Sunday Discussion Group

October 28, 2007

One need not be a professional pollster to know that most rank-and-file Dems have been disappointed with the new Democratic congressional majority this year. And one need not be a professional political analyst to see why.

Dems have done a reasonably good job on domestic issues on which they feel strong: minimum-wage increase, student-loan reform, lobbying/ethics reform, health-care for kids. It’s national security that’s the problem — on everything from war funding, to FISA, to Iran, the Democratic majority still governs from a position of fear. They’re afraid the public will perceive them as “weak,” or “soft,” so they’ve caved on these issues. A lot.

Now, the obvious question is why Dems can’t read the same polls as the rest of us, and see strong national consensus on policy positions they’re running away from. The answer, of course, is that for most of these Dems, they don’t care about national polls, they care about local polls — and if their constituents aren’t on board with a Democratic national-security agenda, these lawmakers assume their careers are on the line.

It sets up two competing beliefs. On the one hand, centrist Dems from right-leaning swing districts want the party to cut them some slack. Without them, there is no Democratic majority. On the other hand, what good is a Democratic majority if the party is too timid to push back against Mr. 28% on Iraq and other national-security issues?

Kevin Drum summarized the dynamic nicely the other day.

National security is where this particular rubber hits the road most conspicuously. The reason we can’t defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they’ll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops. Ditto for FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the “General Betray-us” ad, shutting down Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other related issues.

So here’s my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don’t care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?

There’s no shortage on possible responses.

Matt Yglesias doesn’t understand what Dems are so afraid of.

Here’s the thing. I can’t guarantee that standing up against a corrupt, unpopular, and incompetent president’s right to grant retroactive legal protections to large corporations for their complicity in illegal spying won’t lead anyone to electoral defeat. What I can say is that the evidence that it will lead to electoral defeat doesn’t seem incredibly compelling. Democratic efforts to hug the GOP on security and fight elections on other issues didn’t pay much in the way of dividends when they were tried. The desire to avoid fights on these issues seems to me to largely reflect a kind of laziness. If the people advising the party on how to win elections don’t think it’s possible to craft compelling speeches, sound bites, advertisements, etc. around liberal views on national security policy, then someone needs to fire all of those people and hire some new people who are willing to give it a shot.

Oliver Willis thinks the grainy black-and-white commercials won’t have as much of an effect as the Dems seem to think.

The moral thing to do has the advantage of also being the politically sound thing to do. Sure, there are Republican dead-enders who think anyone who votes in favor of ending the war is an anti-American traitor, but no matter how you vote those jokers are never going to be Democratic voters in any district. Democrats won in red districts because the Republicans rubber stamped the war.

Avedon Carol argued a similar tack.

Look, right-wingers aren’t going to vote for Democrats, even if they seem almost like Republicans, when they can vote for actual Republicans. Progressives don’t do much for Democrats who seem almost like Republicans — often, they won’t even vote. (Remember Harold Ford? He’s the poster child for guys who “had to” run to the right in their reddish districts. He lost. Some people want to say it was because he was black, but that’s not why progressives didn’t vote for him.) And it doesn’t matter what you do, the GOP will still say you don’t support the troops and you hate America and are a far-left moonbat just because you’re a Democrat.

So, if you want to do the wrong thing to get votes, run as a Republican. If you run as a Democrat, you’d better be willing to do the right thing, or we have no use for you. You just make it seem more obvious that “there is no difference between the two parties,” and that means people won’t get out and vote.

And Swopa, who has been emphasizing the same point for two years, even offers a template for Dems to follow.

1. Take a Very Bad Thing that happened with regard to national security (namely, Iraq).
2. Ascribe this Very Bad Thing to a mindset associated with the other party.
3. Describe the different mindset your party has, and assert that this will defend the country better.
4. Repeat daily, using your party’s more effective mindset as the reason for your stand on Issue of the Day X.

If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it’s what Republicans do every day (using September 11th as the Very Bad Thing instead of Iraq) — and by “every day,” I mean today, for example. Indeed, it’s the very approach that has congressional Democrats scurrying for cover on a regular basis, on all the issues that Kevin Drum cites.

OK, your turn. Have at it.

October 28, 2007 at 9:23 am

I really think that politicians are missing out on just how hungry people are for someone to represent them and lead them who is willing to stand on principle, whether they agree with him or not. That was the great allure of a dolt like Reagan, and was (initially) what attracted people to Bush. They need to be able to respect their leaders in order to support them, and it’s hard to respect anyone who won’t even risk fighting for their own beliefs.

Americans identify with the Alamo, and Democrats are being compared with the French, however unfair that is to both Democrats and the French.

You know, I don’t agree with Jim Webb on everything he says, but I’ll send him money every election cycle until he decides not to run any more, because I think he believes what he says.

If some terrorist thing happens, the Republicans will blame it on Democratic policies. Look at 9/11, they tried to blame Clinton for that, when in fact Bush had been warned of the attack. Or Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis, and then Reagan even negotiated with terrorists.

Even though most Americans would like to see a reformed national security policy, many don’t want to live by the motto “Give me freedom or give me death,” anymore. And until Americans restore their quest for freedom, draconian Republican measures will continue to dominate our national security and reduce our freedoms and moral standing.

i think there is an equally good possibility that democrats in more progressive districts may very well lose their seats in the next election because they weren’t bold enough when it came to pushing back against bush in the areas of national security.

