Time and time again, the Democrats, who should know better by now, fall into the rhetorical trap of using the Republicans' framing language instead of going on the offensive by framing the arguments and language in their own terms. "Supporting the troops," for example, should not automatically refer to the funding of failed CheneyBush policies in Iraq, but to "supporting the troops" by arranging for them to depart the catastrophe that CheneyBush have helped create in Iraq. The so-called "War on Terror" is another one the Democrats have bought into without too much thought.
In short, the Democrats seem to have ignored the implications of their momentous victory in the 2006 election -- that they are now the majority and can start shaping their own agend, in their own way, using their own framing mechanisms. Too often, they seem to be thinking and acting as if they're still in the minority, having to respond to GOP arguments and policies rather than creating those of their own.
Yes, their margins in the House and Senate are not great, and the Republicans are playing obstructionist games, but introducing bills that don't always pass is not the end of the world. It demonstrates to the citizens (who, at this stage, hold the Democrats in Congress in low repute because of their wimpiness) that the opposition party stands for something, has alternative plans and policies, and, if they were to obtain a veto-proof majority in the November 2008 election, those plans and policies would be implemented, the legislative logjam would be broken, and real change might well come to Washington, D.C.
But if the Democrats don't locate their political spines and stand tall in opposition to the worst of CheneyBush policies, they put at risk their likely sweep of the House and Senate next November, and certainly open the door to the possibility of a HardRight GOP presidential candidate keeping the White House in Republican hands for another four or eight years. And no true Democrat or Independent or moderate-conservative Republican wants that.
OTHER MOTIVATIONS
Finally, my address to Democrats Abroad stimulated some fascinating letters ( www.crisispapers.org/features/corres.htm ) in response, including some that offer broader, more controversial reasons to explain Democratic timidity. Here, without necessarily accepting their premises, are excerpts from a few:
* "RE: Impeachment off the Democratic table reason #1?: Pelsosi, Reid, Rockefeller, and Harman are up to their necks in the Bush nastiness; the Roves etc. would love to get them involved in an impeachment process and demonstrate how involved these Dems were in the FISA/torture stuff. Hence, these Democrats have tied their own hands and we are left with a fascist government. Scary." -- Joan Magit
* "Hillary Clinton is a Republican in pseudo-Democrat clothing. Her voting record has basically been a rubber stamp for much of Bush's worst policies. She voted for the Iraq war the day before she voted against the diplomatic option (so she is a chronic liar when she states she wanted to continue with diplomatic efforts in Iraq), she voted to fund the Iraq war ten times before it became overwhelmingly unpopular. She voted for the USA Patriot Act I and II. She voted to end habeas corpus. Hillary Clinton bickers with Bush on minor points and superficial splitting of hairs, but she is in all political substance George W. Bush in a woman's pant suit. I used to defend Hillary tirelessly in the 1990s and was hopeful she would be a great leader for the progressive Dems in her time in the Senate. She turned out to be a Neo-Con and a fraud, and if she gets picked, the whole phony Rove vs. Billary will commence, and she will either get elected because of it, or she will be defeated by a much worse Neo-Con on the GOP side. Either way, fear-mongering, war-profiteering, Neo-Cons will win and the rest of the nation will lose and have to endure 4-8 more years of the Bush-Clinton regime." -- T. S. Golden
* "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51 & HSPD-20 dated May 9, 2007 would give Bush the justification to control all branches of government and the opportunity to declare martial law in the event of any 'Catastrophic Emergency,' meaning any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions. With our borders and ports essentially unprotected and the huge number of illegal aliens entering our country, the possibility of another real or staged terrorist attack occurring is more than a possibility. ... With the implementation of martial law, could the Bush Administration use this action to suspend indefinitely any future elections? The National Guard, the reserves and the U.S. military are tied up overseas. They are unavailable to protect the U.S. citizens at home. However, military contractors such as DynCorp, Blackwater USA, KBR, Custer Battles, and Aegis could be brought in for just such a purpose. They have no allegiance to the American people." -- Douglas Nash
* "[Response to the funding appeals of Democratic party officials Howard Dean and Tom McMahon:] I will not send one red cent to the Democratic Party this year. They are failing this country by not impeaching these White House criminals. Our Constitution is in shreds, thanks to the Dems playing politics (badly). And if the madmen invade Iran, it will be the Democrats' fault for delyaing the end of the occupation of Iraq before the '08 elections and for not impeaching. -- Diane Lawrence (10/23), South Florida Impeachment Coalition, www.FloridaImpeach.org
Well, you get the idea. The level of anger, frustration and fear are out there big time in the citizenry. Unless the Democrats get their act together soon and start behaving as an Opposition Party should, there is no predicting the ramifications of their lack of courage. But certainly the Republicans holding onto the White House, or Congress, for the next four years is a possible one. (And I haven't even gone into the likelihood of continuing electoral fraud.)
Organize, organize, organize! #
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor for the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net .
First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 10/23/07. www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/wimps.htm
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, 17 diaries, 783 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, 17 diaries, 783 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, 17 diaries, 783 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 6:27:51 PM
