G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Will Dems Commit Political Suicide in '08? An Address to Democrats Abroad
By Bernard Weiner
Created Oct 17 2007 - 1:28pm
An Address to Democrats Abroad-Munich, October 10. 2007
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
Author's Note: Approximately six million U.S. citizens live overseas, most
of them eligible to vote back home. Democrats Abroad has so many active
chapters all over the world that their ex-pat members have some leverage in
shaping Dem policy and a number wind up as delegates to the National
Convention. The largest German chapter is in Munich and they have been kind
enough to invite me, as a progressive blogger/public speaker from the
States, to meet with them during my occasional trips to Germany when
visiting my wife's family.
In the two weeks prior to my most recent DA talk, I had the occasion to
speak with numerous Germans and Austrians about their take on American
foreign and domestic policy. As on previous visits to other countries in the
past six years (Crete/Greece, Morocco, Italy, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos), the
virtually unanimous reaction of the locals was to commiserate with me as an
American with leaders as ignorant, reckless and incompetent as Cheney and
Bush. This attitude, voiced by everyone I met on my recent trip to Europe --
from service providers to businessmen to college professors to current
officers and former employees of multi-national corporations -- was
expressed even before they learned my political persuasion.
As for my recent presentation to DA-Munich, the meeting room was packed with
activist Dems living and working in and around Bavaria's largest city. These
Democrats mirror the progressive, activist base back in the States: They are
politically savvy and deeply perplexed by their party's timid leadership in
Washington. Here are my brief opening remarks:
Many of you may remember that the last time you had me here, a month or so
before the 2006 midterm elections, I said that it looked like the Democrats
could well sweep into control of the House and Senate, but, if that
happened, CheneyBush might react with even more criminality and desperation.
And that having majority control in the Congress would not be an instant
utopia for Democrats, but merely the first steps for a new beginning. And
that's pretty much what has occurred.
This evening, a little more than a year out from the next presidential
election and only a few months before the first primaries, I want to talk
about three overview subjects: 1) The imploding CheneyBush Administration,
and the dangerous actions of that cornered, wounded beast. 2) The ongoing
Iraq Occupation and the impending attack on Iran. 3) The positive and
negative nature of current Democratic Party policy, including some
discussion about the leading contenders for the nomination.
My take is that of a blogger activist in the States; I'll be interested to
hear what the situation looks like from your perspective on the other side
of the pond.
1. DOWN IN THE BUSH BUNKER
The ranks of the Bush Bunker crew, the loyalists who still remain in White
House, are shrinking fast, especially with the departure of Rove, Gonzales,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al. The first-tier decision makers left
include Cheney, Addington, Hadley, and Bush; I don't include Defense
Secretary Bob Gates (as he's being frozen out by Cheney&Co.), or Rice and
Chertoff, who are basically toadies to their boss.
Given the catastrophe that is the war in Iraq (and the one about to begin
against Iran), along with the various corruption and sex and policy scandals
involving Republican stalwarts, and the enormous unpopularity of Cheney and
Bush -- given all those GOP negatives, one would be tempted to say that
things look rosy for Democrats going into the November 2008 election.
But if we've learned anything in the past six-plus years, it's that the
CheneyBush crew do not give up easily, and are quite happy to continue their
smashmouth, in-your-face, big-lie brand of politics until someone stops
them. Given their bleak situation, they are worried, to be sure -- GOP
members of Congress are especially anxious about being wiped out in 2008,
but they are sticking with the Administration for now -- but CheneyBush are
not in any mood to give up and slink away.
Why? Partially because they realize their criminal culpability and wish to
remain outside the federal slammer. They continue to control enormously
powerful governmental forces to help protect themselves and their friends
and punish their enemies. I'm referring to their control of the Judicial
Branch, including the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys around the
country, the courts they've packed with their ideological brethren, and
FEMA, the agency that would supervise martial law if and when it were to be
invoked. CheneyBush also still control much of the mass-media, who either
are ideologically in bed with them or afraid to openly challenge the
Administration on its behavior and blatant lies.
In terms of the military power center, there are scores of retired generals
and colonels, and currently serving officers, who snipe at the
Administration's dangerous and failed military policies; a few days ago, Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez ( http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101207.html [1] )
who commanded the troops in Iraq in 2003-2004, blistered Administration
policy from the occupation then to the current "surge" now. But CheneyBush
still can count on the military services to execute their orders, reckless
or no.
