Kevin Drum asks a question:
The liberal blogosphere shares several widely held principles, and two of them come into conflict here:
1. As political realists, we should give some breathing room to centrist Dems in reddish districts. Ideological straitjackets don’t build majorities.
2. The Democratic Party needs to get a spine. Nobody respects a weakling.
National security is where this particular rubber hits the road most conspicuously. The reason we can’t defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they’ll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops. Ditto for FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the “General Betray-us” ad, shutting down Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other related issues.
So here’s my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don’t care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?
Here’s my answer. It depends on the issue. One of my problems with the General Betray-us advertisement was that it was not coordinated with the Democratic leadership. The leadership wanted to keep the focus on Bush (who is unpopular) and off of Petraeus (who is widely respected on the Hill). For some, the issue was one of free speech. No doubt, MoveOn.org should be able to say whatever they want without being condemned by Congress. But, at the same time, a little foresight would have told MoveOn.org that moderate Democrats would not enjoy defending an attack on Petraeus that they didn’t ask for, didn’t agree with, and went contrary to the overall media strategy. I described the ad campaign as the equivalent of pulling the pin on a grenade, handing it to Congress, and asking them to fall on it. I can fault the Democrats for not falling on the grenade, while still thinking it was wrong to present them with that choice. In this case I actually think the attack ads might have been lethal in a few districts.
But on other issues, like FISA, the Military Commissions Act, Kyl-Lieberman, and Guantanamo…I think the Democrats can weather the storm by standing strong. And, frankly, on these issues I don’t care if standing on principle costs us a couple of seats. So, my answer is that I don’t think they will cost us seats but, if they do, I guess it is accurate to say that I don’t care. Why?
On FISA:
Article One, Section Nine:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On the Military Commission Act:
Article One, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
On Guantanamo:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
On Kyl-Lieberman:
A war with Iran would be catastrophic to the nation and there is no reason to advocate for such a catastrophe (whether in veiled language, or not).
On each of these issues the Democrats have a solid argument to make in defense of our position. In all but the last, we have a solid Constitutional argument to make.
It’s true that opposing all these policies and forcing a drawdown of troops can cumulatively make the party look soft on terrorism. Each representative needs to assess their own risk factors and decide on each vote whether they are going to accomplish anything by sticking their necks out. I can forgive a few bad votes here and there. But on the really important stuff like preserving our Constitutional rights, we have to insist on good votes. And if good votes cost the Dems some seats? Yeah, I just don’t really care.
What young person in their right mind would look at the current crop of spineless vermin calling themselves Democrats and identify with them?
This is gonna take YEARS to get over and without new blood in the Party it’ll never happen. Hell, I’m 56 now and I know in my heart nothing is gonna change before I go under. The tide sweeping aspirants to national office is polluted by blatant unblinking- in-the-lights greed.
Only the corrupt even seek national office —
Hell – the Dems have been this spineless for MY ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFETIME. My formative years were Reagan and Bush the Elder presidencies. My first presidential election was Clinton/Bush (I voted Bush). As far as I could tell, the Dems were spineless weasels then too. Admittedly, I was seeing things from the “other side” then (my father was a late “Reagan Democrat” – a fairly staunch Democrat who got pissed at Carter’s presidency, voted for Anderson in 1980 and became a Reagan guy round-about 1982 – my formative politics filtered through his views in a lot of ways). But still – spineless. Hell, the only President I remember them standing up to firmly was BILL CLINTON torpedoing things he tried to do left and right for the first two years he had office. I’ve heard stories that he was actually relieved to have Republicans take office in 1994 because he thought he might be able to get them to compromise in ways that his own party wouldn’t. Meanwhile, Dems caved left and right to both Reagan and Bush the Elder on all sorts of things – some consequential and some not.
To this day I STILL can’t call myself a Democrat – despite voting pretty much straight-ticket Democrat in every election from 2000 onward, giving money only to Democratic candidates, even volunteering for Democratic candidates – I can’t do it. I’m technically registered Democrat (due to the way Ohio does its party registration at primaries), but when people ask I’m an Independent and have been since about 1995 (when I finally started to wake up and realize that the Republicans weren’t who I had been raised to believe that they were and that they were, in fact, a gang of racist, sexist, elitist bullies who cared more about their own power and influence than anything else, but that’s neither here nor there).
