Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. - Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment"
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers
These are the characteristic quotes about the two major political parties. Last week I posted about how conservatives have betrayed the country by either remaining silent or trying to justify the Bush Administration's power grabs, and I believe when the history of this period is written the right will be considered more to blame than the left. I believe that until the 2006 elections Democrats (and the left in general) didn't have enough leverage to challenge unconstitutional claims and behavior by the executive. The trauma of 9/11 made Americans willing to bargain away a certain amount of their civil liberties for a sense of security against a barely known enemy. The drumbeat for war against Iraq (along with masterful political choreography) maneuvered the left into a corner where their choices before the public were either support the war or be considered unpatriotic. Once the war started it was "rally round the president" time and through the 2004 election their choices were understandable.
The next two years caused a seismic shift in public opinion and the liberals betrayal timeline starts with the 2006 elections. The earliest, primary and most baffling part has been the Congressional Democrats' response. On the face of it a party that wins by substantially larger-than-expected margins and regains control of both houses ought to feel pretty empowered. It would seem to be a call to action to repudiate the other party's policies and actions. Instead they've acted like they suffer from a political Stockholm syndrome. In Glenn Greenwald's words:
Since Democrats took over Congress in January, there have been three major attributes characterizing their conduct: (1) a failure to stop or restrict the war in Iraq; (2) a general failure/unwillingness to stop Bush on much of anything else of significance (FISA, a failure to reverse any of the excesses of the GOP Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act, lack of limits on his ability to attack Iran, etc.); and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential.
Just this week there has been open ridicule by Dana Milbank of the Senate leadership and Bruce Fein openly calling for Pelosi's ouster. Regular observers have largely concluded they are unworthy of their positions, and the longer it goes on they are even less worthy of their seats. Now, part of it goes back to Will Rogers - it seems to be in the Democratic party's DNA to tend towards fractiousness, and the election takeover happened in part because of a strategic decision to recruit more-conservative challengers in conservative areas. Fair enough. That doesn't mean the 110th Congress is destined to be Republican by proxy. Once the magnitude of dissatisfaction was clear they should have adjusted. Americans want them to confront the Bush administration. They should begin doing so and force any laggards into line; heaven knows they've had a close up look at how that's done these last few years. If they don't start doing what they were elected to do they deserve to be handed their opera glasses and sent back to the balcony.
Left wing activists are as much to blame by now because their activism has had no effect. There was an initial burst of anger and in typically liberal fashion it receded as other issues took center stage. Consider the recently defeated immigration bill as a contrast from conservatives. As Arthur Silber put it the right wing talk show hosts
told their listeners to call and email people in Congress, and to call and email various Republican organizations, including the Republican National Committee, and to take all these actions repeatedly. They provided phone numbers and email addresses, and they indicated the general message that should be conveyed. They didn't do this only once in one show: they did it throughout their shows, on every show....It was repeated over and over and over. You couldn't listen to one of the major conservative talk shows without hearing it within five minutes of tuning in. It went on all the time...they condemned those Republicans, including Bush, who supported the bill without mercy. They told people to inform the RNC and all the appropriate Congressmen and Senators that they would receive no further support of any kind, including financial support, unless the bill was defeated. In their view, support of the bill was a betrayal of core conservative principles. They therefore maintained that any such alleged "conservatives" did not deserve to be in office. As one, they said that these betrayers of the conservative faith should not hold power any longer -- and that the principles they believed were imperiled were more important than the continuation in power by the Republican party. As a result of all these shows hammering the identical theme without interruption, in every hour of every show on multiple shows for days at a time, Congress was inundated with calls and messages from deeply angry Republicans. And here is the point to take home: it worked.
Democrats appear to understand this difference. They seem to know that if they withstand the initial blast from the base it will abate and there will be no consequences. It is a comprehensive failure of leadership by progressive activists. Ask why they can't sustain pressure and unity of purpose and you'll likely hear a combination of denial, spin and condescension that goes something like "that's because we can simultaneously consider more than one thought." Unfortunately that's a reflex and not a response.