I agree with just bill: there are strong possibilities that Democrats who refuse to tackle the alarming issues brought forward by the Bush administration are going to have real problems on election day. For instance, even now Nancy Pelosi isn’t doing so well in her own district, so if her decision to take impeachment off the table and her refusal to deal with Bush’s war and other Constitutional matters is related to a belief that this refusal contributes to her electability, it looks as if she’s mistaken:

Voters’ contempt for Congress rises

POLL: PELOSI’S NUMBERS TAKE ANOTHER DIVE
10/27/2007

WASHINGTON – California voters continue to disapprove of Congress even more than they do of President Bush, and for the first time Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ratings are more negative than positive, according to a Field Poll released today.

The poll found that 22 percent of state voters approve of Congress’ job performance, with 64 percent disapproving. The discontent was bipartisan, with 70 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 58 percent of Democrats giving Congress negative marks.

Those findings, taken in a survey of 1,201 voters from Oct. 11 through Oct. 21, track national surveys. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll during the same period also found a 22 percent approval rating for Congress. A CBS Poll registered a 27 percent approval rating.

Bush earned a 27 percent approval rating from voters in the same Field Poll.

Political analysts give several reasons for the low marks: Democratic voters’ dissatisfaction over the inability to change Iraq war policy, Republicans’ opposition to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, and a sense by many voters that Congress can’t come to grips with tough issues such as immigration.

“Republican reaction has remained about the same this year, but the real trend is that rank-and-file Democrats and non-partisans are displeased because they expected more from the Democratic Congress,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, earned a 48 percent approval rating in March, two months after Democrats took over Congress. That dropped to 39 percent in August and 35 percent in October, with 40 percent disapproving and 25 percent registering no opinion.

“Iraq is the anchor weighing down Bush,” DiCamillo said, “and now it’s an anchor on Pelosi because of the complete inability of Congress to change course on the war.”

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders held meetings in the last week to find ways to improve their “message” about what they call the New Direction Congress, highlighting such legislation as the minimum wage increase and ethics reform.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7297497

Anger toward the Democrats by progressives and even other Democrats is based on their domestic issue focus, instead of fighting the the war and Bush’s destruction of the Constitution. These issues are considered absolutely urgent, with the new request for more money for Iraq and new bombast about attacking Iran. Until the Democrats take the gloves off and are ready to give and receive bloody noses and black eyes, progressives and many Democrats will NOT support them.

I’m complaining because, despite my pleas, Senators Durbin and Obama and Congresswoman Bean do not represent what is critically important to me –ending the occupation, restoring constitutional checks and balances and impeaching King George and the Dicktator for capital crimes and treason.

Diane Feinstein needs to retire at the end of her term. Like so many of the Democrats who survived the Bushcapades, she is conditioned to cower. Cowering is what she does best.

As for fearfulness among moderate Democrats, my aunt in rural Georgia who has been a avid Republican advocate all her life is now an Independent. This is the time for courage because the risk is actually very low.

“why Dems can’t read the same polls as the rest of us”

Because the rules have changed, beginning more-or-less with Ronald Reagan.

Voters no long matter. To either party. The only thing which matters anymore is corporations. And not only in politics. Professional sports teams no longer give a damn about fans. They want us to build luxury corporate boxes for them. They sell “naming rights” to their fields and and stadia at prices only corporations (and Green Bay) can afford.

Reid and Pelosi obviously don’t give a shit about us. Their constant task is digging up corporate lucre. There’s a long history, beginning with the clerk’s note to a judicial decision regarding treatment of corporations as persons. I doubt that error can ever be undone, given our “system of government”, but until it is we’re victims of the enormous spending capacity of corporations.

In the Middle Ages the Church’s official line was that the poor, even the lepers, deserved salvation; in sense, they were more deserving. With the rise of secular states, e.g. our own Constitution, it became the official line that “all men are equal before the Law”; that ideology extended, ultimately, to those not originally included (slaves, women). Not so anymore. Corporations are “more equal than others” (to borrow a phrase from Animal Farm).

I don’t see anything we can do about it. Short of a secular version of the Great Awakening anyway. So long as our values are anchored by money, corporations (and Hillary) win.

Take a step back for a moment. Let us assume that the Dems should pass some piece of legislation to force withdrawl from Iraq. Bush vetos that legislation. What now? Well, if we can just keep our head about us, it means electing more people who will support withdrawl until we reach a veto proof majority. That can not happen until 08 so all the handwringing about the Dems being unable to end the war is nonsense.

On the other had, just as there are Dems who feel they would endanger their re-election chance by taking too hard a line on Iraq, there are certainly even more districts that face precisely the reverse dynamic: Republicans in districts that stauchly oppose the war but who vote with Bush nonetheless. We should protect our vulnerable Dems, no matter how distasteful, and attack their members who are voting against their constituents’ wishes. Like it or not, that is how politics are played and that is what needs to happen.

