I know that people are extremely frustrated about the Democratic fold over the Iraq war supplemental. I had to pretty much take the weekend off and do other things. But I am somewhat mystified about how many progressives respond to such setbacks by threatening to fold up their tents and go home, or to pursue some quixotic and ineffectual third-party strategy.
Progressives have been beaten so far back and pushed so far down since the election of 1980 that we barely exist anymore in the national power structure. It’s true that the Progressive Caucus is the biggest caucus in the House, but it is made up almost exclusively of urban Democrats from extremely safe districts. They don’t have to win state-wide races. There are too few progressives in the Senate to even make up a caucus. They have a little kiddie table off to the side and they hope, one day, to get taken seriously.
We had three main goals in the 2006 midterm elections. The first was to win Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. That was accomplished (with no seats to spare).
The second was to move the party to the left and to get them to end the war. This goal was related to the first. We not only had to move the party to the left, we had to empower them to have the tools to end the war. In the latter, we largely failed, which had an adverse affect on the former.
The third goal, which was related to the second, was to punish the more appeasing members of the Democratic Party. We did that by defeating Henry Cuellar in Texas, kicking Lieberman out of the party, and scaring Jane Harman of California with a strong primary challenge.
The netroots, however, had a fourth goal, and that was to prove that progressivism (or, at least, populism) is back, and that it is viable in conservative districts and in red and purple state-wide elections. In this goal we were partially successful. We got started late and did not have much of a say in who our candidates would be. There were a few exceptions, here and there, and netroots candidates like Jerry McNerney, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester went on to win, even though Schumer and Emanuel had wanted different people for those races. On the whole, though, we won quite a few conservative seats with a good government, anti-war, populist message.
Even before the midterms, I advocated funding our candidates directly, through outfits like ActBlue, rather than funding Schumer’s DSCC or Emanuel’s DCCC. I didn’t, and don’t, have any problem funding the DNC as long as Howard Dean is there and pursuing the 50-State Strategy. But there is no reason to fund Schumer and Emanuel when we can exercise our own judgment and push progressive candidates when they offer us pro-lifers and corporatists. And that is what they gave us in the last election. They did recruit some progressives, but for every Sherrod Brown they selected, they gave us a Harold Ford.
To take a measure of our success, it pays to look at how the vote over the McGovern Amendment shook out among freshman Democrats:
FRESHMAN DEMOCRATS WHO OPPOSED THE McGOVERN AMENDMENT:
2006 % Bush '04% * Jason Altmire (Pa.) 52 54 * Nancy E. Boyda (Kansas) 51 59 * Christopher P. Carney (Pa.) 53 60 * Joe Donnelly (Ind.) 54 56 * Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) 61 62 * Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.) 54 53 * Baron Hill (Ind.) 50 59 * Nick Lampson (Texas) 52 64 * Tim Mahoney (Fla.) 50 54 * Jerry McNerney (Calif.) 53 54 * Harry E. Mitchell (Ariz.) 50 54 * Ciro Rodriguez (Texas) 54 57 * Heath Shuler (N.C.) 54 57 * Zachary T. Space (Ohio) 62 57 * Charles A. Wilson (Ohio) 62 51TARGETED FRESHMEN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED McGOVERN:
2006 % Bush '04 %
* Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) 54 53
* Joe Courtney (Conn.) 50 44
* Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) 53 54
* John Hall (N.Y.) 51 54
* Steve Kagen (Wisc.) 51 55
* Ron Klein (Fla.) 51 48
* Dave Loebsack (Iowa) 51 44
* Patrick Murphy (Penn.) 50 48
* Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) 51 51
* Tim Walz (Minn.) 53 51
* John Yarmuth (Ky.) 51 49
Gillebrand, Kagan, and Walz all flip-flopped when it came time to vote on the supplemental, but this chart gives us a good sense of where the members stand on ending the war because it didn't include a minimum wage hike, Katrina aid, or other goodies that might have influenced members.
As you can see, most Freshmen were voting their districts on the McGovern Amendment, and we lost a few more in the final vote.
Among those that opposed the McGovern Amendment were our scandal candidates: Chris Carney (Sherwood, mistress strangling), Tim Mahoney (Foley page scandal), Zach Space (Ney Coingate/Abramoff scandal), Harry Mitchell (J.D. Hayworth ties to Abramoff), Nick Lampson (Tom DeLay's indictment) and Jerry McNerney (Richard Pombo, Abramoff scandal). These are our most vulnerable seats, and we wouldn't have any of them if the incumbents had not been crooks.
But, our problem was not really in the House, which passed a bill to phase down the war, then had a majority of Dems vote against funding the war without timetables.
Our problems are in the Senate, and there is not much we can do about that in this election cycle except increase our caucus to up over 60, where no filibuster can be invoked by the Republicans, and where veto overrides become more plausible.
We might plausibly exert some pressure by running primaries against Mark Pryor and Max Baucus, or even Frank Lautenberg, but we won't be knocking any of our incumbents out. The best we can do is to knock more Republicans out, like Pajama Pete Domenici, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Liddy Dole, and Norm Coleman. And with the exception of the seat in Maine, we can have some influence over the Democratic primaries for these seats. That is why I have been writing so much about the recruitment process for the Senate.
We do have the opportunity to elect some fairly progressive senators. Al Franken in Minnesota, Steve Marchand in New Hampshire, Alan Bates or Steve Novick in Oregon, Brad Miller in North Carolina, and Mark Udall in Colorado come to mind. All of them would occupy the most liberal third of the Democratic caucus, if they were to be elected.
