is this: They each lost. The GOP lost in its efforts to block Trump, efforts that he played back against them. The Democrats lost the election, and their credibility as clean political players.

There is an even sadder coda. It was to a large degree Barack Obama’s fault. He and his team left the party $24 million in debt and desperate. He and his team did nothing to respond to the angry allegations from the Sanders team about bias — now so amply vindicated.

So to all the Democratic Donna Brazile dumpers, one can only say, “Give your head a shake. Learn from the painful lessons she has graced you with in revealing at great personal risk — and do better in this upcoming campaign.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The good news, as Tuesday night’s midterm election results clearly demonstrate, is that voters will support a unified Democratic party. That unity needs, however, to be based on lessons learned, and pledges of better future performance.

Robin V. Sears, a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group, was an NDP strategist for 20 years.

Read more about: