Without a whimper of protest:
The House will vote on an emergency supplemental spending bill Thursday after Republican and Democratic leaders struck a deal with the White House late Wednesday, aides said.
The deal did not include the Senate, but House leaders were to present the deal to Senate leaders later Thursday night, aides said.
The compromise bill will include about $165 billion in funding for the Iraq war with no conditions, such as banning torture or blocking a “status of forces agreement” between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
It will include a new program, called the “new GI Bill,” to pay the college tuition of Iraq and Afghan war veterans, which will be transferable to family members. The cost of the program will be added to the federal deficit, because there will be no offsetting tax increase.
It will extend unemployment benefits by three months, but will require recipients to have worked at least 20 weeks, a requirement Democrats had sought to shorten.
It is also to include $2.6 billion to address flood damage in Iowa.
What a deal!!
This is probably the most unpopular war in American history. I think it’s even more unpopular than the Vietnam War. We know that the majority of Americans want us out.
So here’s my question to Booman Trib readers: Where does the military get the power to continue this war?
From Congress. They hold the purse strings. Watch the roll call on this one, see who the real weaklings are:
http://clerk.house.gov/
The military didn’t want this war and don’t want it. The military leadership that say so retire suddenly.
It’s the administration’s war all the way.
Some of the military don’t want this war.
Congress didn’t give up this power. They don’t have it.
There is a reason why people will vote against the will of the people for a war that is killing our country, and there is a reason why the MSM lies about it.
Think, people, who holds the reins of power? Look back at the history of our country and recognize what’s happening here, and why the war, the telecom amnesty, the investigation into the torture, why all this is such a threat to those who really hold the power and so hard for the Dems to overturn.
From the incredibly corrupt and greedy leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties. Including the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al. and, of course, all of the usual Republican suspects. It is very well documented that all of these people have made enormous amounts of money since 9/11, and will continue to do so. Gore’s $100 million plus is probably the largest amount, but they’re all warmongers.
Once again, the two parties are one organization, owned by the military-industrial complex, and devoted to endless war for endless profit. Nothing will change under Obama or anyone else. At least not through elections.
Why? Because we the people haven’t been drafting so we the people allow it to go on.
After 2006 and the odious lie to end the war by democrats, anytime you continue to reward democrats by voting for them, bolstering and padding their numbers in congress, you are wholeheartedly endorsing and condoning limitless, restriction free war.
sure. That might be true if your vote helped elect a majority of greens in Congress. Otherwise, your logic isn’t really recognizable as logic.
My logic tells me that if you vote for liars and war pushers you are endorsing war. My conscience is free of democrats.
Yawn.
Explain to me how the Republican congress was better again? But I forgot, you belong to the ‘it has to get worse before it can get better school’.
So, we need to, say, lose the court so that we can gain it back later. We need to delay climate change legislation for another 8 years or so. And we need neo-cons running our foreign policy so that they can really screw things up.
You take a lot of potshots at the people that have brought you much needed changes for the better.
Maybe you can work me up a short list of what these “much needed changes” are the the democrats, post 2006 have brought me. A GI bill is good, that is provided a soldier makes it home with a functional brain first. Or hasn’t been one of the 18 suicides a month. And what have these vaunted democrats of yours brought the Iraqis? Demands that it’s time they started fixing their own problems? you know, those problems that the democrats and their buds, the republicans seem to have no problems heaping on them. How about we just get the fuck out and have our politicians start writing 165 billion dollar checks directly to the Iraqis as a down payment on reparations. And maybe a check or two for those in New Orleans who are about tired of living in trailors.
Yawn indeed. The tired old argument that those that have had it with the Democrats are simpletons that are too stupid to understand that Republicans may be elected instead. Yeah, we know, Republicans will not stop Bush’s war, will do nothing to stop the stripping of our constitution, and will basically do the bidding of their corporate donors. Look, we all know what Republican rule looks like. We’ve lived 8 years of it. The question is how do we stop it over both the short term and long term?
Isn’t there some point for you where the Democratic party would no longer represent your core beliefs and you could not support it? Or no longer was an effective political party? 100 years ago the Democrats and Republicans were much different and you may have been a Republican instead of a Democrat. Things change and often unexpectedly.
