When I was in Germany recently, addressing the Democrats Abroad chapter ( www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm ) in Munich, most of us in the meeting hall were perplexed by the behavior of Democratic Party officials in Washington, D.C. What is behind those leaders' ongoing timidity that in some cases is making them enablers of the worst of CheneyBush policies, especially with regard to the Iraq Occupation, excessive presidential powers, and the trashing of the Constitution?
With those topics in mind, let's spend a bit of time here trying to figure out the possible genesis of this Democratic wimpiness, and what can be done about it.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid appear to be saying: "Given our relatively slim margins in both the House and Senate, and Bush's newfound desire to use the veto pen, we find it much more useful to try to peel off enough moderate Republicans to our side on a number of issues in order to get some positive legislation passed. Passing defunding-the-war resolutions, or ones authorizing an impeachment panel, for example, might make us feel good but they might well alienate the very moderate Republicans and Independents we're trying to lure to our side. We want to get legislation passed for the American people and that's where we should be focusing our energies, not on distracting, bash-the-Administration resolutions that stand little chance of accomplishing anything while making our legislative work more difficult."
If that is the motivation for much of the Democratic leadership's timidity, I would disagree with the strategy but at least I could understand the reasoning behind it. In many cases, however, I think that argument is a smokescreen for deeper motivations.
I haven't heard any Democratic leaders say this out loud, but it's likely that privately a number prefer the Iraq Occupation to continue through Bush's tenure because that way it's "Bush's War," a "Republican war," and the margin of victory for the Democrats in 2008 could be even bigger, given the massive unpopularity of the Iraq war in the country. If this cynical point of view is actually operable, those Democrats would have blood on their hands; all the U.S. forces and the Iraqi civilians will suffer in the next 15 months because some Machiavellian Democrats waited to act to remove the troops until after the presidential election.
What I suspect is actually going on for most Democrats is Karl Rove Syndrome. They fear that if they don't continue funding Bush's war in Iraq, they might be blamed if something goes even more disastrously wrong on the ground there (because they didn't "support the troops"); they might well be swiftboated as being "unpatriotic" or insufficiently "anti-terrorist." In short, these Dems don't want to do anything that could jeopardize their re-election chances or those of new Democratic candidates for Congress.
OK, though I find that attitude somewhat cowardly -- and immoral, as an awful lot of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians will be killed and maimed in the next 15 months -- at least one can understand its partisan political roots.
THE TENDENCY TO CAVE EARLY
But how does one explain so many other caves by the Democratic leadership? Good example from last week: The revised FISA bill contained a retroactive amnesty for the giant telecoms that violated the privacy rights of American citizens in the domestic-spying operation run by CheneyBush's National Security Agency. (Incidentally, we now have learned that the data-mining started early in the Bush presidency, long before the tragic events of 9/11.) ( www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/17009 ) The Dems fought that amnesty clause but finally gave in. (Interestingly, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, who has accepted large contributions from the telecoms, ( http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001685&cycle=2006 ) capitulated early. )
But that's not the most flagrant retreat to which I'm referring here. Sen. Christopher Dodd, who is in the running for the Democratic presidential nomination, alerted Majority Leader Reid that he was going to put a "hold" on the bill, so as to not give Congress' imprimatur to unconstitutional law-breaking by giant corporations. Reid chose to ignore Dodd's request, which is a violation of traditonal senatorial courtesy. Why would the Majority Leader diss one of his own senators in the face of Administration criticism? Looks like a complex cave to me, which, when added to so many others, underlines the unwillingness by Reid (and Speaker Pelosi in the House) to act like a true party of opposition.
Another example is Pelosi separating herself from the tough comments of Rep. Pete Stark, who denounced his Republican colleagues' upholding of Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill extending health care to poor and lower-middle-class children. Bush said the bill spent too much money, but Stark reminded his Republican colleagues that they always seem to find the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to fund the Iraq Occupation but claim not to have enough money to help sick kids. Stark's courage in stating the obvious should be applauded, not dumped on by the Democratic leadership.
But maybe we shouldn't be too surprised by Pelosi's cowardice. After all, she gave away the store when she announced in the run-up to the 2006 midterm election that impeachment would be "off the table" if the Democrats became the majority in Congress. Impeachment is the remedy called for by the Constitution, th ultimate weapon that can be used against an Executive Branch that has run amok with its power. Pelosi's pledge means that the Republicans can carry on as usual knowing that Bush and Cheney will never face any accountability for their illegal, immoral and self-destructive actions.
Nancy Pelosi is my Representative in Congress, and I've written her numerous times to try to find out the reasoning behind her "off the table" decision. Her replies are generic blather without ever responding to the question. I can understand why she might have made that "off the table" remark prior to the 2006 election, so as to not scare away moderate Republicans who might be amenable to voting for Democrats. But the situation is different now, and CheneyBush have not altered their domestic and foreign extremism. Plans are proceeding apace for an air attack on Iran, for example. Thus, voters would understand if impeachment were to be put back "on the table" as a weapon-in-reserve to make CheneyBush think twice about continuing their rampaging policies.
Suppose, for example, Congress were to pass a bill saying that absent an imminent threat from Iran against the United States, a CheneyBush attack on that country would be, ipso facto, grounds for immediate impeachment. That might concentrate their minds a bit. Powerful forces inside the Pentagon, opposed to an all-out, shock&awe attack on Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs, reportedly have made CheneyBush alter their plan ( www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27889 ) to one relying more on surgical strikes.)
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).
Pelosi has to be put on record and into the history books
"Nancy Pelosi is my Representative in Congress, and I've written her numerous times to try to find out the reasoning behind her "off the table" decision. Her replies are generic blather without ever responding to the question."
She has to know that she will be held to account. The thing is to not let her get away with "generic blather".
The wimpiness will disappear when representatives are made to recognize that they will be personally accountable not just to their representatives but to history for their failure to uphold their personal oaths and for personally undermining the American experiment.
You should post her "generic blather" to the internet and let others use it as a source document. Don't let her wiggle off the hook.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 10:16:09 AM
Don't you understand? The Democrats are the other wing of the ruling class party. They will NEVER act like an opposition party because the aren't.
Abolishing welfare was once considered the most reactionary measure you could propose but Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we know it." One of the reasons the clamor for publicly funded health care was derailed in the early 1990's was the Clintons and the infamous Jackson Hole Gang's proposal for managed competition. A majority of Democrats voted along with the Republicans for the Taft Hartley Amendment in the 1940's. The Taft Harley Amendment is the primary reason the American Labor movement has declined from representing approximately one-third of American workers in the 1940's to its present anemic position of representing less than 5% of the work force.
Until people wake up and start supporting a third party, we can look forward to only more reactionary measures from the Republicrats. And don't tell me we need instant runoff voting before we can get a third party. We need a third party NOW before we get instant runoff voting and we'll not get it without a third party anyway.
The oath of office is a personal one. It is not taken as a Democrat or as a Republican it is a taken as a representative to the people. And the oath is taken especially in the case of Speakers and Presidents, publicly.
Pelosi can only shrug off her personal oath, Bush can only shrug off his, if he is permitted to do so. My point is that citizens should not let representatives, any representatives break their oath of office to them. My point is that citizens should collect an audit trail and collect evidence of oath breaking to present to other citizens (and to historians) to show bad faith when bad faith is encountered.
Whether there is one party or two or three doesn't change the fact that each representative is personally responsible for their own oath unless the citizens let them shirk and diffuse that responsibility. And of course they will try and shirk and avoid responsibility where they can.
You don't have to trust your politicians (your so called and self proclaimed representatives) so long as you have a means and a will to make them be accountable for their breaches of promise. Deny your representatives deniability and you will either make them your representatives or gather the evidence of their bad faith which you can then as a good citizen (no irony here at all) show other citizens.
In my opinion if you aren't demanding accountability at this point and taking active steps to get it, and to show that you have it, then you aren't being a good, a competent, a diligent citizen.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 11:34:31 AM
THOSE WHO FUND YOUR CAMPAIGN WILL NOT PAY YOU OVERTHROW THEM
Of course, the citizens have to demand that their representatives uphold their oath of office, no matter what party they belong to. But my point was that neither Democrats nor Republicans will uphold their oath of office since they are the two branches of one ruling class party. In the upcoming billion dollar campaign, anyone who follows those rules for running will have to get their campaign funds from members of the ruling class. The funders are not going to pay for someone to overthrow them. If representing the interests of those who funded them means violating their oath of office, that is what they will do,
Suppose that the Democrats and Republicans are two brands of one ruling class party.
Your route to greater empowerment as an ordinary citizen that is not part of that plutocracy-disguised-as-democracy would still be to empower your fellow citizens who are also not a part of that group but who do have both numerical superiority and their rights under the Constitution with the undeniable evidence of that reality. Ordinary citizens must outnumber the plutocrats and ordinary citizens have the second amendment for precisely that contingency of being disenfranchised by a minority. Citizens can't be disempowered if they deny false representatives their deniability.
Any plutocracy in 2007 must still be a plutocracy comprised of individual mortals. Nancy Pelosi and George W Bush are individual mortals. They made personal promises. Their breaches of faith of their oaths and of their promises where they occur can (if an audit trail is laid down) be made so clear that they cannot keep the plutocracy-behind-the-democracy hidden.
Too often individual activists fail to recognize the need to lay down that audit trail. Bernie Weiner says he received "generic blather" from his representative when he wrote her regarding her impeachment is off the table position. But just calling Nancy's response however feeble and inappropriate it may have been "generic blather" is not making her accountable for her response.
Putting her response on the historical international record (on the internet) would make her accountable for it not just to Bernie (one voter that Nancy is probably comfortable in blowing off) but to other activists and to any historian of these times.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 6:27:51 PM
5 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 (