THE ABANDONED DEM MANDATE
Now you may say that I'm ignoring a very real impediment to the CheneyBush
juggernaut: the Democrats, who defeated them handily in the 2006 midterm
elections. Surely, one would think, the Democrats would be able to use their
considerable majority muscle to roll back one bad Administration policy
after another, and to make sure CheneyBush do limited major damage in the
next 15 months before they depart the premises.
But the Democrats, who inherited a clear mandate for major change in the
midterm elections, especially on the need to get the U.S. out of Iraq, have
little to show for their victory. Several committee chairmen (symbolized by
Waxman, Conyers, Leahy, a few others) have conducted important hearings and
investigations. But in the main, this amounts to Democrats nipping at
CheneyBush around the edges, hardly ever confronting their impeachable
offenses frontally. Certainly, the Democrats make a lot of noise, hold a lot
of one-day hearings and the like, but CheneyBush made a conscious political
decision to simply ignore them.
Executive Branch leaders are subpoenaed to testify or to provide potentially
incriminating documents -- but these officials simply do not comply. The
Democrats threaten them with, and then cite them for, "contempt of
Congress," but then choose not to enforce those contempt citations. Time and
time again, the Dems back away or roll over for the Republicans, who by
holding together in Congress create real obstructionist problems for the
Democrats.
Even so, the Dems allow their favorite bills to go down to defeat
(especially on the war) on the mere threat of a GOP filibuster, without ever
making the Republicans actually mount a filibuster, where they would have to
put themselves on the record attempting to defend the indefensible.
Similarly, the Democrats have within their power -- 41 Senate votes would do
it -- to withhold war-funding for anything other than bringing U.S. troops
home, but the Dems don't even attempt such a move. In short, the Democrats
are mostly bark with no effective bite, and they've taken their major
weapon, impeachment, "off the table"; as a result of all this timidity and
embarrassing lack of progress, the approval ratings for Congress are even
lower than they are for Bush and Cheney, especially so with rank-and-file
Democrats.
2. THE PERMANENT IRAQ WAR
It seems plain that CheneyBush have no desire, and no intention, to withdraw
from Iraq. They aren't building that humongous new embassy and those
hardened military bases for nothing. Iraq is to be the staging point for
U.S. policy in the greater Middle East for a very long time. Bush likens the
mission and time-frame to U.S. troops remaining in South Korea for more than
half a century -- ignoring that South Korea in the '50s had no insurgent
rebels trying to force out the occupiers, no religious and sectarian civil
war raging, no American leaders talking about a "crusade," etc.
Apparently, Bush figures that even though the U.S. can not "win" in Iraq, it
can't "lose" either. The U.S. eventually will pull back to its massive bases
inside the country -- where they will be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar
attacks -- and remain effectively in charge of actual Iraq policy while it
carries out its covert and overt actions all over the greater Middle East.
It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the U.S. -- perhaps in
coordination with its one dependable ally in the area, Israel -- will attack
Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs sometime between now and
October of next year. All the signs point to that impending attack, and the
campaign has begun in earnest to "catapult the propaganda" (in a manner
eerily similar to U.S. actions prior to attacking Iraq) and to provoke the
Iranians into taking some action or position that will outrage Americans
into acquiescing to an attack on Iran, devoid of any imminent threat to the
United States. The Democrats in Congress, incidentally, have done little or
nothing to stem -- or even seriously talk about -- this likely attack;
several of their leading candidates are on record as favoring an attack,
should it come to that. Indeed, more opposition seems to be coming from
inside the Pentagon than from Democratic leaders and candidates.
3. WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR DEMOCRATS?
So now we come to the future of our party, so filled with hope after
November of last year, so frustrating and irritating to so many in the
interim.
The Democratic leadership seems to be utilizing, to use a football term, a
"prevent defense" strategy. They see the Republicans imploding in one
scandal after another (sex, financial misconduct, political disasters), see
the war in Iraq going nowhere except into a political and civil-war
maelstrom, see the awful candidates the GOP is putting up (in one recent GOP
poll, "none of the above" won). They look at all this self-destructive
Republican behavior and seem to be saying: Why should we stick our necks out
with any major "offense" initiatives? Let's just watch the Republicans'
self-immolate and in November waltz into the White House and grow our
majorities in the House and Senate?
