I am told by the establishment Democrats and their friends in the establishment press that progressives have a purity test. What exactly is this test? No one knows. Who has been subjected to it? No one knows. Are there any specifics to it whatsoever? No one knows. But it is said! Because facts are of little import for the corporate media who know all of their beloved, cherished politician friends in DC.

The assumption going in is always that whatever an establishment politician says is golden and true. Whatever a progressive activist says is tarnished and lacks credibility. So, why is the question never asked in reverse — does the establishment have a purity test, or perhaps an impurity test?

Let me explain. The Justice Democrats are a new group that represents progressive Democrats. They have signed up over 235,000 people and raised over 1.2 million dollars in about a month. They have 23 different items on their platform. Have they ever said that someone must agree to every item on the platform? Almost no one in the press has ever asked, they’ve just assumed. I know what the answer is because I’m one of the founders. The answer is that in reality there is only item on the platform that candidates must agree to. Only one out of twenty-three!

Wow, what a purity test!!

That one, mandatory plank is that you cannot take corporate or PAC money. Over 80% of Democratic voters agree that money corrupts politics (in some polls, it’s more than 90%). Can you imagine a more popular litmus test? It’s not that complicated. You can disagree on healthcare, education, war … well, just about everything. But you cannot represent the donors over the voters!

So, let’s now recognize that purity tests go both ways. When establishment Democrats say that they don’t accept limits on taking corporate money and find it to be an unconscionable purity test, what they are saying, in effect, is — our purity test is that you MUST take corporate or PAC money! What kind of an insane (im)purity test is that?

How about you guys keep taking corporate money and serving your donors and we take small dollar donations and serve our voters and see who comes out ahead? How could that possibly be objectionable? Yet, it is assumed in DC that progressive Democrats must not even run in primaries — that somehow this hurts the cause. Why are they not equally treacherous for running against the more progressive candidates? If primaries are so bad for the party, why don’t you bow out?

The reason they find this unacceptable is that their privilege must not be challenged! If they are incumbents, they must not be primaried! But why not? Who died and made you king? I thought this was a democracy. They argue that primaries hurt the party. Wait, wait…what evidence do you have for that? Here, I’ll help you — none.

The assumption that almost all establishment press has is that primaries hurt. That’s because the establishment press come from the same perspective as their politician friends: People already in power must not have their power challenged! Simply put, we do not agree. And I’ll bet we have the people on our side on that question.

We think all of these establishment assumptions are wrong. Primaries don’t hurt parties, they help them. Republicans have been primarying their incumbents for years and they’re murdering the Democrats electorally. Seems like pretty good evidence that primaries help, not hurt.

The establishment has agreed to a set of falsehoods that somehow, coincidentally all serve to keep the powerful in their positions of privilege. Simply put, we don’t agree. We don’t consent. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. Of course you know that I am not at all sorry.

If you are a Democrat who takes gobs of corporate money and does their bidding, you will get primaried. And you will very likely lose. And at the end of that process, we will have much stronger Democratic candidates that can connect to the voters, be honest actors and have an infinitely better chance of winning elections.

Do you know who the most popular politician in the country is right now? Bernie Sanders. He has a 61% approval rating. Hillary Clinton, the standard bearer for establishment Democrats, has a 35% approval rating. Tell me again why I have to listen to establishment Democrats. Tell me again why I would ever trust the judgment or assumptions of people who lost the presidency to a buffoon, lost the Senate, lost the House, lost the Supreme Court and lost 69 out of 99 state legislatures.

Isn’t it amazing that the press looks at that record and thinks it’s progressives who are not pragmatic and can’t win elections? If facts matter at all, the one thing we know is that establishment Democrats don’t know how to win. You can’t get a clearer record of failure and incompetence.

Shouldn’t the press be asking the question in reverse — how could the Democratic Party this riddled with failures possibly make the case that they should be left alone to run more elections against the Republicans? If these incumbents don’t deserve primaries, then I guess you don’t believe in primaries; you believe in privilege and the status quo at all costs. And you certainly don’t care about Democratic victories.

So, if you ever see anyone writing about purity tests, you know exactly what their perspective is — the establishment is always right, no matter how wrong they are!