AlterNet reader runs out of patience with the Dems

Posted by Joshua Holland at 8:09 AM on April 23, 2007.

I got a note recently from regular AlterNet reader and commenter Oregoncharles, whom I am now able to identify as Charles Newlin, asking me if I was ready to "eat some crow" given that the Dems have not cut off funding for the war. I told him I was not -- and I'm not -- and asked him if he'd like to argue his case. He took me up on it, and the result follows.

The new Democratic Congress is now well into its 4th month; while we can't expect them to reverse every Bush Administration policy in that time, we should be able to see how well they're going to carry out their mandate from the voters. Since they ran with little in the way of a national program, they were elected mostly as the "anti-Bush". That implies some expectations for real change, especially given Bush's approval ratings in the low 30's and solid majorities who want to see the war over with. So which way are the straws in the wind pointing?

As it turns out, the most important so far was ruling out impeachment. As long as Bush is sitting in the White House with the veto at hand, any attempt to reverse his policies with legislation is dead in the water. The House easily passed their Hundred Hours bills, mostly rather minor and bipartisan. The only one of much significance was the increase in the minimum wage, which affects relatively few people and equally few bottom lines. It was so long overdue that even many Republicans voted for it. The same goes for passage of funding for stem cell research, an enormously popular program. This is a far cry from a liberal answer to Gingrich's Contract On America, and it's a good measure of what they're actually able to do - until Bush vetoes even those minor fixes.

In fact, the veto negates their favorite excuse for avoiding impeachment: that it would tie up the Congress for a year and prevent them from Legislating. In reality, they're just wasting their time passing any bill Bush doesn't like, so they might as well spend it on removing him. Until they do, they're effectively hog-tied. I fear we'll be hearing precisely that excuse during the campaign next year (always remember the campaign next year).

This is an issue where Joshua and I disagreed strongly, right after the election. He seemed to think it would be better to leave the Bushies in place, doing all the harm they can, until it would be possible to prosecute them for war crimes in honorable retirement - in 2009. After the next election. I still don't understand his logic (any new thoughts on this, Joshua?), and the consequences for the Congress are ever clearer. That post was a good way to drag out all the possible arguments for impeachment, though.

Besides investigating High Crimes and Misdemeanors, the only action that can't be vetoed is the refusal to pass a bill. This Congress will be judged by the things it doesn't do. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for the most important. (The next opportunity to not pass something is the renewal of Fast Track authority for trade negotiations, essential for the extension of imperial globalization. Unfortunately, this no-brainer is very challenging for the Democrats, as it is driven by their corporate funders. We need to talk to them about it.) They have already passed a funding supplemental that would re-authorize and perpetuate the Iraq War for at least another year. Just for good measure, the House, at least, loaded it up with pork that makes it an easy target for Administration spinners. One of those slices of bacon goes to schools and local governments here in western Oregon, and was inserted to buy the vote of my own Representative, Peter deFazio. Both Peter and our Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, are among the honorable few who voted against the original war authorization; unfortunately, both have since repeatedly voted to authorize the war by funding it.

The immediate inspiration for this post was my own visit, with about 10 members of the Occupation Project, to DeFazio & Wyden's offices in Eugene, OR. Oddly enough, Gordon Smith's (R - Oregon) office, right next door, was closed (on a Tuesday), as were his offices all over the state. He'd already had some constituents arrested at other offices, and had apparently decided that isn't good politics. Sen. Wyden had decided something similar: they let us in, let us sit there, and wouldn't have anybody arrested for anything they were willing to do - this was a non-violent action. We counted that as a success and went home after talking on the phone with his chief of staff . DeFazio is next.