The Democratic party is on the verge of supporting, or doing nothing to stop: 1) open-ended occupation of Iraq and further attacks on countries that have not attacked us, 2) the attempted repeal of habeas corpus, 3) torture of detainees, 4) other war crimes committed by this administration (e.g. cluster bombs, chemical bombs, bombing civilians, not to mention illegal attacks to begin with), 5) the illegal spying on thousands or millions of Americans without a warrant, 6) other Bush lawbreaking and the abuse of the pardon power.
These are indisputable facts and out there in the open. It’s like our country is going through shock where we have not internalized the fact that we have become monsters. Sorry for questioning my party since it supports these things. But some of us are actually free thinking moral human beings and do not get caught up the game of politics so much that we forget what our country or what our party is doing.
I guess the line for you is if we start impaling babies on boyonets or if you start smelling burnt skin wafting through the air, then you would speak up? As ridiculous as that sounds, I would have thought you were crazy if you would have said our government would be doing the above things above only 8 years ago and the Democrats would be sitting quietly by giving their passive support to it.
Uprated for ratings abuse.
You know, we’re around the same age, and when, tell me when have you seen in the last 25, 30 years any hope of redemption in the Democratic Party, any hope that if “we” infiltrate it with enough progressives, that it will be the party of progress and equal rights and fair economic distribution?
Many of us are forced to vote Democratic because it’s the lesser of two evils. We’d love to see a party, any party, rise up and bring peace and justice to our nation. It’s just that the Democratic Party isn’t doing that, and certainly by my reading of past history, has taken a turn to the right, beginning with Clinton and his economic “free” market endorsements (eg. NAFTA).
I wish the Green party was strong, had some money, and could really make a difference, but come November, I’ll pull the lever for a Democrat, because it’s the lesser of two evils. I’d really prefer to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I’m scared shitless that we’d get Bush III.
There’s nothing wrong about doubting and prodding the people here in the Pond about the policies and actions and inactions of the Democratic Party. Hell, that’s why I’m here and not behind the Orange Curtain. I feel free here and accepted, except by you, Booman. Your snide comments when someone digs at the truth beneath the Democratic facade is not welcome.
the answer is now.
Yes.
Taking back this country was never going to be easy. I know several ways to make it harder, but rather than concentrate on those, I’ll go back to the two things I’ve long said needed to be done to have any chance at all of a progressive nation.
The first was to get the Republicans out of power. I think we can all agree that so long as the Republicans controlled Congress, irrespective of what Democrats would or wouldn’t do, there was no chance of any sort of progressive agenda being passed. The only practical way to do that was to elect Democrats. Consider that in 2006 the Green Party stood 14 candidates for the Senate and 42 for the House. Tom Kelly got 21% of the vote for the House seat. a couple of Greens in DC beat out Republican candidates (no surprise there) but still lost badly to the Democratic candidate; and frankly there were some candidates, like Washington’s Aaron Dixon (challenging Maria Cantwell) that made me wonder whether the Greens were serious about winning elections or were just putting up a candidate to get some free press. So even if every Green had been elected to Congress they would still have been a tiny minority. (And lest you get the wrong idea, I would love to see the two-party grip on Congress broken. I just don’t see it happening short of a revolution or some kind.)
Now that Congress is controlled by Democrats, we have to move to the second phase, which is to elect more and better Democrats, and by “better” I mean “more progressive.” You don’t like a representative’s stance on the war, or funding, or whatever? Primary them. That, however, requires organization and money, and time for people to get used to the idea that despite what Rush and Sean and Tommy D. and the others all said, the sky did not fall, the world did not end when Democrats took over the executive and legislative branches.
Above all we need patience and to keep our “eyes on the prize.” It took the Republicans 30 years, from Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 to the Contract
withon America in 1994, for the Republicans to completely infiltrate and subvert the government. They were well-funded, they had allies in the Christianist churches, and they kept their eyes on the ball. Anyone wanting to create a progressive Congress can do no less. (Well, except for the Christianist part. But allies outside the traditional political structure wouldn’t hurt.)ARRRRGH! While I agree with you Omir…ARRRRRGH! The Democrats were elected to end this war, not to repeatedly capitulate.
I know. And hopefully someone is going to bring some of the ones who campaigned on that issue, and failed to follow through, to account.
Good points. But Goldwater didn’t effect the conservative revolution by quietly working from within. He was the bomb thrower that was willing to hurt his parties’ chances in the short term to ensure long term success. He fought for conservative IDEAS and created a system of reward and punishment. Democrats are too short sighted. If we would have ran on a liberal platform in 2004 we could have laid the foundation for further liberal victories in 2006 up until now. We didn’t do the hard work before 2004 because we were told if we just sat quiet and voted for moderate Dems they would get the courage to fight once in office. Goldwater would have advised that Democrats fight for their ideas–not capitulate to the right-wing.
Uprated for ratings abuse.
Look at the Green campaign “against” Rick Santorum, funded by prominent Republicans across the country!
It’s pretty basic logic. Rewarding or punishing behavior is a very clear way of influencing people.
It can sometimes backfire, or be counterproductive, as you seem to be suggesting, but it is not faulty logic.
The right-wing threatens to punish its politicians all the time. Usually for not being right-wing enough. The Democrats do it as well–sometimes. Usually the Democrats punish their own allies or the politicians or groups that are too far to the left, not right, like censoring Move On or kneecapping those on the left while heaping respect on the right-wing. So punishing one’s putative allies when they overstep a line is an age-old practice–its just that Democrats have turned it on its head so they only punish those that go out on a limb to fight for liberalism while they reward those that tack to the right.
Uprated for ratings abuse.
Either get used to the fact the Dems are not a whole lot different than Repubs when it comes to corporatist issues. Or. Spend time figuring out how to hammer the Dems to change their ways.
I am convinced that Obama when he gets to the White House will once again be surrounded by Wall Streeters and concern trolls from the magical center. That’s what Slick Willie did. Despite whatever majority the Dems have they’ll still play to the gallery – what Wall Street and the Military-Industrial-Media complex want they get. They are numero uno in the USA.
Wether its caving in on FISA when there’s no reason to or funding the bottomless pit of Iraq or never ever holding anyone to account for deception and propagandizing the public into a disasterous war of choice, or violating our and international laws on torture or war profiteering – the Dems are part and parcel of the politician backscratching club. Remember we got these excesses because the Nixon team of which Cheney and Rumsfeld where prominent members got away. Then these same guys including Eliot Abrams and John Poindexter and Caspar Weinberger got away for Iran-Contra. They know they can always take it up a notch or two. The next time they are back and they sure will what do you think they will be up to? They have already established that they can get away with pretty much anything. Yes, the Constitution – just a piece of paper!
I’ll bet your man Obama will ride in and save the day, right? Give those DemRat congresspersons a good talking to and tell them to stop this foolishness because when HE’S in power all the troops will come home and everything’s gonna get better.
Right?
But…NOOOOOOOOO.
After reading your post I went straight to Google News in the full expectation of seeing some sort of strong statement from Senator Obama regarding this latest revoltin’ development.
UH oh!!!
But this at least proves that you are right about one thing.
Barack Obama does not need any Clinton help to win this election.
Why?
Because he is on the same page as the Clintons.
Bought and sold by the same interests.
Hillary on the ticket?
Naaaaahhhh.
Redundant.
Soon we will have a wonderful victory party.
And nothing substantive will change.
The “Iraq War” might end. No sense pursuing a lost cause.
But Economic Imperialism?
Bet on it.
You will answer by saying that this is political necessity, this non-reaction to such ongoing criminality.
You will say that he is an honorable man, that there is no way that he could countenance such ongoing murder and theft.
Brutus was an honorable man too.
Bet on it.
Watch.
AG
Sorry, Arthur.
There are two kinds of thinking. One that blurs distinctions and one that makes distinctions. Clinton is a corporatist insider. She always has been. Obama is far enough outside to be presumed a threat to the status quo. Maybe he’s not the firebrand revolutionary that lots of people hoped for, but he is a threat to the status quo.
By the way, the paragraph police have a citation for you.
Or, to put it another way, Democrats had three real choices this season:
Of these three, Clinton in the White House would have changed nothing, just like her husband. Edwards in the White House might have changed something, but I found his sudden conversion overly convenient. Obama might be another cardboard cut-out, or he might be a real agent of change. Now, we could spend our time wishing for a pony or, as Arthur likes to, pretending that Hillary Clinton was a pony. Or we could decide to take the best of the choices available, give it a shot, and dedicate ourselves to getting some real progressives in the line-up for 2016.