But with these "loyal Bushies," who are always on the offense, if you only
play "prevent" you run the very real risk of a catastrophic defeat as events
change on the ground prior to the election.
I think it's true that if present trends continue, the Democrats will do
very well in Senate and House races next November, and will extend their
control of the Congress, maybe even obtaining a veto-proof majority.
Theoretically, the Dems should take the White House as well. But, even
without considering major changes beyond their control that could affect the
presidential race -- such as an attack on Iran or major developments in
Iraq, or a real or invented "terrorist" incident at home, or a successful
manipulation of the Electoral College vote into congressional-district
voting in key states instead of winner-take-all, etc. -- even without all
that, the Democrats, as is their pattern in recent years, could well snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory.
How could this happen? Let's look at just two things.
1. The activist base is so angry at Democratic leadership for its weak or
non-existent initiatives with regard to Iraq, Iran, Impeachment, Domestic
Spying, Torture, Habeas Corpus, etc., that it could well decide to sit on
its collective hands in November of 2008. Or bolt to the Greens. Or help
create a viable new third party, perhaps in collaboration with the angered,
frustrated Republican base -- those centrists, moderates, libertarians and
old-fashioned conservatives appalled by the extremists who have hijacked
their party and taken it into dangerous foreign adventurism, who have
stomped all over the Constitution, who have created such outrageous deficits
and debt. A bi-partisan, populist "Unity" ticket, in other words.
2. I've been writing about this anger building in the Democratic base for
quite some time. Believe me, I'm not making it up. Just before we left the
Bay Area to fly to Munich, the following, highly typical
letter-to-the-editor appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I've seen
similar letters and commentary in a wide variety of newspapers and websites;
they speak for a huge chunk of disenchanted Democrats and others who
normally would be voting Democratic in '08:
>> Third-party voter
>> Editor: ... As of today, I will vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Bill
>> Richardson [in the primary], because in my opinion, Sen. Hillary Clinton
>> is the best chance the Democrats have to lose the 2008 presidential
>> general election.
>> If she is their nominee, hatred of her will motivate Republican
>> conservatives to vote and work to elect the Republican candidate, whoever
>> he is.
>> At the same time, Clinton is the most likely to drive a third party
>> candidate from her left to enter the race. The growing number of
>> independent voters includes disaffected Republicans and they, too, would
>> be more inclined to vote Republican if Clinton is the Democratic
>> candidate.
>> Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a
>> Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for
>> a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is
>> elected. I won't be alone in doing so.
>> JIM DICARLO San Francisco (9/23/07)
THE WOULD-BE NOMINEES
The candidates vying for the Dem presidential nomination are nothing like
the embarrassing lot the Republicans are putting up -- virtually every one
of the Democrats in the running would make a far better President than any
of the GOP hopefuls. Just look at these guys: Giuliani (a shameless,
authoritarian, monomanical liar), Thompson (a bumbling, would-be Reagan),
McCain (a total sell-out on the war), Romney (a thoroughgoing,
flip-floppping hypocrite trying to buy his way to the presidency), etc. etc.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove's preferred candidate, is
running away with the nomination race is not necessarily good news for the
Democrats.
We now know that the Republicans have been preparing their smear campaigns
against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, for years; indeed, a recent story
( http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001405 [2] ) revealed how illegal
actions were taken to smear Edwards in 2004.) Poll after poll has
demonstrated that there has been and will continue to be a 40% block of
American voters who loathe Clinton and would never vote for her. So in order
for Clinton to win, she has to hold on to the 40% who reliably vote the
Democratic ticket, and then win the moderates and independents in the
middle. This might be possible if she could hold onto that firm 40%. But
there is a huge swatch of the Democratic Party, mainly from the dedicated
activist base, who do not wish to support Hillary because of her generally
hawkish, wishy washy positions on the war, her more-macho-than-you attitude
on Iran, her lining up with institutional forces such as with big pharma on
the health-care issue, and so on.
So, even though she may be highly intelligent, and has run an impressive
primary campaign to date, she simply may not be electable -- conceivably
putting Rudy Giuliani or another GOP neanderthal in the White House -- and
her selection could diminish any coattail influence she might have on other
races.
