Ellen O. Tauscher (CA-10) decided to do a preemptive counterattack against the left-wing of the Democratic Party the week before the elections. Maybe she is trying to reassure Boeing, Wal-Mart, and Pfizer that the new wave of Democrats will be every bit the lap-dogs of their industries that Tom DeLay and the K Street project have been. Maybe she is just a stupid person. But we don’t need this fight right now. Here Is what she said.
Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.
“I think there’s tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love,” Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something “we’ve got to fight.”
That set Matt Stoller off here. And then Chris Bowers went off here and here.
They are not so much overreacting as they are stepping on this week’s message. I am reminded of a Buddhist aphorism. A young monk and an old monk come to a stream where an attractive young lady is crying. Her leg has been badly injured and she cannot forge across the stream. The young monk says that they are prohibited from touching a woman and that he is sorry but they cannot help her. The old monk says, “Get on my back”, and helps her across the stream. After the woman goes on her way, the young monk is outraged and asks the old monk how he could have done such a thing. The old monk turns to the young monk and says, “I have already put her down and you are still carrying her.”
That’s how I feel about Stoller and Bowers’ seemingly sudden outrage at the DLC’ers of the Democratic Party. We always knew that winning a majority in Congress was only the first step in a much longer process. We knew that Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer were recruiting moderates, hawks, and social conservatives and stifling primaries. Chris and I were both early supporters of Chuck Pennacchio’s protest run for Pennsylvania Senate. We accepted the outcome of that primary and focused our efforts elsewhere, in rebuilding the Pennsylvania party from the ground up.
For long-time readers of this blog, it should come as no surprise that I feel this way. While we have a lot of members, including but not limited to the Liberal Street Fighter crew, that are utterly disenchanted with the Democratic Party, I have argued that we can and will change the party over time. I have argued that a victory this fall will be a boon for progressives beyond what most people probably expect. For example, I have written about the Black Revolution in the House should we take control. I have written about the impact on judicial candidates in Democratic Senate. I’ve written about why I have faith in Speaker Pelosi. I wrote about how surprisingly progressive a Democratic House will be. And I wrote a piece on why the DLC will not be emboldened by a takeover of the house.
In other words, I have taken it as a given that the party is going to be waging an intramural struggle after these elections. I have been mostly concerned with demonstrating confidence and optimism in the face of determined attacks from my left about the futility of progress within the two-party system. But, I have never denied that there are many reasons to be pessimistic and despairing. So, it almost seems like I’m watching Casablanca and Bowers and Stoller are “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” Of course there is rot in the heart of our party. What do you think the whole Lieberman fight is about? One man? Or is it about Democrats like Jane Harman, James Woolsey, Tom Carper, Marty Peretz, and the rest of the crew that labors for ever bigger military budgets and ever more interventions in the Middle East?
This is a two-party system, and the powers-that-be own considerable parts of both parties. Together they have failed us in the post-9/11 world. Both sides need to be purged. But that is not what this week is about. This week is about the first major step in the process. It is not the time for purity tests.
Several years ago there was a fire in girl’s school in Saudi Arabia. Many of them burned to death when the religious police forbade people to rescue girls that were not modestly dressed. Well, our country is on fire. We knew that. It isn’t any great surprise that a considerable part of the Democratic Party is both partly responsible for setting it ablaze and afraid of the consequences of the resulting structural damage. Will their house, built on raw expressions of unilateral power and aggressive empire, continue to stand? Are we going to go put out the fire, or stand around asking if the victims deserve to be rescued?
There are reactionary forces in American politics. This has been the case forever. It was true in 1933, when right-wingers attempted to overthrow FDR in the business plot. It was true in the late 40’s and early 50’s when the second red scare was launched. It was true when Kennedy and LBJ felt obligated to intervene in Cuba and Vietnam. It was true when Nixon ruled the roost, and when Gerald Ford launched Team B. And it has been especially true ever since Ronald Reagan took power in 1981.
All though this history progressives have been winning their own little wars. Desegregation, the Voting Rights Act, expanded rights for women, gay rights and recognition, the EPA, and other victories have come with the defeats. These victories were never Democratic victories, they were progressive victories. None of them would have been possible without significant Republican support. But we can no longer find progressives in the Republican Party to work with, so we must work on purifying the Democratic Party.
We already knew that. But first things first. We need to put out the fire, and it doesn’t matter if we have some moral qualms about the rectitude of the people being consumed by the fire. When the problem is a nail, you use a hammer. After November 7th, the problem will no longer be a nail. And we will need to find a different tool to do the job.
