The Democrats are off to a rousing start in the Congress they now control. In addition to the positive agenda items passed quickly, perhaps the most hopeful symbol of the major changes being made is that Speaker Pelosi is creating a global warming committee. But beneath the positive surface of Democratic progress, there are some harsher conclusions that need to be aired. Here are ten to start the discussion.
1. The Democrats are still way too timid. Often, it seems as if they've chosen to ignore the electoral sea-change that occurred in November. The Dems were a powerless minority for so long, at times they seem unequipped to deal with their new majority status and that they can use their atrophied muscles to change things significantly.
For example, the mid-term election clearly demonstrated that the electorate in no way supported a continuation of GOP policy in Iraq; Americans want their sons and daughters and husbands and wives rescued from there as soon as is practicable. Subsequent polls verify this, with two-thirds of Americans wanting out. But the Dems constantly are looking over their shoulder, as they did for years, terrified of being condemned as "unpatriotic" for opposing this reckless, tragic war that nearly everyone agrees cannot be won militarily in any case.
Rather than taking giant steps to remove our troops ASAP, the Dems seem content to take baby steps while timorously asking "May I?". The effective result is that the so-called Opposition Party is enabling the war-mongering policies of the Bush Administration; unless the Dems take quick action on Bush's escalation of the war, they will have "surging" American troops' blood on their hands as well, one effect of which is that they may well lose the moral high ground in the 2008 election.
2. The Dems aren't moving quickly enough on Iraq and seem disorganized. For example, they have devised a much-too-late, slap-on-the-wrist resolution denouncing Bush's Iraq escalation. While hundreds of troops and civilians are dying each week -- and while the first wave of "surging" troops have been moved into Baghdad -- the Dems are still debating and haggling, with their presidential contenders leading the charge in all sorts of directions. Each candidate (Biden, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, et al.) has his or her own withdrawal plan, rather than all agreeing on an umbrella unified approach. Dem chairman Howard Dean should do some head-knocking here.
Even though Bush for months was denying in public that he had finalized a decision on altered war strategies, the outlines of his plan were out there in civic discourse during all that time. The Dems could have begun organizing a unified resistance right then. The national anti-war groups could have moved up their planned demonstrations to an earlier date, or helped mobilize massive, nationally-coordinated "emergency" rallies for the day after the Administration officially announced its escalation plan; even thousands just beating on pots and pans in the streets, as often happens in countries abroad, would have sent a clear message of resistance.
Rove and Bush, who of course had already set the "surge" in motion well before publicly announcing it, outfoxed the disorganized anti-war opposition, who chose to ignore all the signs of the war's imminent expansion. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are in the pipeline to join their fellow "surgers" already delivered there. Meanwhile, the Dems have diddled and daddled getting the wording just right on a bi-partisan resolution condemning the escalation, one that is NON-BINDING in any case! Oh, that will make CheneyBush quake in their boots!
And the first major national demonstration won't happen in D.C. until January 27, long after much of the real damage has been done. Recall that PRIOR to the U.S. invasion in Iraq, more than 10 million citizens worldwide marched in opposition to what was being planned, warning of the likely consequences. Such rallies didn't stop the invasion and occupation, but at least they happened early enough to help pump-prime and build a nascent anti-war movement, so that we were up and running by the time the bombs began falling over Baghdad. And that movement, over a few years time -- along with the catastrophe unfolding on the ground in Iraq -- helped educate the American population, and they've been in firm opposition to the war ever since.
The anti-war opposition should be much further along by now, both with regard to impeding the escalation in Iraq and to helping stop the planned-for attack on Iran, which could happen anytime in the next few months.
3. The Dems still believe they can trust Bush to behave reasonably. Example: Senate Majority Leader Reid originally said he could accept Bush's "surge," as long as the Administration would promise not to "surge" for very long, maybe just a couple of months. Didn't the Dems learn anything over the past six years? A "promise" by Bush&Co. is not worth the toilet paper it's written on; these guys, who lied and deceived an entire nation into war in the first place, will do and say anything in order to get their nose under the tent, then revert back to their original plan as soon as they're inside.
4. The Dems aren't reading the poll numbers. The people for nearly a year now have been way ahead of their legislators on so many issues, especially on the Iraq War, with, depending on the poll, two-thirds to three-quarters of the population opposed to an escalation.
But the Democrats seem obsessed with the fact that Bush still has a healthy slice of the fundamentalist right with him (maybe 25% of voters) and continue to worry about being called out by them for opposing this unconscionable war. Let's all say it together: We will never bring that fundamentalist crowd to our side on the war, and we don't need them anyway. There are enough traditional conservative and moderate Republicans -- and military leaders -- who have deserted the extremists in the White House and abandoned their earlier support for the war.
In addition, many staunch Bush supporters in Congress and state houses are peeling off, as they see their prospects for re-election in 2008 diminishing by the day. They realize that Bush and his war are toxic to their chances for holding onto their seats and to any chance of the GOP capturing the White House and/or the House or Senate in the next election. Even Sen. John Warner of Virginia is deserting the Bush "surge" camp -- now THAT is monumental.
5. The Dems seem content with speechmaking in their hearings. They have not used their subpoena power, there is too much namby-pamby questioning by only one or two members, and they haven't raised the possibility of contempt-of-Congress citations.
For example, whenever Gonzales or Rice got cornered in recent Iraq hearings, the Dems permitted them to dodge and dance around direct questions and to escape having to present their views; instead, they let them promise (that word again) to respond in writing, which may or may not ever happen. Judging from the past, on those rare occasions when the Administration does deign to reply, those letters arrive a couple of weeks late and the written answers are deceptive or unresponsive to the questions asked.
Bush Administration officials must be grilled in Congressional committee hearings thoroughly and in public, for as long as it takes to get the answers from them. No more escape hatches.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
Your article should have top billing on every website that claims to call itself liberal or progressive.
Instead, as you can see from this article Arianna Huffington's website featured a well-known Republican operative making spurious attacks on Barbara Boxer, in an obvious ploy to deflect criticism away from the Democrats and onto their Republican colleagues.
As Ralph Nader has been saying for years, the lesser evil is still evil. Why people would knowingly vote for a lesser evil, and then expect something good of them, is beyond me. If you consider yourself a good person, and you want good things to happen, why not vote for people like yourself?
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 1:06:25 AM
How about because, if we've learned nothing during the past six years, we now realize how one person in the presidency can do an extraordinary amount of damage. Turns out that even if you don't think there's more than a nickel's worth of difference between Bush and Kerry, that nickel turns out to be have been enough to thoroughly alter our government and military policy. Having Bush in there has taken us down the road to international pariah status and neo-fascism at home. A Democrat in the office might have been no great shakes, but would not go to the extremes demonstrated by Bush&Co. That's why, even though we must build a grassroots new party from the ground up, in the interim I sometimes hold my nose and vote for a Democrat who is less than stellar. Thanks for writing. -- Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org)
by
Bernard Weiner (158 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 12:16:44 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