The general take on Barack Obama is that he's an exciting candidate, bright,
energetic, charismatic -- filled with good ideas and, on occasion, not
afraid to express them -- but not quite mature enough as a national
politician, with not much of an experiential record to run on. He's
certainly a positive, fresh new face, and will be a force to be reckoned
with in 2112 and beyond, but probably not this time out, unless as the vice
presidential nominee on someone else's ticket (Richardson/Obama?)
John Edwards has a long history as an effective anti-corporate individual of
conscience, and he's been quite effective staking out his progressive
opinions during this primary stretch. The Rove wing of the GOP wants to take
out Edwards early, as he's an effective populist campaigner. It looks as if
he might score big in the Iowa caucuses, coming in first or second, and gain
some momentum. But the media, echoing the White House spin, has been largely
ignoring his campaign or treating him roughly.
As you can see, Obama and Edwards are battling for the same block of
voters -- the liberal-to-progressive, anti-war, anti-Clinton wing of the
Democratic Party. By splitting the energy, money and support, they almost
guarantee that Hillary will be the nominee of the party.
I haven't mentioned Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel because, as
intelligent and courageous as some of them have been -- especially
Richardson on the war and Kucinich in a number of areas -- they've gone
nowhere in the polls and probably stand little chance of capturing the
nomination.
THE FLUIDITY OF POLITICS
Things are fairly fluid politically right now. As I've written previously,
there is a potential opening for a third-party run, drawing from the
disenchanted wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Is there a
charismatic crossover candidate willing to take advantage of that momentary
opening to help mount a viable run for the White House in 2008? If a strong
third party candidacy emerged, which major party would be most helped, the
Republicans or the Democrats? Could the Republican candidate slide by into
the White House if too many Democrats deserted their party to vote for this
third-party candidate? Might the chances for popular approval soar if that
third-party were to create a bi-partian "Unity" ticket, made up of a leading
Democrat and a leading, anti-war Republican. (Gore/Hagel?)
Finally, a longer-range thought. Even if a viable third party doesn't get
born this time out, the Democrats are ripe, as are the Republicans, for a
good, long, soul-searching debate about the future of the party. Redefining
the mission. Coming up with some philosophies of governance, and foreign
policies, we all can agree on. Developing policy statements in various areas
that are not just reactions to what the Republicans are doing. Etc. Etc.
In short, the 2008 election may well turn out to be a watershed in modern
American politics, re-aligning the electorate in ways they feel more
comfortable with. We shall see.
THE Q&A SESSION
What followed those prepared remarks was a wide-ranging discussion of U.S.
domestic and foreign politics, everything from: whether Gore (now Nobel
Laureate Gore) will jump into the presidential ring -- there was much
enthusiasm among the DA crowd for the idea; the intricacies of
vote-tabulation and the likelihood of electoral fraud again; the insanity of
attacking Iran and why CheneyBush would take that route; the possible
genesis of Democratic wimpiness these days; the punishment the Party
leadership is preparing for several state Dem organizations such as in
Florida and Michigan for pushing their primaries way forward, etc. But a
good share of the conversation involved the frustration and puzzlement they
feel toward their wimpy Party leadership. And about the Democratic
contenders, especially whether anyone can stop Hillary.
And, of course, these DA members wanted to know my preferred candidate(s). I
told them that, for a wide variety of pragmatic and policy reasons, I would
prefer the Dem nominee not be Hillary Clinton; of the potentially electable
candidates, I am more favorably inclined to John Edwards, with much to
admire also about Bill Richardson and Barack Obama. Despite their elitist
ties and tendencies, any of these three would be somewhat more progressive,
anti-war, civil libertarian and more sympatico than is Hillary.
But, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Dem standard-bearer in 2008,
then all we progressive, anti-imperialist Democrats will face the usual
moral dilemma next November. Clearly, there are significant differences
between the two parties. The question is: Will there be enough of a
difference between our candidates and those put forward by the Republicans
to justify yet again holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two
evils? I suspect the answer is yes, but we shall see how the political drama
plays out in the next six months. #
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at
universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor with
the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently co-edits The
Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org [3]). To comment:
crisispapers@comcast.net
..
First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 10/16/07.
www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm [4]
Copyright 2007 by Bernard Weiner
_______
Bernie Weiner happily re-upping.