Citation?
Is that like an awards for not overusing dense, unreadable paragraphs?
I humbly accept, in the name of e e cummings , Samuel Beckett, William Burroughs and other minimalists/blurrers of the line between poetry and prose everywhere.
ALL THNKS TO GD!!!
AG
Boo Man, my head tells me that your course is the correct one; that we must win the progressive battle in the “primary” trenches; that we are on the winning path; that we must keep struggling; that victory and justice and morality will come.
But, my heart agrees with Superconsoling and Isis and others who point out the obvious fault lines in the present system and kind of lose hope that we can ever break the grip that big money has on our government. It has always been a struggle in American History between the forces of the people and the power of the elect. It was not easy to get worker safety, abolition of child labor, pensions for the elderly, Medicare for the aged, Medicaid for the poor, public schools, K – 12, for the non rich, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments to mention just some of the progressive reforms achieved by the fighters of the past.
Now, it is our turn to carry on this noble struggle. We can and must make significant gains especially in the areas of public health and foreign policy. It will not be easy – it never has been – to overcome the pure selfishness and, undiluted greed of the republican party. But, we can prevail. Do we really have a choice?
God is not the answer but the question.
Supersoling. There are already enough cons.
Thanks
That was good of you.
This is what New Orleans DA Jim Garrison said in an interview regarding the change in America. He used a question asking him to define himself on the political spectrum as a springboard:
+++
That’s a question I’ve asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can’t just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I’d turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I’ve developed a somewhat conservative attitude–in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrews-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right–particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the state and the individual’s own responsibilities to humanity.
I don’t think I’ve ever tried to formulate this into a coherent political philosophy, but at the root of my concern is the conviction that a human being is not a digit; he’s not a digit in regard to the state and he’s not a digit in the sense that he can ignore his fellow men and his obligations to society.
I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau. I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I’ve always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers.
I’m concerned about all of this because it isn’t a German phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change and there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow man. What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it’s based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we’ve built since 1945, the “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life.
The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions, and we’ve seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society.
Of course, you can’t spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can’t look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won’t be there. We won’t build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We’re not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work.
But this isn’t the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I’ve learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act.
I’ve always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government’s basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I’ve come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
+++
I go back and read that statement from time to time when I am overwhelmed by the failures of our government. All of us grew up being told over and over that Jim Garrison, who investigated the murder of President Kennedy, was corrupt and crazy. He was smeared up and down the media. We have been told over and over that to be a “conspiracy theorist” is akin to being mentally ill, as if there aren’t any conspiracies and all news and knowledge are open and available to those of us here in the Free World. We were told that a generation of lone nuts chose to shoot those men who stood in the way of our conservative revolution.
The first step in defeating an enemy is recognizing who the enemy is. It isn’t weak Democrats.
Bob, this is very appropriate, timely, and well written. I agree with you completely. I don’t think it was lone gun men who snuffed out the lives of three extremely important Americans (Kennedy, King, Kennedy). I wonder also about the death of Senator Wellstone. The stakes are so high: wealth and power of the well born vs the general welfare.
May the people prevail.
The point is, of course, that when a group of people can get away with murdering the President that they can get away with murdering Presidential candidates, senators, representatives, reporters, witnesses. They can smear a politician, they can mold a system to fund candidates and then cut off the gravy to those politicians if they stray from the dark side.
If you look at the murdered political figures in the sixties they were almost always those who opposed the status quo. Kennedy, whose NSAM 263 was pulling us out of Vietnam and was leaning on Big Oil’s revenue. RFK, who at the very least would have gotten to the bottom of his brother’s murder (read Talbot’s BROTHERS). MLK. Even George Wallace’s wounding was part of the game. As a reactionary third-party candidate Wallace would have drawn votes only from Nixon (not McGovern!) and would have destroyed Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Imagine the difference between Nixon’s 1972 electoral sweep and what history would have been if Wallace had won the South and pulled twenty percent of Nixon’s votes across the North. One bullet changed all that.