Matt et al are right. In my “dialing for Democrats,” I am talking to people everywhere in the country, and I am seeing this fact. Yesterday, I talked to a Democrat who is a Korean War Vet, a lifelong Democratic activist, who lives in central Florida, and holds a demonstration against the war every week. As he put it “I’m here in one of the most Republican parts of Florida, and when we’re out on the streetcorner all we get is thumbs up and smiles from the people who pass. Nobody,. not one, says or does anything against us, for the war or for the president.”

There is palpable anger in every state in the country against the Congressional Democrats for their spinelessness on this issue.

Eventually, if these assholes really want to keep their seats, they need to remember what a French politician said 120 years ago: “There go my people, and I must run after them, for I am their leader.”

Wake up and get a whiff of reality, you pinstriped morons! What I’m hearing is you are out on the wrong end of the tree limb while you’re working that saw.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have become the ruling class, and they will do anything to stay in power. Look at what Joe Lieberman and his GOP enablers did. I want politicians who do the right and moral thing. I think most voters would support them, because they would see someone who risks losing his or her power to do what is right. Right now, these politicians do not feel any risk to their power because of guaranteed incumbency. Until the voters exert their power to throw the bums out, the current spinelessness of the congressional Democrats only breeds voter contempt.

dmh

Let us assume that the Dems should pass some piece of legislation to force withdrawl from Iraq. Bush vetos that legislation. What now?

The first part of your statement is an awfully generous assumption. Do you think the Democrats will put a bill with real teeth onto the floor for a vote? Why do you think they’d change course after all these months? They’ve been negotiating, cooperating, and colluding with the Bush administration and his supporters about Iraq and all the other unconstitutional matters all along. They’ve stood fast on the telecom bill, an important domestic and constitutional issue, and that’s to their credit, but the war seems to either scare the pants off them or it’s something they want. Of course Bush would veto a “get out of Iraq” bill as he did the telecomm legislation, but THAT DOESN’T MATTER. The Democrats need to fight to protect and defend the Constitution in every move the administration and its Republican supporters make, and if they lose a few, at least they’ve shown their colors and principles. Right now they look Republican-red to me.

Maybe the decreasing approval ratings of Democrats by their “usual” supporters all over the US will create a turn-around. If so, that’s all to the good, I suppose, though it’s really sickening to think that re-election is more important to Democrats than stopping an illegal war/occupation, more important than fighting the Bush administration’s unconstitutional actions.

Maybe it’s only us simple folk who’d like to see some principled actions in Congress right now, rather than hear all kinds of rosy “promises” about what the Democrats will do if they just have a larger majority.

But I’d guarantee that the Democrats would win big-time in 2008 if they’d fight the Bush wars and unconstitutional moves with every tactic and strategy at their disposal from now until the 2008 elections. If they don’t, election-results are anybody’s guess.

One of the very real differences between the Rethugs and the Dim-Dems is that the Dems are in fact quite dim. The Rethugs have the better PR hacks, know how to word an issue, how to sell fear, and how to keep it simple. Then they repeat, repeat and repeat again, and they have considerable discipline. They go for emotional responses, often gut-wrenchingly wrong-headed, and they know how to set themselves apart from their opponents.

The Dim-Dems think the logical superiority of their positions, both political and moral, are self-evident, and think the American sheeple will respond to long-winded policy prescriptions frequently delivered by people like John Kerry who never uses one word when ten will do.

The reality is our benighted country is thoroughly anti-intellectual, undereducated, and chooses to believe its self-created mythology of exceptionalism. The Rethugs know how to exploit all of this quite effectively, while the Dim-Dems never seem to learn. I don’t see any signs to the contrary.

Matt Yglesias wrote:

What I can say is that the evidence that it will lead to electoral defeat doesn’t seem incredibly compelling.

This was kind of my instinct– I wondered, “Well, where have we seen it really lead to defeat?” I don’t follow all the races, but it seems like if this drowned anybody, we’d al know about it. The Dem office-holders may have this impression, but even if the “weak on security” cast is what the Republicans try to do to us- for example, what they did to Kerry- they couch it inside of a whole lot of other stuff (the “charcter contest” stuff)- also what they did to Kerry. It seems to me that they’re making it work with the psychological nonsense, character-contest stuff, and if we can do a better job on that– just acknowledge that that’s what’s going on, and then provide a better sell in those respects as well as in others (instead of our staffers just saying to themselves, “Well, I think what they’re doing is kind of schlocky– we’re going to avoid that and win on the issues”) then we’ll win. Presenting stuff that shows your character isn’t schlocky, or doesn’t have to be. It’s no different from the inspiring stuff that great leaders like Gandhi, MLK Jr., etc. did- you think those guys just stuck to the facts, and then said, “Well, it’s your opinion whether this stuff is wrong or not and whether we should do something about it- I’m just giving you a summary of the facts”– NO- they gave a presentation putting what they were asking for in a context and describing what it should mean to people in an honest and compelling way, putting it in a larger context.

You’ve got to feel it in your gut.

Also:

Oliver Willis thinks the grainy black-and-white commercials won’t have as much of an effect as the Dems seem to think.

On the Swopa thing, I think maybe it’s not so much describing a mindset for us (that’s a difference, I think, between their style and our style). I don’t think we necessarily win by sorting people into “mindsets.” I think we should talk about improper incentives being on people to take Republican positions on things, and approach it from that angle– hint that the support for going the Republican way among elected officials tends to come from those improper incentives being brought to bear.