About author Bernard Weiner, a poet-playwright, worked as a writer/editor
with the San Francisco Chronicle, has taught government & international
relations at various universities, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org [5]). For comment: crisispapers@comcast.net [6].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Bernard Weiner
Created Oct 17 2007 - 1:28pm
An Address to Democrats Abroad-Munich, October 10. 2007
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
Author's Note: Approximately six million U.S. citizens live overseas, most
of them eligible to vote back home. Democrats Abroad has so many active
chapters all over the world that their ex-pat members have some leverage in
shaping Dem policy and a number wind up as delegates to the National
Convention. The largest German chapter is in Munich and they have been kind
enough to invite me, as a progressive blogger/public speaker from the
States, to meet with them during my occasional trips to Germany when
visiting my wife's family.
In the two weeks prior to my most recent DA talk, I had the occasion to
speak with numerous Germans and Austrians about their take on American
foreign and domestic policy. As on previous visits to other countries in the
past six years (Crete/Greece, Morocco, Italy, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos), the
virtually unanimous reaction of the locals was to commiserate with me as an
American with leaders as ignorant, reckless and incompetent as Cheney and
Bush. This attitude, voiced by everyone I met on my recent trip to Europe --
from service providers to businessmen to college professors to current
officers and former employees of multi-national corporations -- was
expressed even before they learned my political persuasion.
As for my recent presentation to DA-Munich, the meeting room was packed with
activist Dems living and working in and around Bavaria's largest city. These
Democrats mirror the progressive, activist base back in the States: They are
politically savvy and deeply perplexed by their party's timid leadership in
Washington. Here are my brief opening remarks:
Many of you may remember that the last time you had me here, a month or so
before the 2006 midterm elections, I said that it looked like the Democrats
could well sweep into control of the House and Senate, but, if that
happened, CheneyBush might react with even more criminality and desperation.
And that having majority control in the Congress would not be an instant
utopia for Democrats, but merely the first steps for a new beginning. And
that's pretty much what has occurred.
This evening, a little more than a year out from the next presidential
election and only a few months before the first primaries, I want to talk
about three overview subjects: 1) The imploding CheneyBush Administration,
and the dangerous actions of that cornered, wounded beast. 2) The ongoing
Iraq Occupation and the impending attack on Iran. 3) The positive and
negative nature of current Democratic Party policy, including some
discussion about the leading contenders for the nomination.
My take is that of a blogger activist in the States; I'll be interested to
hear what the situation looks like from your perspective on the other side
of the pond.
1. DOWN IN THE BUSH BUNKER
The ranks of the Bush Bunker crew, the loyalists who still remain in White
House, are shrinking fast, especially with the departure of Rove, Gonzales,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al. The first-tier decision makers left
include Cheney, Addington, Hadley, and Bush; I don't include Defense
Secretary Bob Gates (as he's being frozen out by Cheney&Co.), or Rice and
Chertoff, who are basically toadies to their boss.
Given the catastrophe that is the war in Iraq (and the one about to begin
against Iran), along with the various corruption and sex and policy scandals
involving Republican stalwarts, and the enormous unpopularity of Cheney and
Bush -- given all those GOP negatives, one would be tempted to say that
things look rosy for Democrats going into the November 2008 election.
But if we've learned anything in the past six-plus years, it's that the
CheneyBush crew do not give up easily, and are quite happy to continue their
smashmouth, in-your-face, big-lie brand of politics until someone stops
them. Given their bleak situation, they are worried, to be sure -- GOP
members of Congress are especially anxious about being wiped out in 2008,
but they are sticking with the Administration for now -- but CheneyBush are
not in any mood to give up and slink away.
Why? Partially because they realize their criminal culpability and wish to
remain outside the federal slammer. They continue to control enormously
powerful governmental forces to help protect themselves and their friends
and punish their enemies. I'm referring to their control of the Judicial
Branch, including the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys around the
country, the courts they've packed with their ideological brethren, and
FEMA, the agency that would supervise martial law if and when it were to be
invoked. CheneyBush also still control much of the mass-media, who either
are ideologically in bed with them or afraid to openly challenge the
Administration on its behavior and blatant lies.
In terms of the military power center, there are scores of retired generals
and colonels, and currently serving officers, who snipe at the
Administration's dangerous and failed military policies; a few days ago, Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez ( http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101207.html [1] )
who commanded the troops in Iraq in 2003-2004, blistered Administration
policy from the occupation then to the current "surge" now. But CheneyBush
still can count on the military services to execute their orders, reckless
or no.