That's a huge effort to get through to Congresspeople who are supposedly on our side and just received a mandate from the voters. I keep wondering why it's necessary. It is essential, though, because there will be two more chances to vote on the supplemental: when the joint committee produces a bill "reconciling" the differences between the House and Senate versions, and after Bush vetoes the result (if he does.) Today we see reports that the Democrats are considering weakening the bill before it goes back to both Houses of Congress. That's a trial balloon, folks, so call them up and tell them what you think of it. Actually, tell them to vote against any form of funding supplemental: they all reauthorize and perpetuate the war. The best bill is no bill. I am talking mostly about ending the war, when there are a legion of domestic issues that desperately need attention, because it is almost the only problem that can be solved by not passing a bill.

One problem with the current approach is that Bush doesn't have to veto it: he can sign it, put the money in his croneys' pockets, and slip in a "signing statement" that he can ignore the requirements, timelines, etc. Of course, that would be a constitutional crisis that should lead to impeachment - if the Congress was willing to impeach him, or even precipitate a crisis.

Supposing he does veto it, Congress will have to decide what to do next. The rumor is that they'll probably send up a "clean" supplemental, caving in completely. There is a happier possibility: they just let it lie there. Nothing happens at all, there is no supplemental, and Bush just vetoed the funding for the troops. If that happens, I'll eat a lot of crow and go back to voting for Peter Defazio. It's just possible they are really that clever; it's also possible progressives could make it happen, by putting enough pressure on their Corgress members. Hell may also freeze over, but we'll wait and see, as Joshua once suggested. Whatever the odds, it's worth a try.

Based strictly on their actions and foregoing speculation about clever maneuvers, we have to conclude that the Democrats in Congress (most of them) intend to keep Bush in office and the war going until the next election (which we can't forget). The deadline date in the House version of the supplemental is especially revealing: September, 2008. Right at the height of the next campaign. Why would they want that? Well, what do you think will happen to the Republicans if Bush is still in office and the war is still going next year? If you can figure that out, so can a group of professional politicians.

That is an extremely cynical and hostile analysis of their intentions. Perhaps they are merely a pack of cowards you wouldn't want to elect to anything, but I don't actually believe that. What, exactly, would they be so afraid of? The Bushies have lost their last drops of credibility; their spin can't possibly be that frightening. Spin is just politics; Congressmembers are professionals at it. The Democrats I've seen in action, here in Oregon, are extremly good at what they do. It's up to the rest of us, the people they supposedly work for, to make them do it.

How are we going to do that? Sitting-in at their offices certainly makes an impression, especially on the unlucky office workers, but I don't really think it will make them do the right thing. Full disclosure, in case you hadn't already realized: I'm not a Democrat. I gave up on them a long time ago - the first time, actually, in 1968, and then again when Clinton was president. I'm a Green Party member, and I think you need someone to vote for, someone who isn't part of the same corporate game. You need that, if only so the Democrats don't have you by the political short hairs. They think they have you in a lock, with nowhere else to go. Prove them wrong, and then maybe they'll start listening to you. And in 2008, thanks to the Dems' own machinations, you won't have to worry about the Republicans winning - anything.

Joshua back …

I disagree with significant parts of Charles' analysis, but I'm not looking to defend the Dems. Fortunately, I don't have to, because three and a half months is still way too soon to judge the party's performance. A case in point is Charles' prediction -- based on rumors he's hearing -- "that they'll probably send up a 'clean' supplemental, caving in completely" to Bush after he vetoes the supplemental going up this week. I don't think that's likely -- there's an internal debate going on both within and without the party, and I don't think the clean supplemental position is winning -- and if it were to happen, it would definitely effect my evaluation of how the Dems are doing.

About all we can say definitively is that the party hasn't simply blocked funding for the military -- a position that's supported by fewer than one in ten Americans (the Dems' strategy of attaching conditions to the funds are supported by almost six in ten). Let's not forget that they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and they don't occupy the White House. What they can do is win the political debate, and I think they've been doing that.

More importantly, talking about the "Democrats" is in itself limiting. The difference between now and the last time the Dems were in power is that there's now a growing progressive movement outside the party that's pushing them to do the right thing. So the job's not just in the hands of Democrats, it's in our hands as well.

Tagged as: iraq, dems

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.