Reading over the post-election analysis of both the old media and the blogs, I see a basic superficiality of analysis. To me, the shallowness comes in a lack of understanding of the dynamics of power and where power actually resides.
We need to learn from the example of George W. Bush. He came into office with little in the way of a mandate. He lost the popular vote. He promised to restore honor and dignity to the Oval Office, to end the divisiveness of the Lewinsky era (a uniter, not a divider), and to have a more humble foreign policy (no more Kosovo interventions). But the moment he was sworn in he made regime change in Iraq his top priority, and moved to pass his legislative priorities through brute force, rather than bipartisanship.
And he wasn’t punished for it. The reason he got away with it isn’t all explained by 9/11. It’s explained by the fact that the Republicans held all the levers of power and did not need to work with Democrats. In fact, by completely marginalizing the Democrats they took away their ability to take credit for anything positive and made them look weak. The Bushies understood power, even if they used it for nefarious purposes.
But things have changed. The Democrats now hold all the chairmanships in Congress. If they want to they can totally destroy the administration by exposing corruption, graft, lies, and crimes on a daily basis. That might not be what they were elected to do, they might not have any mandate to do it, but it doesn’t matter. If it makes the Republicans weak, the Democrats are unlikely to be punished for it. That’s how real power works.
But this post isn’t about investigations or possible impeachment, its about the midterm elections and what they mean for the future of the Democratic Party. Who were the real winners on election day?
Figuring that out depends on looking at who has power in the new Congress and that is why, well before the election, I began taking a hard look at the committees in Congress. The real power is now in the hands of people like John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, John Dingell, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha. It’s also in the hands of people like Patrick Leahy, Teddy Kennedy, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.
Keeping a focus on the House (where the Dems have a bigger majority and where bipartisanship is less necessary), I see something quite interesting. People like Dingell, Conyers, and Rangel are not from our generation. They’ve been in Congress since the fifties and sixties. They are old-line liberals, not DLC new-Democrats. And they have a strange confluence of interests with the netroots. They are more inclined to be sympathetic to media deconsolidation, election reform, negotiated trade. They went through Watergate in Congress and they voted for FISA. They’ve seen abuse of power before and they thought they had erected laws to deal with it. They were in Congress when the Savings & Loans collapsed. They know about the dangers of too little business oversight.
We keep hearing about how the midterms were a great victory for Rahm Emanuel and, by inference, the Democratic Leadership Council. But, they were anything but that. Real power in Congress is held by liberals and progressives, and they will be driving the lawmaking and oversight of this administration.
The DLC’s power is solidly located in the race for the Presidency, where the progressives have no candidate. That progressives would rally around Al Gore only goes to show how thoroughly the DLC has gamed the upcoming elections in their favor. Even the longshots, like Bayh and Vilsack, are DLC members. The netroots has no interest in promoting the candidacies of any of these people. In fact, our interest is in working with people like Conyers, Waxman, Miller, Dingell, Kennedy, and Leahy to pass legislation and enact reforms that actually buck the crap agenda of the DLC, the New Republic, and Joe Lieberman.
It isn’t time to play nice. It’s time for progressives to flex their muscles. We haven’t had this much muscle since…well…ever. Now would be the perfect time for us to show what we can do by rallying behind a Presidential contender that really represents the values of the netroots, which are completely hostile to triangulation, deregulation, and anti-people legislation. Unfortunately, we don’t, and apparently will not, have a candidate to support. At best, we will have a candidate wise enough to pander to our interests.
Whether that candidate is John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, or someone else remains to be seen. None of them are authentic progressives, but maybe they can play one online. We shall see.
The future of the party is in populism, a fact that even the Gray Lady recognizes. It’s not in pro-corporate, anti-minority, centrism.
That’s why the netroots has more in common with our new committee chairpeople than we do with Rahm Emanuel, and that is why Rahm really is more of a loser than a winner as a result of the midterms.
His star has already set, even though it appears on the rise. The only question is, will anyone emerge on the ’08 scene that really gets this?
“they voted for FISA.” Really???
Your pointing out the generational difference is interesting. What it amounts to is the children of FDR and LBJ contrasted with the children of Clinton. I think the left of the party has yet to come to terms with Clinton’s legacy — we love and use his success and charm but bitch about his eagerness to “compromise”. This seems like one of those things that only time will resolve.
Having the committee chairs is an amazing and wondrous situation, but it won’t relieve the progressives from having to deal for votes. I think the conservative cast of the newest Dem members is largely hogwash. I don’t seen any Zell Millers among the freshmen. Still, compromise and dealing will still be necessary. Plus, Bush’s veto will enable him to stymie progressive efforts to repair some of the disaster he wrought.
I think it’s too early to worry so much about the presidential candidates. With any luck the new Congress will change the whole political ecosystem and enable new candidates to emerge and give old “mainstreamers” permission to let their inner populism see the light of day. For me, the victory is less about who will win what when and more about our side having the bullhorn for once. We had that advantage for a while under Clinton and pretty much blew it in favor of not getting the nutcase neofascists mad at us. With the likes of Conyers, Sanders, et al, I think there’s rational reason to hope that history will not repeat. In fact having a rightwing fool in the White House for another two years might be exactly what we need to push against to sell a progressive agenda and real change. This time phony compromise has to be the last resort, not the first.
BTW, speaking of Sanders, do you think he has any shot as an indie to negotiate a deal for better committee positioning than his frosh status should entitle him to?
Yes.
The real power is now in the hands of people like John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, John Dingell, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha. It’s also in the hands of people like Patrick Leahy, Teddy Kennedy, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.
I must say that using pure logic, I would think that Joe Lieberman is the most powerful man in America now and holds the key to the balance of power between Repubs and Dems. He took his licks and his shot, and he won!
It is funny how little talk there is now about Lieberman’s real and new powers, but I do not see him losing anything from just demanding anything his little heart desires. He is a real force to be reckoned with. Thanks Conn. voters.
People like Dingell, Conyers, and Rangel are not from our generation.
I’m not sure exactly what our generation is as user age seems to span a fairly large range, from spring chickens such as myself right up to those of ancient relic status. (Apologies to you museum artifacts.) 😉
Hey! I represent that statement.
Real power in Congress is held by liberals and progressives, and they will be driving the lawmaking and oversight of this administration.
So, the right candidate will emerge against the proper backdrop.
Mix up the egg nog, the season came early.
A question for Booman (and the community):
If we don’t have any likely progressive candidates in congress, how about in governorships around the country? After all, historically, successful presidential candidates are more likely to be governors than members of congress – although the latter suck up the media oxygen until actual campaigning gets underway.
Anyone want to put in a plug for a governor somewhere? Why that person?
People like Dingell, Conyers, and Rangel are not from our generation. They’ve been in Congress since the fifties and sixties. They are old-line liberals, not DLC new-Democrats.
I was somewhat blown away when I thought about this: congresspeople for 50 years. How old are they?
So I went and looked it up. Dingell born July 1926, elected to Congress in 1955. Conyers born 1929 and elected in 1964. Rangel served in army from ’48 to ’52 (guess his birthdate is <1929?) and elected 1970.
Holy shit, America really is a gerontocracy, isn’t it.
But rather than detract from your point, Booman, I should add that what you say in this post makes a lot of sense.
I am not one given to gushy praise, but dude, you (Booman) nailed it.