THE ABANDONED DEM MANDATE
Now you may say that I'm ignoring a very real impediment to the CheneyBush
juggernaut: the Democrats, who defeated them handily in the 2006 midterm
elections. Surely, one would think, the Democrats would be able to use their
considerable majority muscle to roll back one bad Administration policy
after another, and to make sure CheneyBush do limited major damage in the
next 15 months before they depart the premises.
But the Democrats, who inherited a clear mandate for major change in the
midterm elections, especially on the need to get the U.S. out of Iraq, have
little to show for their victory. Several committee chairmen (symbolized by
Waxman, Conyers, Leahy, a few others) have conducted important hearings and
investigations. But in the main, this amounts to Democrats nipping at
CheneyBush around the edges, hardly ever confronting their impeachable
offenses frontally. Certainly, the Democrats make a lot of noise, hold a lot
of one-day hearings and the like, but CheneyBush made a conscious political
decision to simply ignore them.
Executive Branch leaders are subpoenaed to testify or to provide potentially
incriminating documents -- but these officials simply do not comply. The
Democrats threaten them with, and then cite them for, "contempt of
Congress," but then choose not to enforce those contempt citations. Time and
time again, the Dems back away or roll over for the Republicans, who by
holding together in Congress create real obstructionist problems for the
Democrats.
Even so, the Dems allow their favorite bills to go down to defeat
(especially on the war) on the mere threat of a GOP filibuster, without ever
making the Republicans actually mount a filibuster, where they would have to
put themselves on the record attempting to defend the indefensible.
Similarly, the Democrats have within their power -- 41 Senate votes would do
it -- to withhold war-funding for anything other than bringing U.S. troops
home, but the Dems don't even attempt such a move. In short, the Democrats
are mostly bark with no effective bite, and they've taken their major
weapon, impeachment, "off the table"; as a result of all this timidity and
embarrassing lack of progress, the approval ratings for Congress are even
lower than they are for Bush and Cheney, especially so with rank-and-file
Democrats.
2. THE PERMANENT IRAQ WAR
It seems plain that CheneyBush have no desire, and no intention, to withdraw
from Iraq. They aren't building that humongous new embassy and those
hardened military bases for nothing. Iraq is to be the staging point for
U.S. policy in the greater Middle East for a very long time. Bush likens the
mission and time-frame to U.S. troops remaining in South Korea for more than
half a century -- ignoring that South Korea in the '50s had no insurgent
rebels trying to force out the occupiers, no religious and sectarian civil
war raging, no American leaders talking about a "crusade," etc.
Apparently, Bush figures that even though the U.S. can not "win" in Iraq, it
can't "lose" either. The U.S. eventually will pull back to its massive bases
inside the country -- where they will be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar
attacks -- and remain effectively in charge of actual Iraq policy while it
carries out its covert and overt actions all over the greater Middle East.
It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the U.S. -- perhaps in
coordination with its one dependable ally in the area, Israel -- will attack
Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs sometime between now and
October of next year. All the signs point to that impending attack, and the
campaign has begun in earnest to "catapult the propaganda" (in a manner
eerily similar to U.S. actions prior to attacking Iraq) and to provoke the
Iranians into taking some action or position that will outrage Americans
into acquiescing to an attack on Iran, devoid of any imminent threat to the
United States. The Democrats in Congress, incidentally, have done little or
nothing to stem -- or even seriously talk about -- this likely attack;
several of their leading candidates are on record as favoring an attack,
should it come to that. Indeed, more opposition seems to be coming from
inside the Pentagon than from Democratic leaders and candidates.
3. WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR DEMOCRATS?
So now we come to the future of our party, so filled with hope after
November of last year, so frustrating and irritating to so many in the
interim.
The Democratic leadership seems to be utilizing, to use a football term, a
"prevent defense" strategy. They see the Republicans imploding in one
scandal after another (sex, financial misconduct, political disasters), see
the war in Iraq going nowhere except into a political and civil-war
maelstrom, see the awful candidates the GOP is putting up (in one recent GOP
poll, "none of the above" won). They look at all this self-destructive
Republican behavior and seem to be saying: Why should we stick our necks out
with any major "offense" initiatives? Let's just watch the Republicans'
self-immolate and in November waltz into the White House and grow our
majorities in the House and Senate?