Progressives' susceptibility to being disorganized and flitting about from one issue to the next to the next means that even the most pressing and fundamental problems have to compete for attention with the flavor of the day. The fact that no actual change happens despite all their efforts is a scathing indictment and irrefutable proof of their impotence. The fact that they won't recognize their weaknesses and strive against them even in the midst of a Constitutional crisis is nothing less than a betrayal.
some other left -- those who like to think they are progressive but really are not.
"Progressives' susceptibility to being disorganized and flitting about from one issue to the next to the next means that even the most pressing and fundamental problems have to compete for attention with the flavor of the day. The fact that no actual change happens despite all their efforts is a scathing indictment and irrefutable proof of their impotence. The fact that they won't recognize their weaknesses and strive against them even in the midst of a Constitutional crisis is nothing less than a betrayal."
The real left has made quite a bit of prgress despite having virtually no money or power, and being up against rich and well organized corporations, a mass media which spreads lies like Santa Clause spreads presents on Christmas Eve, and a grossly ignorant population.
There aren't many real progressives in the US -- maybe a couple of dozen.... with an annual budget of $328 all told. None of them are Democrats. True progressives are not disorganized, really -- they just have a hard time finding each other -- it's like if there was a surviving dodo bird looking for another dodo bird, all the while being hunted by Democrats with automatic weapons and Republicans with napalm.
What we have are very few actual progressives and a large number of 'liberals' who don't understand what's actually going on or what to do about it -- yet. They may have some progressive thoughts but are not yet able to properly do progressive thinking: it's like all those technologists and people who do research or work with 'scientific stuff' and think they are 'scientists', and don't understand the difference. Progressivism is not what you think but how you think.
Liberalism is what you think -- what set of ideas one happens to have glommed onto, to a large extent -- but these liberals are still 'true believers' who think 'liberal thoughts' in very conservative ways. That's what makes them ineffective: they still believe in power and hierarchy, still believe in 'unity', 'ends over means', and self-identification, and buy into many of the common myths of the cultural hegemony. It's like those who argues about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin -- and yet all believing in angels (and "leaders").
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 2:17:03 PM
They're Americans and the public in general senses real global changes. A part is the fanaticism of some Muslims. In the US there have been plenty of Americans fanatic enough about religion to make it more important than getting at the way commerce, war, and diplomacy are carried out. The best way to observe such excusable confusion is to look at the Democrats spilling gigabytes of rancor at each other.
Things are different now. Iraq is not Viet Nam. The rust belt occurred well before 9/11. NAFTA was a kneejerk reaction to technology shifts. It's as though Mr. and Mrs. America believed they could find neat, inexpensive goods from abroad and cheap, hard-working immigrants to do the "jobs no one else wants to do" at home. There are more new highways with many more new shiny cars in East Tennessee than there were thirty years ago when I moved here. And the people call it progress. Yet many of the young people out of high school can look to little except a night shift (pays more) at WalMart or a trip to the recruiter's office where they will be offered thousands of dollars in bonuses and that ever-distant college education.
What I speak of is not a squabble of political parties or candidates within them. It is a diversion from facing the critical need to reassess what our government can do for us. Knowledge is needed, but no college degree is a certain cure. Ask questions like:
** If the US should decide to restrict military growth, what new economic factors would take it's place?
** If the concept of a "living wage" were to become the law of the land, what would be the incentive for workers to educate themselves better?
** Should, as some have suggested, the electoral college be modified to allow each state to decide how to apportion its votes for president?
** Would it be required to have a report from the President and also from both houses of Congress to outline major goals accomplished and moneys spent? For example, how much are army recruits making besides the enlistment bonus? And how much do Congresspersons spend in factfinding excursions?