The only advantage that the Democrats have right now with the electorate is that they’re NOT REPUBLICANS. People aren’t voting for them because the Democratic name is good – they’re voting for them because the Republican brand has been dragged through the toilet, carried down the street on the back of a skunk, and thrown off an overpass. All it will take is 4-8 years of Republicans screaming their asses off about how “evil” the majority Democrats are and how terrible they’ve made the country and the Republicans will be back in full force – like the Terminator robot, or Jason in his hockey mask.
Hell, they recovered from Nixon in basically ONE presidential cycle – that should have kept them in the wilderness for decades but it was just 4 years. W may be worse than Nixon, but is he more than twice as worse? Three times as worse? 8 years max – and I’m betting on 4 unless the Dem president that gets elected next year is really fucking competent and can also walk on water and crap gold bricks on command.
the real question should be- Do we care?
Every single bill that would at least theoretically benefit the average working stiff in this country has been defeated by a combo of Goopers and bush democrats. So, what the hell. At least the public will get to see that the true dems care and at least are trying. The media will blast the dems in any event so what is there to lose.
The dem focus should be the dean focus. Every single district in every single state. Beat the shit out of them all across the country and then – if it works out- — Rip them a bunch of new assholes after control has been increased. The way it is now- they (the dems) are getting their asses wiped every time they try and offer anything that they try to pass.
When (if ever) will Democrats learn how to convey a message as skillfully as the Repugs do theirs? Can’t they speak with one powerful voice just this once, just to convey the message that withdrawal of the troops is support? And that terrorism is in no way being reduced by our presence in Iraq? Can’t they get even this much done?
‘political realists’, like nice guys, finish last. 04 and 06 made that abundantly clear.
if we lose a couple bush dogs, what have we really lost in the overall scheme of things? we’re already treading on the thin ice of soft fascism in this country, anything and anyone who continues to enable the descent into that morass doesn’t deserve my support…period.
l will not, again, hold my nose and vote for someone just because there’s a D after their name…so l guess you can safely place me in the l don’t care camp.
lTMF’sA
The only advantage that exists is that the majority controls the flow of bills to the floor. And since the dems have proven unable to control that flow, you are correct. The dems might just as well pack their bags and go home. However, if we folks are unwilling to challenge them back home in their districts and states, then we had better get ready to either leave this sinking ship or get ready for the new USA and what must come as a result of the ongoing capitulation that is taking place.
I guess that the time hase come to put up or shut up.
l’ve been putting up for a very long time, and, in fact, have supported and worked for some successful local candidates and sen and rep cand’s as well, in the past. the last 7 years have seen a marked downturn in the state party support of progressive candidates, all premised on let’s just get a democrat elected, and then things’ll get better.
scorecard: salazar…nuff said; mark udall anointed for a run at allard’s vacating seat…def. bush dog on the war, salazar’s aid, betsy markey…anointed to run against the odiorous marilyn musgrave in an adjacent district…chosen btw, over a great progressive candidate, angie paccione, who nearly took her out in 06…l won’t boor you with the statewide races for governor, etc.
putting out time, effort and dollars and putting up with the lame asses after they’re in office is no longer viable.
l’ll leave those boxes blank, thank you.
lTMF’sA
do you think the Democrats will add Colorado to their electoral college column?
no, not if hillary’s the nominee…nor obama for that matter. it’s very red in a lot of the state, nearly all out side of the front range urban corridor…and it’s marginally blue here.
edwards &or richardson might do the trick though…imo.
udall’s campaign is worried about it too…he’s not the /shoo-in
the dlc types would like you to believe, in spite of the hype, if shaffer get’s his act together, and C &/or O are on the ballot….buh bye.
here’s the current line on the colo races from coloradopols.
lTMF’sA
We need a Wed morning meeting like the Repukeliscum have. The main issue is that repukes have message discipline and we do not. If we had an agreement about what to say, when to say it, and who would be speaking, things would look much more coherent.
Do I care?
Yes, I do. But some things I care a LOT about (immunity? C’mon!), and some I can wait for the `tide to turn’ ( expanded SCHIP).
If the democrats want to expand into `red’ areas they are going to have to accept that some democrats will have to be to the right of what a `normal’ progressive would look like, and some might not be `progressive’ at all. Part of the republican problem is they cannot do the opposite. They are being forced to back policies that a large percentage of their constituents do not agree with. This makes them hugely vulnerable.
Let’s not forget, not 5 years ago the MSM conventional wisdom was that the republican tide was irreversible. This led to the general acceptance of policies that are pretty repugnant. Now that irreversible tide is in tatters. Ask yourself WHY?