But with these "loyal Bushies," who are always on the offense, if you only
play "prevent" you run the very real risk of a catastrophic defeat as events
change on the ground prior to the election.
I think it's true that if present trends continue, the Democrats will do
very well in Senate and House races next November, and will extend their
control of the Congress, maybe even obtaining a veto-proof majority.
Theoretically, the Dems should take the White House as well. But, even
without considering major changes beyond their control that could affect the
presidential race -- such as an attack on Iran or major developments in
Iraq, or a real or invented "terrorist" incident at home, or a successful
manipulation of the Electoral College vote into congressional-district
voting in key states instead of winner-take-all, etc. -- even without all
that, the Democrats, as is their pattern in recent years, could well snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory.
How could this happen? Let's look at just two things.
1. The activist base is so angry at Democratic leadership for its weak or
non-existent initiatives with regard to Iraq, Iran, Impeachment, Domestic
Spying, Torture, Habeas Corpus, etc., that it could well decide to sit on
its collective hands in November of 2008. Or bolt to the Greens. Or help
create a viable new third party, perhaps in collaboration with the angered,
frustrated Republican base -- those centrists, moderates, libertarians and
old-fashioned conservatives appalled by the extremists who have hijacked
their party and taken it into dangerous foreign adventurism, who have
stomped all over the Constitution, who have created such outrageous deficits
and debt. A bi-partisan, populist "Unity" ticket, in other words.
2. I've been writing about this anger building in the Democratic base for
quite some time. Believe me, I'm not making it up. Just before we left the
Bay Area to fly to Munich, the following, highly typical
letter-to-the-editor appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I've seen
similar letters and commentary in a wide variety of newspapers and websites;
they speak for a huge chunk of disenchanted Democrats and others who
normally would be voting Democratic in '08:
>> Third-party voter
>> Editor: ... As of today, I will vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Bill
>> Richardson [in the primary], because in my opinion, Sen. Hillary Clinton
>> is the best chance the Democrats have to lose the 2008 presidential
>> general election.
>> If she is their nominee, hatred of her will motivate Republican
>> conservatives to vote and work to elect the Republican candidate, whoever
>> he is.
>> At the same time, Clinton is the most likely to drive a third party
>> candidate from her left to enter the race. The growing number of
>> independent voters includes disaffected Republicans and they, too, would
>> be more inclined to vote Republican if Clinton is the Democratic
>> candidate.
>> Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a
>> Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for
>> a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is
>> elected. I won't be alone in doing so.
>> JIM DICARLO San Francisco (9/23/07)
THE WOULD-BE NOMINEES
The candidates vying for the Dem presidential nomination are nothing like
the embarrassing lot the Republicans are putting up -- virtually every one
of the Democrats in the running would make a far better President than any
of the GOP hopefuls. Just look at these guys: Giuliani (a shameless,
authoritarian, monomanical liar), Thompson (a bumbling, would-be Reagan),
McCain (a total sell-out on the war), Romney (a thoroughgoing,
flip-floppping hypocrite trying to buy his way to the presidency), etc. etc.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove's preferred candidate, is
running away with the nomination race is not necessarily good news for the
Democrats.
We now know that the Republicans have been preparing their smear campaigns
against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, for years; indeed, a recent story
( http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001405 [2] ) revealed how illegal
actions were taken to smear Edwards in 2004.) Poll after poll has
demonstrated that there has been and will continue to be a 40% block of
American voters who loathe Clinton and would never vote for her. So in order
for Clinton to win, she has to hold on to the 40% who reliably vote the
Democratic ticket, and then win the moderates and independents in the
middle. This might be possible if she could hold onto that firm 40%. But
there is a huge swatch of the Democratic Party, mainly from the dedicated
activist base, who do not wish to support Hillary because of her generally
hawkish, wishy washy positions on the war, her more-macho-than-you attitude
on Iran, her lining up with institutional forces such as with big pharma on
the health-care issue, and so on.
So, even though she may be highly intelligent, and has run an impressive
primary campaign to date, she simply may not be electable -- conceivably
putting Rudy Giuliani or another GOP neanderthal in the White House -- and
her selection could diminish any coattail influence she might have on other
races.