You can say, “Well, that’s a different mindset if you’re prone to being influenced by improper influences,” but that’s not the point at all. This is not a philosophy contest, it’s about what we should say. It seems to me it’s better for us to talk about improper influences, not to come out of the box saying, “Well, you’re doing what you’re doing because we have different mindsets, and that’s the difference between us.”

This is just an off-the-cuff feeling I have about this. I’m not saying it’s a hard and fast rule that liberals should never talk about the difference between Dems and Repubs on an issue in terms of different general mindsets.

Obviously my #14 comment is more about sound bite, ad stuff, and my number #13 comment is more about speech and debate stuff, because in the number #13 stuff you tend to get to hinting at your mindset, and maybe contrasting it with an obsolete mindset. But you still get to that kind of after setting the stage and discussing first things first. Again, you don’t come out of the box and say, “The difference here is that there are two types of people striving for things that have irreconciliable mindsets, and our mindset is better.” Imagine if MLKJ or Gandhi had opened their speeches like that? Not quite good enough.

I wrote:

But you still get to that kind of after setting the stage and discussing first things first.

Should be:

But you still get to discussing that kind of thing…

Sorry, one more point about the Swopa thing:

I think the reason the demonization doesn’t work for us is this– demonization works for the Republicans with the people they use it with against us, because with those people, it can work. It’s ridiculous, but that audience will accept it. For us, I think there are too few people we can plausibly describe the Republicans’ failings to as more than typical, human failings. We have to make their failings sound realistic in order for people to get it. We can’t make an argument that George W. Bush is an antichrist who doesn’t care about your kids and wants them all to die so he and his friends can get rich, even if we know him and Condi and people like that are really callous to things like the loss of soldiers lives and really care way too much about promoting the financial interests of their social peers.

Drum correctly anticipates this argument from the Dems in unsafe districts:

Dems in swing districts think they’ll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops. Ditto for FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the “General Betray-us” ad, shutting down Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other related issues.

He (and CB) then present two options: (1) do we think they can win anyway or (2) should they risk losing to do the right thing?

What is left out in the analysis is a challenge to the elected Dems’ underlying premise: that if they vote with Republicans, it somehow protects them from the “24/7 barrage of grainy black and white commercials accusing them” of traitorous weakness. While I understand how a rational person would make that assumption, history proves that Republicans feel exceedingly unhindered by facts or reality. Any Dem who thinks voting with the Rethugs will somehow appease them and prevent negative ads is simply naieve. The reality is that the Rethugs will run essentially the same ads regardless of how the Democratic representative votes.

If your district is not particularly progressive, lead and educate them where you can, but vote how you must to represent your district. But don’t do so out of fear.

If your district is neutral to left-leaning, there really is no excuse. You are going to get the negative campaign ads anyway, you may as well at least shore up your base.

There seems to be a disconnect between the best political advice that the Democrats have received over the past few months and something operating at the core of the Democratic party.

One of the unspoken problems of the Democrats now in the majority in both houses was DCCC Rahm Emmanuel’s decision to sponsor/fund right-wing moderates as Democrats in the 2006 elections, rather than progressive Democratic candidates.

This was a bow to the belief that America is in a “conservative mode” and Democrats must be conservative to win elections. IMO, that was a ghastly mistake. With these rightwing Democrats, there was no WAY the Democrats could stop the Bush-agenda by depending a united majority Democratic vote. There are certainly other ways to “win”, but the Democratic leadership hasn’t used them.

I’ve thought that the Democrats have been negotiating, cooperating, and colluding with the WH and Republicans, but maybe I’ve been wrong. Is it possible that they’re bowing to or being hampered by the rightwing moderates in their own party, presenting bills and amendments to bills that explicitly or implicitly support the Bush agenda?

The Democrats may now be paying the price of the DCCC not supporting progressive Democratic candidates in the 2006 elections, whether the reason for their voting record since then is being hamstrung by rightwing Democratic moderates or actually colluding with the WH, which is what I’ve thought all along. As I say, maybe that’s wrong. But it seems clear to me that Rahm Emmanuel certainly deserves some of the spotlight for the poor showing of Democrats since the 2006 elections.

Unless the progressive Democrats in Congress can act to weaken the voice of Democratic moderate conservatives in their midst, they may continue on this disastrous course until 2008, and how they frame their appeal for votes based on Democratic Constitutional principles will only seem hypocritical.

I think that is a good thing to keep an eye on, anney, but the delicate trade-off is the value of a majority. As CB noted, we have had many more positive domestic developments than ever would have happened under a Republican majority, and we are able to investigate and use oversight to slow down the Bush corruption machine (does anyone think Ali G would be out if the Rethugs were still in power?)

So the question then becomes, could a “true progressive” have won Heath Shuler’s district? Or, since in some ways he is a darling of the party, could a “true progressive” be elected Governor of Montana? Is it better to expand the tent enough to get someone in these positions with a (D) after their names, or are we better to toil longer in the wilderness while we try and move public opinion to where the only D majority is a truly progressive majority?