The young monk wonders what we are doing sullying our principles by carrying people like Ford, Casey Jr., and Heath Schuler across the stream. The old monk says, I have already put them down, but you are still carrying them.
After November 7th, the netroots, at least people like Stoller, Bowers, and me, will not be carrying these people over the water. We will have moved on…to defeating them in their next primaries.
also in orange.
These people disgust me. They want our votes, our dollars and our volunteer bodies for their campaigns. But after they win they go all Marie Antoinette on us?
Fuck them!
What happened to the lovely Marie?
Exactly why you can’t blindly ahere to one party. Pick a candidate, not a party.
had parted ways with the dlc. Kos and Stoller both promoted NDN’s Simon Rosenberg to be chairman of the DNC.
I don’t know why it took them so long to connect the damned dots.
That BooMan guy, he thinks like I do.
We didn’t get in this mess overnight, and we won’t wake up on the 8th and find things miraculously wonderful. It will be better; maybe much better. But we need to keep pushing, to keep the momentum moving in our favor.
It’s not a question of “sullying our principles”. That’s a straw man distortion of what I have been asserting for some months now. It is plain from that article in the Times that electing former Republicans, slapping Donkey masks on them and then pretending that this is somehow productive is foolish … no, it’s dangerous. It helps the right and corporations lock in the terrible damage being done to the economy, the security and to the social fabric of this country.
Trying to “purify” the party after injecting it with large quantities of right-wing poison is incredibly stupid. Maybe Stoller and Bowers are finally facing the fact that carrying water and working for a party as deeply corrupt as this one was a fools game. Over and over the left stifles itself and works for the good of the party, and over and over again the right and center of the party distorts their issues, betrays and backstab them after the center-right has gotten what it wants. It’s been happening for years, and it’s past time people quit clapping to bring this tinkerbell of a party back to life and start actually working to replace it.
Again, the Democrats have never had a progressive majority. Look at the votes of the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act. It was Nixon that gave us the EPA. The party was never this pure thing that you seem to imagine. But it was a ruling, majority party. That’s our starting point.
When we lost the Reagan Democrats, our party became a lot purer, but it lost its majority status. Never forget that.
The GOP needs to become functional again. People like Chafee and Jeffords should be welcome back into the GOP and help offset people like Ford and Casey, where progressives get bipartisan support for bills.
That’s a process. The GOP has to learn hard lessons, and they won’t learn them until they lose in a big way.
In the meantime, we will chip away as best we can. But its wrong-headed to think the Dems becoming a majority party will erode progressive power and influence. It’s essential.
Look, again you distort what I say. Again you erect a straw Madman and then proceed to try to knock him down w/ your feeble arguments. Hell, you don’t even build good arguments against what I DON’T say, let alone deal with what I ACTUALLY say.
I never claimed that the party was pure. I never ever, in all my stuff, written that it should BE pure. What is should have is a vital, active voice from the left in order for it to function. We got the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts BECAUSE THERE WAS A LEFT THAT HAD A VOICE. A left that punished people who screwed it.
THIS Dem party becoming a majority party WILL erode progressive power. IT ALREADY IS. They refuse to fight the Republican’s attacks on the Democratic Party’s own base of voters. They cross the aisle to attack families on the behalf of MBNA, they cross the aisle to chain women to their reproductive organs and the Holy Fetus within. They cross the aisle to gay-bash gays. They cross the aisle to defund public programs and enrich faith-based programs. They cross the aisle to cheer on Israeli war crimes. They cross the aisle to confirm hard-right judges. They cross the aisle to give this criminal in the White House dictatorial powers.
HOW IS ANY OF THAT HELPING PROGRESSIVE CAUSES?
exactly my point. We always had Dems crossing the aisle to aim a firehose at a negro, or oppose desegration, or arms control, or detente, or the E.R.A., or Roe v. Wade. We ALWAYS had that. But the difference was that we had REPUBLICANS that would help us out. NOW WE DON’T. That is the biggest difference between now and the 60’s and 70’s.
Without progressives on the right, we find ourselves isolated on the left BECAUSE WE ARE OUT OF POWER.
Give us power and we’ll be back on the right track. We won’t be back to where we were. But we’ll be moving back that way.
What do you want? A fucking miracle?
I want people to quit acting like cows volunteering for their own slaughter.
Whatever, I’m over here watching the carnage. Keep helping your exploiters. They’ll use you as long as you let them, and you’ll get nothing in return. Good luck with that.
Nice comeback.
Weren’t you telling me that Casey was going to lose?
Your predictive powers seem to be lacking.
That doesn’t make your strategic thinking wrong, but i can no longer detect a logic in your strategic thinking.
