Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mystery of the Democrats' New Spine

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted April 29, 2005.


Democrats have been emboldened by a thriving progressive media able to amplify their message, but will the old guard learn the lesson?
Advertisement

Across the nation's capital, perplexed political pundits have been rubbing their chins wondering what has happened to the Democrats, who were supposed to quiver in fear of the victorious George W. Bush and his Republican congressional majority. Instead, the minority party has been picking - and even winning - some fights.

The Washington Post put the mystery on Page One with the headline, "Unexpectedly, Capitol Hill Democrats Stand Firm." [April 25, 2005]

The Post story said, "Democrats were supposed to enter the 109th Congress meek and cowed, demoralized by November's election losses and ready to cut deals with Republicans who threatened further campaigns against 'obstructionists.' But House and Senate Democrats have turned that conventional wisdom on its head."

The mystery is, how did this happen? How did the Democrats find their voice and gain the upper hand over Bush on a number of issues: Social Security, his right-wing judicial appointments, the Terri Schiavo case, Tom DeLay's ethics mess and the John Bolton nomination? What has caused the Democrats to grow a new spine?

Self-inflicted wounds

Certainly part of the explanation is Republican miscalculation, starting with Bush's post-election decision to make partial privatization of Social Security his major domestic policy initiative. Bush also brazenly named the undiplomatic Bolton to a sensitive diplomatic job as U.N. ambassador.

Congressional Republicans overplayed their hand, too. They changed the ethics process to protect House Majority Leader DeLay from more reprimands. They appeared to pander to the Christian Right by intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman whose feeding tube was removed. The Republicans even let the Schiavo debacle taint the battle over confirming right-wing judges.

But another part of the answer lies with the Democrats. They appear less defensive, more willing to make their arguments without so many equivocations. Though there are still flashbacks to the old Democrats - for instance, Sen. Joe Biden's reference to Alberto Gonzales as "old buddy" at the Attorney General's confirmation hearing - those examples are rarer.

One explanation for the Democrats' turnabout is the rise of progressive media, most notably progressive AM talk radio which has expanded rapidly over the past several months. Finally, Democratic leaders can go on sympathetic radio shows and make their case directly to listeners.

Before, Democrats almost always would find themselves speaking in unfriendly territory. Sometimes they would appear on conservative media, such as Fox News, or they'd face mainstream pundits eager to prove they weren't liberal by being tougher on Democrats than Republicans, the likes of NBC's Tim Russert.

Faced with hostile questioning, national Democrats often sought a safe middle ground, which made them look weak or indecisive, opening them to attacks as "flip-floppers" or "lacking conviction." On the other hand, Republicans could count on friendly receptions from conservative hosts and mostly deferential treatment on mainstream programs.

Limbaugh's value

For more than a decade now, conservative talk radio has had the Republicans' back. Republicans could count on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al to go out on the nation's air waves and organize support for conservative positions. Whenever Republicans were in a tough spot, they knew they had defenders.

That, in turn, meant Republicans had more margin of error when making their case. An overstatement -- or even an outright falsehood -- wouldn't be a political death knell. So, Bush could talk loosely about Democratic senators as "not interested in the security of the American people" or pretend that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. weapons inspectors before the war and expect little fallout.

By contrast, Democrats could expect any clumsy remark to be turned into a huge controversy both by mainstream and conservative news outlets. In Campaign 2004, John Kerry got pummeled for saying that he had supported one version of an Iraq War appropriations bill but opposed another, when it was barely mentioned that Bush had opposed the first version and supported the second.

Four years earlier, Al Gore saw his words twisted beyond recognition to make him out to be a liar or delusional, a crucial factor in Election 2000. During the run-up to war in Iraq, Gore was savaged again for his thoughtful critiques of Bush's unilateralist foreign policy.

The liberals simply lacked a media that could defend Democrats when they took tough stands or when they made innocent mistakes. They were pretty much on their own, helping to explain their timidity.

Left side

But that dynamic has begun to change as more U.S. cities get "progressive talk radio" stations, which now number more than 50. Though still far fewer than the hundreds of conservative talk radio outlets, this "left side of the dial" is reaching critical mass, altering the political psyche both of rank-and-file Democrats and their leaders.


Digg!