Look at the politicians like Gary Hart, who was destroyed after he’d been a leader in exposing CIA corruption and criminality in the 1970s. Or the other politicians who led the post-Watergate investigations. Then compare what happened to Hart et al to, say, what happened to Warren Commission member Gerald Ford. Or CIA chief George H. W. Bush. Or the face of that 1950s CIA Nazi importation program, Ronald Reagan.
And if you think that spying on average American citizens is terrible (and it is), how much spying (illegal) has been done on politicians that are seen as threats to the status quo? We’re all human. We are all capable of being embarrassed, exploited, destroyed. How many of us can withstand the scrutiny of 24/7 spying?
J. Edgar Hoover had dossiers on every politician in Washington, DC, and that was back in the days of manilla folders and index cards. That was enough to keep him in the office until his death. When the CIA was coming into existence, James Jesus Angleton allegedly had photos of Hoover and his partner which was enough to buy the FBI’s cooperation.
So when I ask people to understand the political environment I am not calling for sympathy for the weasely Steny Hoyers. I am asking for a recognition of the status quo and why many of the Dems in Congress fear doing the right thing.
Either we work within the framework that we currently have, doing what is necessary to tweak and perfect the currently imperfect system that we have within the Democratic Party (otherwise known as electing more and better Democrats). Or we start totally from scratch in an attempt to build a viable, truly progressive third party that represents progressive ideals 100% from the get-go.
Which do you think stands a greater chance of achieving success before our country totally disintegrates into anarchy, leading inevitably to a completely authoritarian system?
I understand the sentiments and the frustrations with the Democratic Party, but which is the more realistic option?
Nice job, Mike. The INFJ’s are on the scene! Time for honesty and hard work. What a joy.
I used to think this way but I have now changed my mind (after the 2004 election). We are not stuck with the Democratic party forever. The Democratic party is making itself irrelevant, like the Whig party. In fact, the current Democratic party shares a lot in common with the Whigs. I believe it is on the verge of implosion and it’s not lefties like me that are causing this (despite the displaced anger by Booman, once again directing his most withering fire at his own allies).
Is working within the Democratic party and starting a entirely new party mutually exclusive choices? Can’t we do both? Couldn’t one work with Democrats when needed and yet start a new party?
And I don’t see much effort to change the party from within. Most progressives I know got sidetracked by a personality play the last 6 months and took their eyes off the prize. Or more precisely, they once again brought out the failed Democratic play book, running to the right during an election because everyone knows that if you just have some patience and elect Democrats they will get the courage to fight for issues once they’re elected–that is, unless they are worried about the election after that and end up running to the right and never tacking back to the left to spend their political capital–which is the way it has been the last 25 years. Democrats don’t spend their political capital on enacting liberal policies. Because we don’t put pressure on them to do it like the right does to their politicians.
The people like me wanting to put pressure on the Democrats and who are considering leaving the Democratic party over important core issues are not firebrands that want to make a mess to make ourselves feel better. We truly believe that this is a better way to bring change. We’ve tried the Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid approach to running to the right and running scared. It hasn’t worked if you haven’t noticed.
And the Democrats are starting to become the obstacle. That’s my problem. When Democrats are covering up the crimes of the president–that’s unconscionable. When they vote for something they claim is a moral travesty, more unconditional war, without protest, they have violated a core job of theirs. It’s not always about the next election. Sometimes a political party has to fight for its core beliefs and when it fails to do that it has failed to serve the very purpose of a political party.
No. I have thought long and hard about your point and while progressives and liberals are in a pickle we can either sit back and bitch and moan about it or change it. And the best way to change it is to encourage liberals and progressives (whether Democrats or not) to fight for our core principles. And to punish people and reward them appropriately. Expressing unconditional fealty to Barack Obama serves no progressive purpose.
But that was exactly my point! And fealty to Obama is nowhere in the equation. The reality of the landscape right now is that an Obama presidency coupled with more and better Democrats in Congress is the primary vehicle that is at the disposal of progressives to try and further their principles. If that can be accomplished, and the Party apparatus as a whole continues to be an impediment to implementation of a progressive agenda and policies, then maybe let’s rethink where this whole thing is going. But to me it would seem like walking away right now is akin to dipping a bucket of water out of the ocean and expecting to see a visible change in the water level.