There is much constructive work for us to do. It's not time to take our ball and go home. But, if you need to take a break from activism and recharge your batteries for the next fight, that might be the better course than becoming bitter or discouraged.
I hate writing pieces twice, and the first one was shaping up much better than this one.
Let’s face facts:
a) return same bill: Pro-make 3 % of populace happy. Con-get hammered in ads, PO 30 % of populace.
b) other restrictions: pros and cons are the same.
c) pass bill that was passed: pro-look a little weak, but gain mantle of “bi-partisan”. con-PO 3 % of populace.
Answer: c)
We will face the same issue in September. We must start NOW by framing the issue, and preparing the ground.
I thought the vote was sensible and the best of all possible worlds. No wars are won in the first battle, against an entrenched enemy holding the high ground.
What will be different in/by September? (besides the continuing death toll) The numbers will be the same. The administration has already lost the confidence of the public. The opportunity to frame was at least partially lost when Democrats did not make it clear that cutting off funding would not leave American soldiers without bullets in the middle of a gunfight. It seems that the general public was already more than prepared for legislation similar to what Democrats proposed.
I agree with almost everything else here, but for the sake of historical accuary I must point out that Jim Webb was the candidate of the DC Democrats. During the primary Reid, Schumer, Kerry, et al, endorsed him.
I would also point out that by my count Webb has voted to continue the Iraq war three times.
we aren’t limited to only 2 options (elect more dems or fold).
for example – we can work on primary challenges of war-party dems, or work outside of electoral poltics alltogether with social movement activism (includes everything from anti-war to media reform)
even third party work can help put pressure on dems. (not my choice right now – but i’m not smart enough to know that it wouldn’t help).
there’s lots of options – and the D party isn’t all of them.
I don’t know…I hate to throw cold water or discount all the hard work of the progressives on the dem party.
BUT…..I think progressives should take the advice of the wise old Chinaman who said…” to understand your subject you must first divorce yourself from all love or hate for it”.
Progressives seem bound and determined to cling to and change the dems ….with a stragety based on trying to move Mt Everest by one teaspoon at a time.
What is the real goal here, winning back the errant dems or saving the country and our democracy?
If it is saving what is left of America and restoring democracy then at some point we have to ask…What’s the deadline on this project? Will you finish in time?
Looks to me like you need to approach the mountain with a bulldozer instead. The only thing I can imagine that would put the fear of the voter God into the dems is letting them know that our choices are no longer restricted to the famous lesser of two evils that both parties count on.
We don’t have proportional representation, we have a rigid two-party system.
Third-party challenges are only useful for punishing the party that is most in need of reform. As bad as the Dems are, they are not the party most in need of reform. A third party challenge from the right is a great idea. From the left, right now? Insane.
No where written in stone that we have to stick with the rigid two party system.
I realize some people are afraid of change because of unknowns ( no relation to Rumsfeld I swear) but when something isn’t working you change it. Sort of like the definition of stupid being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I confess I don’t understand this part….”Third-party challenges are only useful for punishing the party that is most in need of reform. As bad as the Dems are, they are not the party most in need of reform. A third party challenge from the right is a great idea. From the left, right now? Insane”
IMHO, challenges from the right “and” left are an excellent idea for reforming the entire system…if your main goal is decent goverment.
I just don’t see that we have gained much by the two party see-saw of 4 to 8 years up and then 4 to 8 years back down.
Goverment “of, by, and for the parties”..which if you are honest is really the bottom line because they both do whatever they have to do to hold onto power, doesn’t seem to be working out too well.
I think for the people’s voice to ever be taken seriously we are gonna have to throw something in the spokes of the political wheel.
it is written in stone that we have a two-party system.
The stone here is called history. We have now ~240 years of history. For that period of time, we have ALWAYS had two dominant parties. Occasionally one will fade away and disappear – this has happened about three times.
The rest of the time we either have two parties or two parties + a maverick. We know one thing for CERTAIN: in those circumstances, the party from which the maverick bolted always ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS loses.
Bill Clinton did not beat George Bush. Bill CLinton with help from Ross Perot and the 18 % he diverted from the Repukes beat Bush.
So, if you consider a third-party challenge and you are a Dem, you are helping the Repukes.
That is written in stone.
Right.
Except Perot ran against Bush because of his ties to heroin. But he also ran against the ossified Democratic majority in congress. He defeated both, although it took two more years for congress to fall.
Perot was part of the MIA/POW conspiracy crowd, but they unearthed evidence that Richard Armitage was a point man in Laotian heroin trafficking, gave that evidence to VP Bush, and Bush’s staff told them they weren’t interested. Perot did manage to get Armitage fired from his position at Defense, but he got no further and decided Bush was corrupt and to run against him.
But his platform was for term limits and balanced budgets…and was targeted mainly against congress.
His Reform movement was a bizarre mix of reform, fiscal responsibility, and conspiracy.
From the original Rambo:
Well actually I never aquired the knack of being a good follower…I guess I am a rogue dem.
Maybe because my job for 30 years was ferreting out and capitalizing on coming “trends” in the public. And I think I see a trend building, could be wrong, but think not, and it may not hit in the 2008 election but it’s out there. It may “mature” after another presidential term or it could fade, depending on how that term goes for the country.
You know what the Jesuits said….”there is an exception to every rule”. Or the more modern version of ..”things change”.