You seem to think that we will benefit from losing more seats and more elections.
I am having trouble even following your reasoning.
keep counting those chickens … so far all I see is a bunch of smelly rotten eggs.
but since we Americans are a pretty conservative lot, especially since the advent of a mighty robust consumer culture in 1945 or there abouts, I suspect he’ll be waiting a long time.
The other possibility is one of systemic failure, but if that happens I suspect we’ll see a much stronger security state and more marginalization. There will be no ghosts of Tom Joad this time around.
I cast my lot with the democrats and will work on party reform and making the process more welcoming to newcomers, outsiders and regular people juggling multiple responsibilities who want to see change.
Important, lasting political changes in America rarely, if ever, come on a party line vote. The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is such a case. Humphrey and others on the left wing of the Democratic party had tried repeatedly since WWII to pass Civil Rights legislation. Opponents, mostly Southern and Western Senators of both parties, successful filibustered all efforts. (Sen. Robert Byrd was in the Southern camp on civil rights at this time.) The sponsors had repeatedly been unable to win cloture votes.
In 1964, LBJ put his incredible political skills behind the bill. He leaned on Sen. Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority leader, to help bring some Repub’s on board, at least enough to get a cloture vote. Dirksen cut a deal with Humphrey and the other sponsors and the bill came up for a vote.
The vote break down was as follows:
The House vote was:
In neither the House nor the Senate did Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill. It took the support of Republicans to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation in our history.
Yes, the Left had a voice and that voice helped push the legislation through the Democratically controlled committees. But other Civil Rights acts died because of Southern filibusters and lack of support from liberal and moderate Republicans.
Count the votes. The bill would not have passed on the strength of the Democratic votes alone. It took a sizable number of Republicans to cross the aisle. Investigate other important votes and you’ll find the same thing.
We need some Republicans to join us in our efforts to effect change. When they are out of power, their leaders will have less control over them and you’ll see this happen. It ain’t pretty and it ain’t fast, but it is possible. And much more likely than a third party becoming viable any day soon.
(Thanks to the wikipedia folks for filling in the data and helping clear up the blurry edges of my memory.)
it would never have happened w/o a viable left pushing the debate so that it became politically possible for the Republicans to meet them halfway. That’s my whole point, which people keep pretending they don’t get. A party that purges liberals and promotes clones of conservatives will never create an environment where such change is possible.
I agree that there must be a viable left pushing the debate. That’s what so many on this and related blogs have been upset about. That’s the whole “backbone” debate in a nutshell. But there must also be a moderate right to join that debate on our side. I don’t like all that moving to the right stuff by Dem’s either. It will take time and organization to assert the left wing of the party. This election may just be a big step. It depends what we do with it. Although it is also a possibility that what you want for the country will always be to the extreme left end of the spectrum and you may never see it happen. Doesn’t mean your ideals aren’t good or valuable, but they may be not be those of a large enough group to bring them to fruition. We all have to face that possibility and decide how to respond to it.
there already IS a “moderate right”, they’re the Blue Dogs, the DLC and the NDC. They basically have been controlling the party for nearly 20 years, and hamstringing it for decades before that. Where has it gotten us? This bunch being promoted by the DSCC and DCCC as challengers aren’t even moderates. They are truly rightwingers, ESP Webb, Ford and Casey.
As for my values, I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law, including gays, women and minorities, which they aren’t now and never have been. Is that “too extreme”? Maybe, but that is a sad commentary on the soul and character of this nation. Now the Democrats are enthusiastically promoting misogynists, homophobes. Is “winning” worth it?
I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be the big tent part, accepting all views whether you agreed with them or not? Messers Stoller and Bowers, along with the likes of David Sirota, Cenk Yugur, and Markos Moulitsos are upset because there views will not be as strong as they one were if DLC candidates are elected. This election will be about centists thoughts and ideas coming to the fore simply because plenty of house members are considered “blue dogs”, making up about 10-20% of the party. If the House is a narrow win for the Democrats, Pelosi will have to tred a fine line between the progressives and the moderates. Ellen Tauscher has it right. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Progressives have had the mantle of power for a while, now with centrists dominating both the House and Senate races, our voices will have to be heard.
Remember the gang of 14 in the Senate? If Harold Ford, Jon Tester, Joe Lieberman, Bob Casey all win, the Senate will be decidedly centrist. Being centrist doesn’t mean you roll over for the Bush agenda, but it doesn’t mean you say no to everything as well.