I am a wide-eyed idealist when it comes to my progressive principles, but there is also a pragmatic side which has to be dealt with in a realistic fashion. I am, on one hand, terribly pissed at how spineless the Party has been since achieving majority status in 06. But on the other hand I am happy that we are beginning to see some inroads into the discussion for a progressive direction.
Like everyone, I want it all and right now. But is that achievement realistic and, if not, what do we need to do to gain as much ground in as short a time as possible?
All I’m saying is that I’m not to the point where I’m ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But apparently, there are some that are. I understand. But I’m just not yet there.
Look. You’re not looking beyond the stereotype of “wild-eyed idealists” that want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I know the stereotype. You see “beautiful losers” that don’t care about political victory and are undermining liberal causes because of their radicalism. And I also I understand that some, like Booman, see a short term victory in their sites so they are on the warpath against the “radicals” in their party (just look at the little spat with The Field and Rural Votes).
I think you are the one that is not being pragmatic because you are advocating more of the same–tacking to the right and undercutting and silencing the liberal base. I firmly believe the path to long term liberal success is for liberals to start standing up for their convictions and to start playing politics the old-fashioned way–don’t back down, support your allies, and attack, attack, attack.
I am a pragmatist as well. I want victory. I define victory as achieving liberal policy goals over the long term so that America is a better country.
So don’t assume that you’re dealing with a bunch of losers that want to run across no man’s land and commit suicide for no reason.
The Democratic party must stand up for core principles if it wants to be a viable long-term party. The FISA fight underway right now is a perfect opportunity. What is the Democratic party if it doesn’t stand up for the 4th amendment when the president admits to committing felonies and spying on Americans without a warrant? Plus, how politically stupid can you get? You’re lecturing me on pragmatism and the Democratic party gives the president a get out of jail free card.
I think were kinda talking past each other here because I agree with almost everything you say. I am not at all implying an undercutting of the liberal base or suggesting those dissatisfied with the Democratic Party are wanting to “commit suicide for no reason”. The total lack of principle demonstrated within the Democratic Party is the major central issue that I have with the Democratic leadership and many of the newly elected representatives. It has been beyond shameful. It is bordering, in some aspects, on criminal complicity. The pragmatism I refer to is the recognition that some battles are going to take longer than others to win. And I believe, like you, that the best way to get where we want to go is to fight “the old fashioned way”. Unfortunately, this is something that the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten how to execute. I don’t believe, however, that we can just replicate the methods that the Republicans used, find a Democratic version of Tom Delay to wield supreme authoritarian power, bully a progressive agenda through the Congress and expect it to stick. The Democrat’s core principles need to rest, firstly, on the Constitution and the rule of law. Everything else from a policy standpoint should flow from that. We certainly have had little of this up to now.
For better or worse. we have what we have today in the Congress. Those are the cards in our hand. If we want to effect change in the current system then we need to examine each one under our progressive microscopes, see how supportive they are of progressive ideals and give them opportunities to get on board when they might show some predisposal to compromise progressive ideals. And if they don’t get on board there should be consequences. Namely, we should actively campaign against their reelection by finding and supporting candidates who are progressive. A perfect system? Not by any means. It is, no doubt, a hard, slow and tedious process. But that is the reality of the situation. If there are enough people who believe the forging of a third party is the answer, then most would certainly be willing to entertain the idea and listen to any explanations as to why this is the preferred way.
And you are right about the FISA issue. This is a perfect situation on which to judge the acceptability of the currently elected crop of Democrats. And it is a major test of Obama’s mantra of “change”. This will truly tell us whether he has the capacity to lead on a very serious issue. It doesn’t get any more serious than this horrible legislation agreed upon in the House.
There is no one who is less a fan than I of the centrist, Broderesque moderation that has had such a stranglehold on the Democratic Party for the last generation. The progressive movement is really just beginning to get its sea legs in a way that can effect true and lasting change. I would just hate for it to fracture into a bunch of disparate groups and as a result become largely ineffective. We have to find some way to harness the passion that exists in so many on this side because we all have the common goal you state of “achieving liberal policy goals over the long term so that America is a better country.”
============I agree, progressives can do both: keep an eye on the democrats elected to office and begin the process of building a third political party. As I recall the Whigs kind of got hammered by the Dred Scott Decision, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the fierce battle over the status of slavery in the western territories. Key issues of the day (the 1850’s), that’s for sure.