The general take on Barack Obama is that he's an exciting candidate, bright,
energetic, charismatic -- filled with good ideas and, on occasion, not
afraid to express them -- but not quite mature enough as a national
politician, with not much of an experiential record to run on. He's
certainly a positive, fresh new face, and will be a force to be reckoned
with in 2112 and beyond, but probably not this time out, unless as the vice
presidential nominee on someone else's ticket (Richardson/Obama?)
John Edwards has a long history as an effective anti-corporate individual of
conscience, and he's been quite effective staking out his progressive
opinions during this primary stretch. The Rove wing of the GOP wants to take
out Edwards early, as he's an effective populist campaigner. It looks as if
he might score big in the Iowa caucuses, coming in first or second, and gain
some momentum. But the media, echoing the White House spin, has been largely
ignoring his campaign or treating him roughly.
As you can see, Obama and Edwards are battling for the same block of
voters -- the liberal-to-progressive, anti-war, anti-Clinton wing of the
Democratic Party. By splitting the energy, money and support, they almost
guarantee that Hillary will be the nominee of the party.
I haven't mentioned Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel because, as
intelligent and courageous as some of them have been -- especially
Richardson on the war and Kucinich in a number of areas -- they've gone
nowhere in the polls and probably stand little chance of capturing the
nomination.
THE FLUIDITY OF POLITICS
Things are fairly fluid politically right now. As I've written previously,
there is a potential opening for a third-party run, drawing from the
disenchanted wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Is there a
charismatic crossover candidate willing to take advantage of that momentary
opening to help mount a viable run for the White House in 2008? If a strong
third party candidacy emerged, which major party would be most helped, the
Republicans or the Democrats? Could the Republican candidate slide by into
the White House if too many Democrats deserted their party to vote for this
third-party candidate? Might the chances for popular approval soar if that
third-party were to create a bi-partian "Unity" ticket, made up of a leading
Democrat and a leading, anti-war Republican. (Gore/Hagel?)
Finally, a longer-range thought. Even if a viable third party doesn't get
born this time out, the Democrats are ripe, as are the Republicans, for a
good, long, soul-searching debate about the future of the party. Redefining
the mission. Coming up with some philosophies of governance, and foreign
policies, we all can agree on. Developing policy statements in various areas
that are not just reactions to what the Republicans are doing. Etc. Etc.
In short, the 2008 election may well turn out to be a watershed in modern
American politics, re-aligning the electorate in ways they feel more
comfortable with. We shall see.
THE Q&A SESSION
What followed those prepared remarks was a wide-ranging discussion of U.S.
domestic and foreign politics, everything from: whether Gore (now Nobel
Laureate Gore) will jump into the presidential ring -- there was much
enthusiasm among the DA crowd for the idea; the intricacies of
vote-tabulation and the likelihood of electoral fraud again; the insanity of
attacking Iran and why CheneyBush would take that route; the possible
genesis of Democratic wimpiness these days; the punishment the Party
leadership is preparing for several state Dem organizations such as in
Florida and Michigan for pushing their primaries way forward, etc. But a
good share of the conversation involved the frustration and puzzlement they
feel toward their wimpy Party leadership. And about the Democratic
contenders, especially whether anyone can stop Hillary.
And, of course, these DA members wanted to know my preferred candidate(s). I
told them that, for a wide variety of pragmatic and policy reasons, I would
prefer the Dem nominee not be Hillary Clinton; of the potentially electable
candidates, I am more favorably inclined to John Edwards, with much to
admire also about Bill Richardson and Barack Obama. Despite their elitist
ties and tendencies, any of these three would be somewhat more progressive,
anti-war, civil libertarian and more sympatico than is Hillary.
But, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Dem standard-bearer in 2008,
then all we progressive, anti-imperialist Democrats will face the usual
moral dilemma next November. Clearly, there are significant differences
between the two parties. The question is: Will there be enough of a
difference between our candidates and those put forward by the Republicans
to justify yet again holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two
evils? I suspect the answer is yes, but we shall see how the political drama
plays out in the next six months. #
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at
universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor with
the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently co-edits The
Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org [3]). To comment:
crisispapers@comcast.net
..
First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 10/16/07.
www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm [4]
Copyright 2007 by Bernard Weiner
_______
Bernie Weiner happily re-upping.
About author Bernard Weiner, a poet-playwright, worked as a writer/editor
with the San Francisco Chronicle, has taught government & international
relations at various universities, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org [5]). For comment: crisispapers@comcast.net [6].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson