November 13, 2006 at 10:09:16

Waging Battle, Building Peace: The Paradox Confronting the Democrats

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Andrew Bard Schmookler (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

Part of defeating this Bushite evil, therefore, will involve undoing the polarization of the American citizenry that these forces have assiduously labored for a generation to develop.

When I had my own radio show, I said it was intended to be the opposite of the Rush Limbaugh show. By that, I did not mean that it was a dishonest and partisan rant but from the opposite side, but rather that it would be an honest inquiry to find out what parts of the truth each side of our polarized society might possess. Likewise, the opposite of Bushite rule is not conflict-fomenting rule from the opposite side, but rather rule that helps bring people together to advance the common good.

Part of the task, therefore, is to build good bridges that can bring Americans together for common purposes.

However, I do not believe that, at this point in the struggle against the Bushites, it is appropriate to aim to bring together all the American people. There seems to be about a third of the American public that is so deeply enthrall to this Bushite leadership that it is difficult to imagine what would awaken them from their trance and cause them to question their mistaken judgment about these evil forces to whom they continue to give support. This perhaps 30 percent of the public, therefore, may need to be simply written off.

It is the other 70 percent that it should be the goal of the newly-empowered Democrats to bring together.

On those matters on which there is urgency, the Democrats may skip such consensus-building. Repealing the Military Commissions Act may be one of those: its assault on our constitutional system is too dangerous to leave it in place. And climate change may be another: we've already wasted so much time, and the chances for catastrophe only grow.

But where there is no great urgency, the Democrats' agenda should be for legislation that can be recognized by the seventy percent of Americans not in a trance state as serving the common good.

Indeed, re-establishing the very notion of the common good is central to healing the country, and also to preparing the ground for more progressive measures in the future. From FDR's coming to power in 1932 until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the country was pre-disposed toward the idea that "we're all in this together" and toward using the government as an expression of our common purposes to make a better society. Now, after a quarter century of right-wing propaganda, abetted by the fatigue and lack of vision in American liberalism a time in which "librel" was made into a dirty word in the minds of a preponderance of Americans-- we are in a position to begin to re-establish a re-envisioned liberalism. But the long-term success of that effort requires that we take now a long-term view of the task.

If we respond to the way the Bushites pushed their right-wing agenda down the throats of half of America with a reciprocal eagerness to ram a progressive agenda down the throat of an unprepared body politic, we will fail-in the long run if not also even in the short.

(Please note: I am not talking about the need to compromise with the Bushites; I am talking about the need to reach out to the center of the electorate. This election was a clear repudiation of the Bushites by the American people; it was not a clear endorsement of the Democrats, much less of a progressive agenda. And this election shows that power given, and not used to the liking of the majority, can be taken away.)

So what are the proper elements of an initial agenda for the Democrats to promote? Many of the ideas now talked about seem eminently appropriate. Here are some of them, gleaned from various progressive sources:

· Revising Bush's Prescription Drug benefit to allow the government to negotiate a collective, lower price for prescription drugs for Medicare patients (something the original law expressly forbade, to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical companies).
· Passing an ethics bill of the kind for which the Abramoff Scandal revealed the profound need (but that the Republican Congress could not bring itself, after a few feints in that direction, to pass).
· Raising the minimum wage.
· I also have a couple of measures I will be advocating in future writings that have to do with strengthening and safeguarding the election process of our democracy.

Here's an invitation to readers: What other measures which would meet the criterion of being something around which the seventy percent could rally-should be on the agenda for these opening stages of the Democrats' exercise of their new power?

In any event, these next two years are a time for building a new majority. It is a time for bringing that majority to trust the more liberal of the two major parties to look after the common good as it is defined by our shared values. Realistically, the Democrats do not have the votes to overcome a presidential veto-and confrontation over issues will benefit politically which ever side the majority of citizens feels is representing their views and their interests. Hence, there is nothing to be gained by passing measures that command no majority support in the electorate.

Even for the long-term good of a progressive agenda, for the next two years the Democrats' agenda should be one that builds the center, not the one that progressive activists but not the majority of citizens-- would consider most desirable and enlightened for the nation to enact.

1 | 2

Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.