The thing the Dems most need to tell the people about the Repubs’ foreign and security policy is, the Repubs leaders are in cahoots with the big oil interests, so the Repubs’ choices in the War on Terror and on attaining peace in the middle east are designed towards free up middle eastern oil resources to thos interests’ control. It’s about greed and cronyism. That’s so important for people to hear, but why don’t the Democrats say it all the time? When the nomination winner gives his/her speech at the convention, he or she should just say that, and have a video clip hooked up to a powerpoint slide presentation rig of Bush at that super-rich people dinner where he told them all that they were his base, and then play the clip. Look at the audience and wait for a reaction. Play the clip in a couple of other places to punctutate similar points spaced later on in the speech.

It’s amazing that Dems don’t say this more when this is the most important thing for people to know about the Repubs’ foreign policy. I think part of it is that it will take political courage, because the Repubs will try to embarass you for it. The next day, if not the same day, they will have someone replaying the clip and laughing at you for it and dismissing it. But the only way we are going to get a lot better is if people say it, and then more people say it again and again after the Republicans laugh at it. Great advances take political courage. We are never going to be able to move to new places from where we are if people never have the political courage it takes to do anything. I remember one time, about it year ago it might be by now, that Hillary Clinton said something about there being a political cabal going on in Washington. It didn’t get much play except for some MSM/Republican sources who covered it just to dismiss it and laugh at it. All of us should have thanked God that someone with the stature of Hillary Clinton was coming out and saying that and we should have repeated it again and again.

Saying the stuff about the oil interests isn’t going to be the typical kind of political courage thing, because people already have all the facts to believe it. When everybody says it out loud, instead of leaving it in the background, people are going to nod, like they nodded when they saw Farenheit 9/11– that movie made sense to people, they didn’t sit there and hold their chins and think, “I wonder if that’s true…” And then they turned out and saw his next movie, Sicko, even though a lot of you people departed from Michael Moore as soon as the Republicans started making some screeching and bleating noises about him.

Has anyone here considered that the Democratic leadership acts as it does, vis-a-vis foreign policy and the corruption of the constitution, not out of spinelessness or ineptitude, but because it is satisfied with the status quo?

jm, they will still be able to sit down with the big oil interests and broker those peoples’ interests after they call the Republicans too beholden to those interests. They have to make the oil interests know they are still open to listening to what they have to say, but that with the Repubs, foreign policy was too influenced by trying to please the oil interests. And when the oil interests do come to talk to you, you take it with a grain of salt, and you realize that whatever they say to you might not be totally frank, and that they might see you as an enemy at first, and they might be there more to put an idea in your head and set you up for something than to honestly deal with you.

But we have to have the political courage to talk about real problems honestly. Otherwise, if we just dance around the criticism, it’s going to always sound like we don’t have the conviction to come out and say it, because we don’t really believe it’s true. The corruption is the biggest problem with the Neocon / Bush foreign policy and the best reason to turn away from it.

Steve writes: “Now, the obvious question is why Dems can’t read the same polls as the rest of us, and see strong national consensus on policy positions they’re running away from. The answer, of course, is that for most of these Dems, they don’t care about national polls, they care about local polls — and if their constituents aren’t on board with a Democratic national-security agenda, these lawmakers assume their careers are on the line.”

As my previous post implies, I don’t find this explanation very persuasive. I live in the rural, red state part of California and folks here, though mostly conservative at heart, are at best skeptical of the Bush GWOT agenda. Can anyone provide links to the local polling data that support the above assertion?

Zeitgeist

I’m really far more concerned about Constitutional issues that the Democrats have failed to address which I think are far more urgent than domestic programs, with the exception of the telecom immunity’s cooperation with the Bush administration’s illegal surveillance of Americans.

And Gonzales? Even though he is gone, Bush will certainly get someone who supports his unlawful unitary executive power moves. I think any fuss about THAT is wheel-spinning, since an AG serves at Bush’s pleasure and recommendation and Bush is going to do whatever he wants and make sure that his AG’s recommendations support his appropriated unitary executive power. IOW, I think the real fight is with Bush, not his AG. I don’t think another AG will solve that problem as long as Bush is president and assumes unconstitutional powers. He, or Miers, or Cheney will edit every single opinion to bring them into line with supporting these unlawful powers.

Anyway, the “value of the majority” Democrats right now is not accomplishing much because of the ideological blurring in their majority voting record. It’s been anything BUT majority.

Could true progressives have won in Red States? Well, at the time of the 2006 elections, people were only a little less agitated about the Iraq war than they are now. No “true progressive” would have campaigned to remain in Iraq, and because citizens were so overwhelmingly in favor of getting out of Iraq then, if a progressive candidate had made his/her position absolutely clear about the war and the conservative candidate had done likewise, I really do believe the “true progressive” would have won on that basis, regardless of other issues. At the time, the war was primary, though Republican corruption or scandal was a secondary issue, and the progressives would have addressed that, too. Immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, and a few other hot topics will be hot topics in 2008 as well, but I’ve no doubt that a Democrat, if not a progressive, will win the presidency in spite of their somewhat progressive stand on these issues. It is and has been Iraq that’s been driving the poll results for years now.

Of course you know what they say about the clarity of hindsight, but even so, I think Rahm Emmanuel did not look beyond the 2006 election to the position in which he’d placed the Democrats once they were in Congress after the elections. I still think that bringing rightwing moderates into the party was an enormous mistake. With a tip of the hat to hindsight, of course.