Because the republicans backed policies that in many districts went against what their constituents wanted. It’s really as simple as that.
It’s no different for democrats. They need to deliver for their districts. If you have a `redder’ district, that is the type of representative THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE. It’s really not up to you or me, they are going to vote that way. So it’s better for you and me that it’s a red democrat than a red republican.
Once you build a larger majority you can give these type democrats cover. Or not care if they get reelected. Right now the democrats don’t have that buffer.
You certainly need to hold the line for votes that cause damage to our system. That is where Pelosi and Reid fail and will certainly have to be replaced. A vote one way or the other for SCHIP causes no damage TO THE SYSTEM. A vote for extraconstitutional powers not only damages the system, it requires a congressman to violate his oath. There is a huge difference between the two.
nalbar
What gets me about discussions like this is that they always leave out the Big Question: Why can Reps yap the most insane and subversive ideological trash without fear, and the Dems can’t get respectable ideas across? I know the standard answer is the media bias, but from what I see, Dems don’t give the media anything to use. They are so afraid of being attacked that they don’t say much of anything that’s intelligible.
So it’s a false choice between standing on principle and losing elections. Folks like Feingold and Kucinich are living examples of that. I think we obsess too much about principle and courage. The real issue may be competence at basic politics. It’s time for Dems to forget the market studies and consultants and just stand for what they believe is right. The whole idea of democratic politics is, you do that and then you take your chances. It’s long past time for the Dem majority to get on that train.
It seems like only the current crop of Democrats in Congress could turn being on the side of the Constitution into a loser. FISA, the MCA and Guantanamo are issues which have been determined to contain significant problems with regard to their constitutionality, often ruled to be in direct violation to the Constitution. That, to me, seems to be solid enough ground, in and of itself, on which the Democrats can stand without having to resort to “compromises” in the spirit of bipartisanship. Why do they have to capitulate simply in an effort to look like they are not being obstructionist or playing politics?
Hell, if you can’t convince Americans that being for the Constitution is the best thing then maybe you’re not a very good representative to begin with. This lack of conviction and guts to be firm on such basic American principles is revolting to anyone, Republican or Democrat.
Some things, dammit, should be beyond question and defended reflexively by any American, regardless of party. If the Dems in Congress are willing to equivocate on such foundational American principles as these then, by God, they should be shit-canned and put on top of history’s pile of worthless garbage. They’re not worthy of the title of Senator or Representative.
——————————————————-
Hell, if you can’t convince Americans that being for the Constitution is the best thing then maybe you’re not a very good representative to begin with. This lack of conviction and guts to be firm on such basic American principles is revolting to anyone, Republican or Democrat.
——————————————————-
That is a well turned phrase Mike! I agree, although ‘is revolting’ has to be ‘should be revolting’ because so many do not seem to think IT IS revolting.
Why the republicans are not pounded repeatedly on this is beyond me. Most Americans revere the constitution, and ‘You are shredding the constitution!’ would seem a more powerful meme than ‘You are supporting terrorists!’
nalbar
New here,
I wrote my Senator, how I was opposed to the Kyle-Liberman bill….here is what I got.
Dear (Took this out):
Thank you for contacting me concerning U.S. policy toward Iran. As a member of the Senate, I have closely monitored the situation in Iran. Among other things, I have supported efforts to encourage democratic reforms and to protect religious minorities in that nation.
As you may know, General David Petreaus recently testified before Congress that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force has been training and equipping extremists in Iraq who are involved in attacks against U.S. forces. On September 26, 2007, the Senate approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R.1585), which was proposed by Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman (ID-CT), by a 76-22 vote. This Sense of the Senate resolution calls on the administration to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, thereby allowing the United States to exert increased economic pressure on Iran.
I, along with many other Senators, expressed concern that language in the original draft of the amendment could have been interpreted to suggest support for the potential use of military action against Iran. The language of the amendment was modified to remove such an implication, and I ,therefore, was able to support the amendment. On October 1, 2007, the Senate passed the Defense Authorization bill by a vote of 92-3. The House passed its version on May 17th. The Senate and House passed versions of the bill are now being considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between them.
I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to work to enact the National Defense Authorization Act. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
*************
*****
Look who wrote this, no wonder there is problems within the Democratic party. Isn’t he the highest ranking person on the military committee. The Democrats just may loose it all unless they take a firm stand against this war and more conflicts in the name of terrorism. Right now, I will stay with Ron Paul, at least he has some Kahoonas.
Levin’s letter is at least accurate. And the Bush’s made their move today.