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book is: "Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Progressive Establishment
Posted by: Tomd on Apr 29, 2005 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enjoyed the article. However, almost 30 years ago, Hunter Thompson was saying the same thing, except he called it the "liberal establishment". There are a lot of "progressives" that stand to keep making mucho dinero by maintaining the status quo. Hopefully, the blogs and people like Howard Dean can flush them out and get rid of the scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrat's spine
Posted by: Grampop on Apr 29, 2005 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The democratic politicians' spines have certainly stiffened with the advent of left wing voices on the radio. I hope that they belatedly realize that they cannot win with their "republican light" party. "Me too" doesn't cut it. The last election seemed to be a choice between a bold obnoxious republican and a timid bland republican. Progressives have a tougher road than conservatives. It doesn't take any leadership to maintain the status quo. Where are the leaders with vision and imagination?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yes,but
Posted by: k.d.ridout on Apr 29, 2005 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's all well and good. Glad to hear the Dems are finding their spine. The PROBLEM, however, is not having a spine, or left wing radio, but fielding a candidate! It's going to take a candidate (and a team) with balls of steel 10 years to undo what the right has wrought! Do you see one out there on the horizon? me neither.................

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yes,but Posted by: jwg
» RE: yes,but Posted by: iremember
» RE: yes,but Posted by: hilchris
» RE: yes,but Posted by: Joe
Find out.
Posted by: fferris on Apr 30, 2005 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the Democratic Party runs, and stands behind all the way, a candidate that sticks to progressive policy, we won't know how the public will react. But to back another centrist seems foolish. Things have gone too far now. If the party backs a progressive and the Republicans win, then we know: America doesn't deserve democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Find out. Posted by: Zarquan
GOP vs. DNC=same-o, same-o
Posted by: commonsense on May 1, 2005 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it's time for the Independents in america to actually start to take 'market share' away from the GOP/DNC wind-bags, and start putting an essentially 'america first' agenda on the table for public discussion. For too many years now,
hyperbole related to aiding foreign nations, trade agreements,
so forth and so on, has resulted in a diluted and no longer
uniquely american 'gestalt' that has become philosophically
and psychologically vulnerable to the political whimsy of
politicians both foreign and domestic.

The United States is a unique country, revered and awed
for the most part throughout the rest of the world...at least,
that was the case for many decades prior to 9/11. Now,
however, present-day america is as much searching for
its' identity as for a positive direction to move in. With
serious issues like a compounding national debt, political
infighting only serves to empower those who would willingly
dine on america's lunch, so to speak...and allowing that
to happen would be 'bad'.

So, the question must be asked, why are politicians on both
sides of the traditional party line so willing to mortgage america's future for all perpetuity, effectively allowing americans to be taxed by foreign countries via buying in
to our seemingly perpetual national debt? Using Argentina
as a case example would seemingly make a valid argument
for viewing such fiscal hyperextension as an invitation to disaster...but, no so, quoth the pundits, who, regardless of party affiliation, are quite willing to shill forth at the drop of a hat for this or that entitlement program increase, or additional billions here and there, and collectively testing the elasticity
limits of an already elongated greenback.

Nor have either of the major parties really expressed measurable support for a bona-fide energy reform program,
although the GOP has done marginally better in the last year or so. Tokenism still abounds, in my belief due to the monies involved in the oil industry and the adverse influence of such monies on politicians' capacity to conceptualize the steps necessary to create an energy-independent, and therefore
inherently prosperous America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reclaiming the field of debate
Posted by: Meta4Life on May 1, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll agree with those who've written here in favor of liberal media outlets, but who realize that without candidates (plural -- it's going to take more than one) those new media resources are little more than places for progressives to complain. We need more than candidates with vision -- we need candidates who are capable of standing their ground on conservative talk radio/TV without cowering before the smug arrogance of the right wing.

And again, who that will be I haven't a clue. It could have been Howard Dean (maybe). It might still be Barak Obama (with a few years' experience under his belt). But for 06? 08? We might need a surgeon capable of transplanting one of those steel-plated spines into Joe Biden or John Kerry...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Leaders" two-timing us
Posted by: janvdb on May 2, 2005 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic "leadership" hasn't inspired true passion from their wedded base for years because, once far away inside the protective Beltway, they have succumbed to the seductions of Big-Boob Biz and High-Rolling Rhea. They think their glitzy little extramarital affairs are a secret and they come home regularly, when they have to -- about every four years -- mouthing their undying love, but the their shifty eyes betray them.