For the analogy to hold, though, the new party whatever you call it must define clearly the issues of the day taking a firm and consistent stand on said issues. So maybe what the progressives should be doing now is clearly framing these issues. That shouldn’t be too hard. (The war, the environment, the economy, health care, pensions, jobs etc.)
So if Obama doesn’t deliver on these key points, should he be mostly talk and image, and little action, then the left should be prepared to swing its support to those candidates who will deliver. Who will get us out of the ridiculous and brutal and immoral war with Iraq, for example, and who wouldn’t dare consider a fight with Iran.
OK, I can deal with this idea. Matter of fact, I would endorse it. Meanwhile, I can still explore a move to say, New Zealand or Australia. A final insurance policy, just in case.
In 2004, there were some 122,000,000 votes cast in the Presidential election. By my reckoning, some 99.14% of those votes were cast for either the Republican or Democrat running in the race. That’s less than a million out of 122,000,000. For all third parties, together.
That’s a pretty impressive barrier toward starting a third party. And that’s why I advocate for taking over the Democrats from within. In theory, it should be doable. You get groups of progressive activists to crash the gates at local party meetings, get themselves elected to precinct and county chairs, and then start taking the party over from within, precinct by precint, county by county, state by state.
In theory, that’s how it works. It sounds to me like less work than trying to build a new party from the ground up, and you have the advantage of taking over a structure that’s already in place rather than having to build your own. And we have the advantage of knowing that it works, because that’s exactly what the Republicans now in power did to their party starting in the early sixties.
But in practice it’s hard to get people motivated to do the hard work that’s necessary to do this. I’m sorry, but I can’t see it being any easier to split people away from the current parties to start a third. Especially since, again looking strictly at the Presidential numbers from 2004, you’d have to get about 40 million people nationwide, pulled roughly equally from those who voted for the Republican and the Democrat (which would necessarily include a lot of Independents who went along with it) to join this new party for it to have any hope of being competitive. Otherwise you only split support from one side or the other and allow the unsplit side a clear path to victory.
I can only see one scenario in which a third party might — I say, might — come into being with enough power to make a difference. That would be if you could either get existing members of Congress to sign on to the plan I’m going to propose, or elect people who were on board from the beginning. Then, in late December after the elections are held and the Congressmen- and Senators-elect are in place, have these members of Congress — and you would really need for them to be both in the House and the Senate — to announce that they are renouncing their status as Republicans and/or Democrats and will caucus thenceforward as the Purple Party, or whatever they decided to call themselves. Done right, the Purple Party would be able to be the key to a coalition government that would force the party they were forming the coalition with to adopt at least some of their policies.
There is a risk involved here, that the current parties would fight back, and fight back hard. Committee chairmanships could go by the wayside or to those deemed loyal to the established parties. (Or they could be a bargaining chip for the coalition. It’s hard to say.) Obviously any fundraising from the previous party would be gone. But the possible rewards might be worth it.
If you’ll indulge me for a moment, no less than an authority than Senator Obama talks in The Audacity Of Hope about why we never seem to “throw the bums out.” Boiled down, it’s that politicians in general are pretty likeable people, and everyone seems to like their own congressman just fine, even if the rest of them are bums. With Dean and Obama having set the precedent of Internet fundraising, it’s not impossible to think that not only could some of these Purple congresscritters get re-elected, but that if they really are proposing a third way unfettered by Republican and Democratic ways of the past, they might have some appeal in areas where they didn’t have start out, and the party might become self-sustaining.
All this is coming straight off the top of my head, so don’t shout me down for it not being well thought out or anything like that, because I’ll freely admit to it. 🙂 But my point is that it would take something extraordinary to get a third party started in this country. Not necessarily impossible, but I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime. Maybe not in my grandkids’ lifetime.
(Slightly OT, aren’t the Internets great? I can easily imagine radical thinkers of the 19th and early 20th century sitting around in taverns and coffee shops in Berlin and St. Petersburg and Paris discussing ideas similar to these. And we don’t even have to leave our computers to be thinking such Deep Thoughts. 🙂 )
There was a great post by Billmon a few years back that did a great job of pursuing this line of thought. And Rick Perlstein has also written about it.