Zeitgeist

One more comment, about this:

Is it better to expand the tent enough to get someone in these positions with a (D) after their names, or are we better to toil longer in the wilderness while we try and move public opinion to where the only D majority is a truly progressive majority?

If we had the luxury of time to stop the Bush agenda, if the next election could solve all our problems, we could ponder such profound questions. 🙂

But I think we’re in a Constitutional crisis that the Democrats are absolutely refusing or failing to address, and we don’t have much time before the next precedent-setting constitutional pillar is destroyed. Whether Bush will bomb Iran without congressional approval is still up in the air, the reasons for NOT bombing Iran notwithstanding. There were many reasons for not invading Iraq, already known, when Bush ordered it anyway.

I don’t think I’ve ever thought that Congress urgently needed to act quickly and strongly to rein in a president as I think this one needs to rein in the Bush administration. Certainly before the next election. So my thinking is driven by a sense of crisis and even doom if Congress continues to fail to protect constitutional government. Too dramatic? Maybe. But I think too many shadows suggest catastrophe is on the horizon.

I would hasten back to George Wallace. The only thing he ever uttered with which I could agree, though not at the time, was that “…Democrats, Republicans, they ain’t a dimes wutha diff’rence!”

That was reiterated by Ralph Nader in 2000, but he was a bit more defining when he implied that held true particularly within the Beltway.

Granted, the Ds are doing handstands trying to comply with the Rs regarding the key issues of Iraq, presidential powers and separation of powers, telecomm and FISA. Obviously there are trade-offs but given the “veil of ignorance” pervading the D. C. environs we shall never know what they are until 50 years or so when some enterprising historian finally penetrates the veil, via the FOIA. That may prove a bit late for most of us.

The latter of CB’s arguments, that the Ds should do things because they are the right things to do for the United States is, unfortunately, wishful thinking and will probably remain so until the financial underpinning of holding office is removed. When the folks in D. C. rely upon their corporate constituencies for their feed and care , why should they be expected to do “the right things” for the broad constituency, the nation? After all, the “pittance” pay them is just not enough to allow them the live-style to which they believe they are entitled.

So, the real question becomes, “How do we get decent folks to run for offices while getting the money out of politics?” Maybe we begin with electing folks who have the moxey to understand that coroprations are not real people and fighting wars for their benefit is not in the best interest of the nation. That might be a great starting point.

It’s a no brainer to me, that’s why it’s so frustrating that national dems can’t see it. Dems got elected because we didn’t like what republicans were doing, we still don'[t and all the polls show it. Dems keep caving in to repubs and that is why their approval ratings are so low. We hate the republican stand on the issues but now we are just disgusted with the dems in power who refuse to stop them. The more they stand up to republicans and Bush policies the higher their approval ratings go. Look at the facts:
Move on was condemned by repukes and they got huge outpouring of donations.
Dodd stood up against telecom amnesty and got record donations overnight.
Pelosi condemned Stark and Stark got 90% approval ratings and support from all over the country.
Dems are getting support to stand up against Bush policies but they refuse to do it. Supporting the troops means protecting them. Standing up against terrorism means not giving up our freedoms or letting then scare us into government submission.

Dems are getting bad advice, and centrists dems aren’t listening to their constituents or Southwick wouldn’t have gotten appointed and amnesty for telecoms wouldn’t be an issue, they are acting like republicans and accepting what amounts to bribes and special favors. They may have D behind their names but they really are not representative of the party…just comfortable insiders out for themselves…republicans.

agree with Matt Yglesias that the Democratic leadership is lazy, and I would add that they act as though they are in office to stay in office rather than represent their (non-corporate, non-high dollar donor) constituents. Their formula is to keep the monied interests happy and don’t do anything that might grab the attention of / alienate the voters in the middle who lack either the time or inclination to demand that elected officials actually act in their interests. If you give the “stiff arm” to your base it is a calculated risk because they will not want to allow the election of the idealogical alternative. It will take a lot for them to actually abandon you when the chips are down. I think Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Joe Lieberman was an aberration. And, it did not take long to see from that situation that the status quo was more important than a bold action to take a principaled stand.

I am underwhelmed by the quality of Congress critters and convinced we will be stuck with their mediocrity for what remains of my lifetime. Political courage is in very short supply these days, and I believe the Democrats also lack political vision. They do not understand their opponents, and as a consequence, are continuously played by them. This might be bad enough, but they also have no long term strategy (and so no proper tactics) to counter that of Republicans. I feel discouraged because I feel like the Democrats have decided they want a slice of the Corporate Money Pie upon which Republicans have long feasted. This in the end will drive what they do.

TuiMel, I once saw a possible way out of this mess. It was never going to be easy, but now that Dems are actually out-fundraising Rethugs, it may be impossible.

The absolute key, the stone to pull out that will make the whole edifice fall down, is to reverse Buckley v. Valeo, the 1970s Supreme Court campaign finance case that gave us the horrible, senseless “money equals speech” formulation.

I always thought that if D’s could get the WH long enough to appoint anti-Buckley judges, and get a ruling that money is so corrupting both in fact and in appearance of impropriety, and so distorting of the equitable principles underlying “one-person, one vote” that it can be regulated and is not protected as speech, then real change taking the astounding amounts of private money out of politics and governance could begin.