Being moderate in your views is preached upon all over the world, except in our own back yard, where it’s considered as surrendering to Bush. WRONG!!! Nothing could be further from the truth. People in this country want things to get done. Not bogged down in petty political fighting. They want solutions, not gridlock. We’ve tried the stale, old style progressive way, but it’s out of step with the American people. The new centrist, DLC approach works. Ask Bill Clinton. He was forced to the center, and looked what happened. He compromised when he had to, and took stands when he had too. It worked out pretty good, don’t you think??
bullshit:
Since when? The ’70s? That’s a statement right out of Rove’s talking points, and it’s patently full of shit. The party has been sliding right for decades now. It’s abandoned minorities. It’s abandoned workers. It’s abandoned women. It’s abandoned GBLT citizens. It’s abandoned the idea that rational thought should apply to our policies in the Middle East, NOT the ravings of AIPAC.
Anybody who describes the likes of Casey, Ford and Testor as “centrist” is just plain wrong and has been listening to way much of the corporate media’s propaganda. They are of and for the right. They are for expanded war. They are for restricted rights for Americans. They may be softer and gentler rightists, but they definitely don’t represent the center.
and reiterate: since when?
When was the last time progressives had a leading voice in setting the agenda and selecting leaders and candidates within the democratic party?
I’m a huge fan of Howard Dean, Bill Bradley and Gary Hart. But in historical or comparative terms these guys aren’t really progressive either. They’re center-left at best and even they had a tough time clearing the hurdles the establishment set out for them when they sought to expand their influence.
Oh well, back to work supporting my family and electing democrats.
Casey, Ford and Tester are not conservative, and you’re wrong for saying they are. Ford is against the war, same for Casey. I don’t know Tester’s stand. As for the “corporist” stand, that’s a bunch of bullshit. You’ve been listening to too many lefties.
The progressives have had power for too long. ever since the 80’s we’ve only had one president who was a Democrat because the American people thought the Democrats were way to the left on the issues that mattered most to them. Even when Bill Clinton took office, he immediately shot to the left with gays in the military, and Hillary’s sham of health care for everyone. What happened?? The Gingrich crappy Republican revolution, and 12 more years of Republican rule. Progressives were bad for America then, and are not that much better for it now.
Madman, you have to stop with the Wal-mart hating corporist crap. That’s not the DLC. That’s what the DNC would love you to think.
you need an education.
Then educate me oh sage!!!
the progressives have not controlled anything since 1988. Not really. We certainly have controlled nothing since 1994.
How you could claim otherwise is mystifying.
I can claim it by saying this. Tell me all the leaders in the Democratic party since 1994!!
Then when you’re done with that, name me all the centrists that have controlled the Democratic party since 1994.
Thought so.
Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
Your point?
You forgot Bill Clinton. Much more of a populist than many DLCers, but still not moving the ball down the playing field in terms of securing civil rights, fair wages, safe workplaces, and affordable healthcare for all.
And
Rahm Emanuel
Chuck Schumer
Joe Biden
And let’s not forget The Torch from NJ (Bob Toricelli) until his greed got the better of him and he flared out.
we agree on something!
being against a war doesn’t make you “centrist”. Near as I can tell, they’re against THIS war, but just fine w/ our enormous military, fine w/ our enormous military spending, and more than happy w/ our mindless support of the criminal regime in Israel.
I’m a lefty, which might explain why I sound like one. Oh, and by the way, the “center” isn’t a position. It’s a destination, and it’s where you end up after a hopefully boisterous and contentious debate. To declare oneself a “centrist” is to admit you stand for nothing, it’s a chimera, a fake position for people who want to maintain the status quo and stifle conflict. Without conflict cultures wither and die.
I won’t stop w/ the corporatist “crap” because it’s a very real problem, and both parties are bought-and-sold commodities of the investor class. You can not run a society or an economy JUST to satisfy investors: it kills innovation, kills real growth over time and destroys culture. WalMart and their ilk, tied to short-term gains and market manipulation are destroying this country.
Quit watching so much CNBC and believing DLC propaganda.
Oh, and by the way, the “center” isn’t a position. It’s a destination, and it’s where you end up after a hopefully boisterous and contentious debate. To declare oneself a “centrist” is to admit you stand for nothing, it’s a chimera, a fake position for people who want to maintain the status quo and stifle conflict. Without conflict cultures wither and die.
I LOVE THIS Madman. Call me naive, but I’ve never heard this put quite so succinctly before. Wouldn’t it be meteorically wonderful to hear politicians/pundits actually say something like this when all that talk about “sensible center” gets going??!!
thanks … I hate when language is used so sloppily, and this selling of “the center” as some desirable “position” drives me nuts.
True. My memory goes back far, and the party has been mostly centrist.