I personally think that a third party is viable simply because of where the Democratic party has gone the last 20 years. Some of us are at the end of our rope. It’s a hopelessly uneven playing field that is tilted in the right-wing’s favor and it’s even more frustrating when our putative allies do their best to undermine us. It’s time for a new approach.
I see a 3rd party or reform movement coming from the libertarian wings of the parties. We’re starting to see this now. And it’s logical. Our republic was built on the idea of limited government and individual liberty.
Those are the issues I care about. My “core” values all have to do with the constitution and right-wing attack on our constitution (with an assist from cut and run Dems). I could not have dreamed up a better example of this than what we are witnessing today: the government has taken the final step in allowing a large-scale spying on Americans. Bush should now know that nothing can stop him and he should feel free to go to the next level. We now have the two main parties that HAVE INENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE 4TH AMENDMENT. Through and official “act” of the legislature. They have legislated away the 4th Amendment.
There is no doubt about it. It’s all right there in plain sight. They have eviscerated the 4th Amendment. No one disputes the facts. Bush ordered the illegal spying on Americans in violation of the law and the constitution. And Democrats did nothing about it. Well, they did do something. They made sure the lawbreakers were protected.
Uprated for ratings abuse.
I am basically at the point where I believe electing Democrats is good for one thing only: they appoint and confirm federal judges and justices who, for the most part, actually apply the laws of the United States and interpret the Constitution in good faith. Whereas the Republicans appoint right wing doctrinaire sophists, adept at achieving whatever end is desired while appearing to operate within the confines of established precedent. But that’s it.
I, along with many others, said when the Democratic majority failed to go to the mattresses over Iraq immediately upon coming into office in January of 2007 that they had ensured that the status quo would obtain until the Presidential election. That has come to pass. I also said then that regardless of which (presumably Democratic) candidate was elected President, they would find it very nearly impossible to end the war if it was not in the process of being wound down when they came into power in January 2009. There is a reason that Bush has been basically running out the clock for the last two years. He has now won that little game. Obama will take office with as many troops or more in Iraq as were there when the Democrats took Congress. And then what does he do? Spend the first two years of his term pulling out of Iraq, with the daily footage of carnage on the news (carnage that is mostly hidden by our media at the present)? With the pundits, Republicans, and Blue Dogs screaming about “who lost Iraq”? Risk the midterms? Risk his own reelection? Even if he wants to, and sincerely intends to, end the war in Iraq, he will have a thousand and one reasons not to once he is in office.
And you will have intelligent, well-meaning bloggers saying “So what? Would you rather have voted Green/libertarian/what-the-fuck-ever and elected McCain? Well wouldja?”
Well no. So I will vote Democrat, and Americans will keep on killing and dying in Iraq and elsewhere. And maybe even the goddam telecoms will be let off the hook and we will never know how many of our liberties have been destroyed. But we will have judges and Supreme Court justices who are generally sane. That is the least bad option, but it does not make for a good bumper sticker.
I agree that the Supreme Court is the scariest prospect of more Republican rule. It’s astounding how successful the right-wing attack on our jurisprudence has been the last 25 years. I thought they would never be successful but there they are with 4 Supreme Court justices.
It’s part and parcel of the other political failures of liberalism. Liberals gave up the fight. We let the right-wing muscle it’s way into the highest powers of the legal world and change it into something I don’t even recognize.
And it’s no wonder that Bush is putting the final touches on this judicial revolution. There are few as hostile to our legal traditions as Bush (and it’s no wonder Bush was rejected from law school–did this cause his hostility to our legal traditions?).
We’re in a pickle. And it doesn’t help that Obama is making us give up the 4th Amendment if we want to stop the other right-wing attacks.
One more reason we need to make the Steny Hoyer’s of the world pay a price.
House caves on FISA
Still no spine.
What will it take?
Care to explain how one gets a troll rating for this?
Omir, you’d better watch it. You basically said the same thing in much more detail.
You might be next.
Maybe its confusion with the rating system. I was confused at first because I thought 1 meant you disagree and 4 means you agree strongly. So maybe the person thought they were simply disagreeing with you and not “troll” rating you.
Well, certainly is no doubt they disagreed with me. 🙂
See what I mean about passionate progressives? We eat our own when we disagree with them!