I still think that is the only way change can really happen, I am just less optimistic that even electing Dems to the WH will really get it done.

Zeitgeist,
Sincerely, what kind of judges would be “Anti Buckley”? Wasn’t the Court that decided Buckley significantly more “liberal” than the Court of today? I have come to the conclusion that the corruption and corrossion that money brings to our political process has won out. Too many of the law makers and opinion makers benefit from the gross and obsene amounts of money that are spent on campaigns. I am hard-pressed to see what sort of cultural earthquake could jar these pigs from the trough. I believe they will be absolutely fierce in the defense of their right to feed. Political money creates people like Mary Matalin and James Carville, and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. They get rich shilling for the corporate interests and one another. It is all a very cozy “circle of life” for them. Also, political advertising would be a tough thing for newspapers (and dare I say blogs) to forego. The tentacles run deep.

I have come to believe that public financing of elections might help break the synergy of those who have an interest in having big money roll into campaigns. But, the realist in me knows that – absent some sort of definitive amendment to the Constitution – the money would find its way back regardless of the financing laws that were passed. Hence, my dismay.

For quite a while, into the early 90s, the Supremes actually incrementally narrowed the campaign money free-for all in a number of cases; I think if we had any opportunities to replace winger justices (in, what, 20 more years) we could find some who don’t see how money per se is a form of speech. But you’re right that every passing day that system gets more entrenched and less challenged.

One thing that helps is that, starting with Dean, the internet has proven that you really can raise money in $100 increments, not just $2300 increments. Force television to give a certain amount of free airtime and you could suddenly afford a campaign on what can be raised from small donors — and if you take the $2300 donors out of the picture, I’d bet you’d have a lot more people willing to be a $100 donor.

Do the right thing and damn the torpedoes. Especially since, this cycle anyway, the torpedoes are bogus, armed only in their own minds.

Unfortunately, money (particularly corporate money) talks loudly. Every citizen of US would have to refuse to respond to the barrage of TV ads and refuse to vote as told, before the pols would “get” the message. Not going to happen, so we’re likely to continue voting for what we perceive as the lesser evil.

I think if we had any opportunities to replace winger justices (in, what, 20 more years) we could find some who don’t see how money per se is a form of speech.

This is the reality I face. I’m no spring chicken anymore and the time to turn the political tide begins to fall close to the margins of my expected life span. I’ve been trying to figure out if this is part of my (relative) radicalization.

Well I guess there’s also the fact that congressional Democrats don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto or a filibuster in the Senate right now. So it would be pretty fucking stupid of them to overreach and try to whip their members from more conservative areas into crawling out on a limb, with saw in hand, over some red meat issue for progressives that would not play well for them back home and is doomed to fail anyway. To risk losing hard won seats over a fight you have no chance of winning isn’t courageous, that’s just stupid.

If there were any actual of chance for some of this stuff becoming law right now it would be different. But for that to be the case we’re going to need some combination of, a) more Democrats in Congress, b) a Democratic president, or c) more Republicans taking more heat for obstructionism. If you want to beat somebody up over Congress not getting more of the things you want done, go beat up a Republican.

CalD

Voting for bills on the floor is not the only way to defeat unconstitutional matters. The Democrats have control in both houses of what even comes up for a vote, as the Republicans did when they were the majority. They NEVER allowed any Democratic input on legislation, did all their tweaking in Republican-only meetings.

All the Democrats need to do to stymie unconstitutional actions is either not allow unconstitutional bills out of the committees, or present only versions that pass constitutional muster. They finally did it with the telecom legislation and could do it with anything that Bush wants to be introduced for a vote, such as war-funding. Then if it passes and is vetoed or loses on the floor, they can present it again and again.

I’d rather see this kind of action than majority Democrats voting with minority Republicans to pass unconstitutional legislation with needed votes.

And I won’t vote for a lesser-of-two-evils Democrat. I’ll write in a Democratic candidate that is not one of the current front-runners. I have only one vote, but it has to be earned by a candidate doing the right thing, win or lose.

If you only allow votes on bills that Republicans won’t vote for and you can’t get a bill past a veto and/or a filibuster without Republican support then what exactly do you accomplish? Nothing. Do that in a way that jeopardizes hard-won seats in marginal districts and hands Republicans a national security stick to beat you with (one of their perennial favorites) in a presidential election year and what do you accomplish? Less than nothing. So, take your pick.

In my book, CalD, your “nothing” is better than voting with the Republicans to support the Bush administration on unconstitutional bills. I think you’re wrong, though. Holding out against lawlessness isn’t “doing nothing” at all. It’s fighting the Bush-agenda with every tactic and strategy at the Democrats’ hand. When his minions whine and bully the Democrats when they’re standing straight and doing the right thing, that’s what turns people even more against Bush. I think the Democrats would win big in 2008 if they just fought the Bush agenda, particularly those issues that Americans are so outraged about now.

“Unconstitutional” actually threatens America’s national security, doesn’t protect it at all. And Americans know it. Are you buying into the Republican cant that if you don’t do what Bush wants, you’re soft on national security? Or suggesting that the Democrats be scared of that accusation? That’s part of what’s apparently led them down this destructive path they’re on.