In 1968, the McCarthy movement was pretty progressive, although he was never a leadership position in the party. FDR in the ’30s co-opted Henry Wallace. But then Wallace left the party in ’48 to run for President on the Progressive Ticket, so he may be an example of what MiM is talking about.
We’ve tried the stale, old style progressive way, but it’s out of step with the American people.
When exactly did this occur? I must have been out of town that day.
Boran2; The progressives have controlled the Democratic party for years, and they have lost the presidency simply because of it. The country looks at the Democrats and the first thing they think of, “too liberal for my taste”, especially in the south. Very few progressives have won in the south over the last 20 years. if the Democrats want to win the White House in 2008, they won’t do it with a progressive. GUARENTEED!!!!
Very few progressives have won anywhere, mostly because they have little presence and never have. Control the party?!! You really need to start paying attention. Apparently, you consider anyone to the left of Attila the Hun to be progressive.
at the same time and there is no message about being back up soon.
Is anyone else having trouble getting on?
Yes.
(SP shares server space with dKos) — dKos was mentioned on MSNBC shortly before noon Pacific so I was wondering if it’s getting hammered by traffic. And I know that they’ve been trying to shore things up before next Tuesday…but things are looking grim if they can’t handle the traffic a week before the election. Hope folks will be able to do some election updating here on the Big Green… 🙂
After November 7th, the netroots, at least people like Stoller, Bowers, and me, will not be carrying these people over the water. We will have moved on…to defeating them in their next primaries.
That only works if you have politicians that actually respect the will of their party’s voters.
If Lieberman wins, how many other defeated incumbents will say, “Screw the primary voters, I’m running in the general”? And how much money will we continue to spend fending off attacks from without and within the Democratic Party?
An even worse scenario would be that a Lieberman win would further turn people off to politics — they’ll see it as just a good ol’ boys (and a few girls) club, with no way in Hades for anyone to break into the upper echelon. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss…
It’s going to be hard to pull a Lamont on most of these folks anyway, especially in the House; Tauscher’s district is known as “Orange County North” for good reason. If anything it’s a very red-purple area — I know, I’ve got two Republican sisters in that neck o’ the woods, voting Republican mainly for economic reasons (they’re white collar, my liberal brother and myself are blue collar families). A purely progressive Democratic party may be a pipe dream, just as the wingnut Republicans have to cope with the moderates in their midst. The main thing we have to do is get some agreement on key issues such as privacy (which would include both choice and gay rights, as well as protection against warrantless spying), health care (stem cells, some sort of single-payer), and national security (a sane foreign policy, actual border/port protections).
There are going to be compromises, which are going to piss off the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum…but the majority of Americans are centrists at heart, and that’s the reality we’ve got to live with. At least with the Democrats, we’ve got a better chance of being governed a bit saner…
If Lieberman wins, how many other defeated incumbents will say, “Screw the primary voters, I’m running in the general”?
Lots. And as they continue to treat Democratic voters with contempt in an increasingly overt and unpleasant manner how many Democratic party activists will decide that the old ‘change the party from within’ line is the cynical ploy of ethically challenged assholes and that there is absolutely no chance of changing either party from within. None whatsoever.
This is a fact which will become apparent to many once we watch enough Democrats collude with the repubs to continue the occupation of Iraq, the torture of it’s citizens and make quite certain that the women in this country are put in their proper place.
And how much money will we continue to spend fending off attacks from without and within the Democratic Party?
I guess at some point folks will have to identify who is profiting from this ‘strategy’.
And that’s when third parties will be acceptable to democrats because it benefits them, not the people.
On November 8, regardless of the results, progressives have a task to begin: recruiting 435 strong, experienced, progressive candidates for Congress and 33 or so for the Senate. No Democratic primary should be unopposed; if the incumbent is progressive, find someone more progressive to challenge.
On November 11, progressives have a second task to begin: framing and stating progressive ideas and policy proposals clearly and in a unified way. The herd of cats must start getting along in order to move this country forward again.
On November 27, third party members of the progressive movement must begin recruiting 435 strong, experienced, progressive candidates that reflect the principles of their party.
By June of 2007, we must know who the candidates are and which of them will be endorsed by multiple parties.
The fly in the ointment: personal ambitions and conflicts. We must insist that any candidate who gets our support put aside ambitions and animosities and see how we can move this country. That is a tall order that requires an incredible self-restraint on the candidate’s part. But as a movement, we must insist on it.
And what do we have to enforce this: grassroots people power and netroots campaign financing. We and they are going to buy our country back for the people.
And it is not going to be easy.