The idea is that if there were ideas placed before the citizenry, there might be more participation. As it is, we hear how much candidates collect in donations. We see how they bicker over a few topics of their choosing. And we don't think it will make any difference who we vote for.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1354 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 810 comments)
on Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 9:48:51 PM
Just on the issue of ending the War in Iraq, the timetable passed the House by a vote of 218-214 or so.
There are 435 members in the House, hence a majority is 218.
There were no votes to spare on this measure- the House was evenly divided.
The measure failed in the Senate and was amended in Conference so that the time table became a recommendation.
This watered down measure was vetoed by the President and the veto was sustained as nowhere near 2/3 of the House membership were ready to defy the President on this issue.
History may well implicate the American left in the political and moral catatrophes of the Bush Administration,
but the House Democratic Caucus has staunchly and unwaveringly opposed the President and the GOP on every vote that has been taken.
That is the record.
One may fault the Democrats and the left for our failure to mobilize the general public, but the elected officials have been faithful in opposing the war.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 8:12:18 AM
As a Leftist with over forty years in the trenches
I have a certain experience with this topic. BP made some excellent points, however jaundiced and pessimistic seeming they were. I do not believe that , as BP conjectured, leftist politics appeals to a few hundred in this nation. I emphatically do not! ( exaggerated for effect and entertainment).....
The Rovian strategies that seemed to work so well made alliance with the ultraextremism on the right, both political and religious in nature. Having a small but very committed group willing to overlook differences in order to change the political landscape makes it seem to be the will of the majority, it aint, by any stretch. The iron control of the GOP legislators through the appointment process and the purse strings made it simple for this administration to ram through the illegalities and travesties we so object to and fight against.
Contrasting that with the historically fractured left, whose heyday appeared to be during the Viet Nam era protests and the way the Democratic Party cannot unify under any banner or cause gives rise to both BP's post and the ,in my opinion, wrong headed blaming of the left for our current condition in the article.
The millions around the world who marched in protest of the invasion of Iraq were not all leftists, not even close. They were from all political spectrums and they were simply under reported, trivialised and doomed by the fractious nature of those who organised and led them but even more so by the control of the media and the bully pulpit of an organised right wing in the White House and the Congress.
There is more than enough blame to go around is what I am attempting to say here, so there I said it. Those issues championed by the left have a broad appeal, if given fair hearing, which they are not. The left as is the right, are certainly few in numbers and very divided within as well, as was once the right. The hope of the left lies without the current political system and not within it. Please think about it.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 8:18:25 AM
Rovian Policies Not a Good Excuse, Progressives Weak
No. Activism from the left is indeed weak. I am a part of that problem and I have been for some time now. I am only beginning to fix the past as I have just become an active member of a campaign that I believe will benefit America more than any activist group will ever benefit America.
TroopsOutNow Coalition and others are fine groups, but in response to their future September dates for protests in D.C. and a march, I don't know what they plan to do differently from before to get the attention of everyone to stop this war NOW. I mean, don't get me wrong. Protests are important in a democratic society. But when they are rendered ineffective as often as they are, something needs to be done. A step back to assess the situation in much the same way that the Bush administration needs to step back and assess the situation in Iraq needs to be done.
These groups claim to be not ignorant and claim they can save the day. But without getting to the politicians in power who really can change things, they are just background noise. Something to be reported in a quick blip or blurb in the media and then on we go, America, spiraling downward further.
by
Kevin Gosztola (193 articles, 103 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 776 comments)
on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 9:52:23 AM
Thanks for your thoughts Ardee. The post I reference at the top of the article covers the "iron control" of conservatives and how they are responsible too. I agree there are a small number of activists on both sides trying to tug the big middle their way, but the left hasn't shown the willingness to overcome its fractious nature and hammer away relentlessly at a single issue (contrast with the right on immigration). In the end results are what matter and I think it's fair to say there's still not been an effective check on the president.
by
Dan Fejes (51 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments)
on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 2:55:30 PM