Democrats need to reframe the issues. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, period, and “unconstitutional” is a direct assault on American freedoms. No other president has been able to get away with such egregious lawlessness in a time of war, and furthermore hasn’t needed to do anything illegal or unconstitutional.

So I guess we’ll have to disagree about this. I think the Democrats are losing a LOT of support, particularly from Independents and fed-up Democrats (I’m one of those) by doing what they’re doing. I don’t know how much it will affect the elections. I’m sure we have many surprises in store yet, not least from the Republicans who will play all kinds of dirty tricks.

For one thing, I think the politicians spend way too much time with other politicians, and with consultants and advisers and money-people, to the point where they just don’t hear what we’re out here saying; it’s like we speak a different language.

I would love to see a campaign via e-mail or faxes or letters that simply says, “How much money do we have to give you before you listen to us?” That’s how I’ve been feeling lately – like I have no voice. Not a good feeling.

I tell you – even though we knew that it would be hard to get real traction with such a slim majority, what I hoped to see more of was real principal. Real courage. If our men and women can go into harm’s way, never knowing if they will return alive, or in one piece, why can’t our Senators and Representatives press forward with the same courage? Aren’t they, in essence, on the front lines of the democracy, and don’t we have the right to expect them to fight, to stand strong in the face of whatever the other side throws at them? As it is, they seem to want to give in to their fear, no matter how many times we try to assure them we have their backs.

I think it’s possible that one big element of the problem is Pelosi and Reid; neither has been effective, and neither projects the kind of take-no-prisoners persona that is called for. Allowing Joe Lieberman to retain his seniority AND give him a committee chair was a huge mistake. Not exerting some discipline over what comes out of committees and onto the floor is another. The push to elect centrist Democrats has not proved to be the strategic advantage people like Emanuel claimed it would be.

As we get closer to 2008, I can’t tell you how much I worry that we will wake up on the morning after the November election, asking ourselves how things could possibly have turned out this bad.

OK. Well nothing is one of our choices, although then I guess they’re just the “do-nothing” Democratic congress, doing nothing to make Americans safer or our lives better. Republican obstructionism is swept under the rug and forgotten and Republicans win again. So I take that back. There really is no “nothing” on a lot of this stuff. There’s only something or less than nothing. Doing something of course, at least for now and the foreseeable future, requires bringing some Republicans along. Can’t do that unless you’re willing to try and strike a few bargains.

Now it’s possible this may get a teensy bit easier after the primaries. There likely are a few Republicans out there who are already getting nervous about the hard line their leadership insists on taking and are more inclined to deal, but are also worried about a primary challenge from the right. But other than that, as long as our most vocal and energetic activists are more interested in beating on Democrats than finding ways to punish Republicans for their intractability, Republicans have little incentive to change their game. In fact, I have no doubt that they’re enjoying this spectacle every bit as much as I enjoy watching Republicans eating their own.

CalD

…as long as our most vocal and energetic activists are more interested in beating on Democrats than finding ways to punish Republicans for their intractability, Republicans have little incentive to change their game.

The credit for the Republican successes as the minority party doesn’t belong to former supporters who are observing the Democrats and speaking out in alarm and anger about what they’re doing. And it isn’t just activists speaking out. There is report after report covering the excuses and “reasons” why the majority Democrats in Congress just can’t do what they were elected to do. The credit for Republicans success and having little incentive to change their game goes to the Democrats themselves. The Republican game is working extremely well with so much Democratic cooperation and apparent lack of courage to stand on principle, whatever the reason.

Now, to soften my own criticism, let me reiterate that the Democrats did GOOD with the telecom immunity bill. Of course, they did it with Republican support, but notwithstanding that support (or perhaps because of it), they stuck to their guns. What they seem to be terrified of is taking a stand when there isn’t Republican support, and this is what’s doing them in.

There’s a story about courage that goes something like this: you and your friends know that a certain action is the most moral and beneficial action for everyone, though it will be a really difficult battle against the status quo. Yet when the time comes to take a stand, all your friends disappear. What should you do, alone and at great risk of being reviled and losing the battle because you’re only one person?

The answer? Do the right thing anyway. That’s what leaders do. People recognize courage, applaud it. It speaks to the best in us all.

Two words: Paul Wellstone. A sincere position taken by someone willing to present it well and unabashedly can win in even the most marginal districts. Paul Wellstone was a proud progressive and did not poll-test his views. He actually believed in what he said and voted his conscience.

Nice fairy tale, but Paul Wellstone was a senator, and a senator from a generally moderate to liberal leaning state to boot. The notion that Paul Wellstone could have been elected and re-elected in Indiana is silly. In fact, doesn’t a Republican hold Wellstone’s former seat right now? Anyway, there are almost certainly congressional districts even in blue Minnesota where Wellstone never got a majority of the vote and no one like him ever would, but a more moderate Democrat might.

Nope, I’m afraid there are just no equations wherein progressives get their way 100% of the time and win every time under the best of circumstances. And of course given the current arithmetic of the congress, with the White House in Republican hands, there really aren’t very many scenarios where progressives can get 100% of what they want any percentage of the time. So if you insist on total victory or none at all from the current congress then your victories are going to be very few and far between and if you you want to change that equation, the people you need to be punishing the most are Republicans, not Democrats.

Comments are closed.