John Kerry was a case in point. He never seemed sincere; that's why he looked so ridiculous in that goose-hunting outfit. Pretending again.

The base is sick of these falsehoods. We need leaders who will stick to their guns, say "no" to corporate money and support what they truly believe to be right even if it causes them to lose initially. Only then will we begin to believe them again.

The Democratic "leadership" is resisting the only thing which will breathe passion into Democrats -- more media, more contact and communication with the base, more left wing talk radio -- because they know that will allow Wifey to track them, follow them and expose them in their little trysts. That would cut off the supply of Big-Boob Biz's easy money and force them to turn to internet campaigns and the base for campaign money; the golf junkets and perks will cease; the corporate coffers will close to them.

The fun would have to stop.

Our philandering "leaders" need to be beat about the head until they realize their kept-boy ways are going to cost them their marriage. They must be forced to CHOSE between the baubles and bribes of their paramours or the true love of their espoused.

If they keep up the affair, it's D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

Let's get someone new who actually loves us.

Only when the "leaders" have been replaced or have made the choice to be true will they support the ripping away of the veils of obfuscation and distance that used to come between them, way away in DC, and their constituents at home. They used to get away with these lies. But the internet and left-wing media watching them now, tracking their every shifty, lying move.

We have Megavote. We have Moveon. We're not just sitting at home crying anymore.

Get use to it, Hubby. Only true commitment is going to make the grade these days.

Pretty boy is history.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RESURRECTION
Posted by: susan9390 on May 2, 2005 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad to see progressive media making a comeback on the radio and in the blogosphere. It bores me to hear the claim that corporate/government control is responsible for the apathetic, cynical, and intellectually bankrupt position in which we find ourselves. TURN OFF THE TV! Listen to your radio, your neighbors, your children, and your parents. Take some responsibility, turn on the computer, find out what's really happening in the world, and then tell someone else.

Multiple sources are promoting the same ideas independently; this is more than chance. Specifically, we need to take back our country, our values, and our language. Because the self-righteous wave a flag (ours), spout an ideal (family values), or use a word or phrase (this title or "support the troops") does not mean that they own it. The US belongs to ALL Americans, ALL families have values, our communication skills ARE being reborn, and we are NOT supporting those who are increasingly letting us know how needy they are and how insidiously they were duped into complicity in an expensive war and occupation.

We stand in the same dangerous position as many movements in history. You talk of identifying viable candidates for public office, and this is an important concern, but it is our rhetoric, not our talent, that is grossly inadequate. We don't SOUND like winners when all we talk about is what we're against and our movements are anti-this and anti-that. Perhaps if we hold proactive ideas and ideals in our hearts and minds, let these come out in our writings and speeches, and use them to construct a solid platform, we will find that there are plenty of politically effective potential candidates who are willing to stand on it and provide this country with the kind of leadership that will allow us to prosper at home and regain our respect (if not our prominence) abroad.

Finally, I have the following admonition. Humor, even satire, is a good tool for catching public attention and communicating what might be considered subversive or slanderous ideas, but don't let it degenerate into personal attack on leaders we may see as representing the "other" side. In this small world of ours, there is no "other." Do not stoop to the level of adopting oppositional or sensationalistic rhetoric and tactics just because they do. Let us act toward others with the dignity that our "new moral majority" expects to command from others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And...
Posted by: HeidiLockwood on May 2, 2005 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmmm...well, Democracy Now! isn't strictly speaking talk-radio/tv. but it certainly is progressive and does provide a forum for Democrat Ccongress-persons, and others not towing the Administration line. who wish to speak their minds without harassment. That would be 264 stations at last count, added to the 50 of so talk-shows you refered to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Training wheels don't count....
Posted by: Oakland on May 3, 2005 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dems need to get back to their roots, and then fight like hell for those values. Dems roots are about a STRONG and LARGE MIDDLE CLASS. First they got lost in poor and black, and then they followed Clinton into selling out to corporate America and being Repub. me too, buts.... Howard Dean said: "We are all Americans with values that transcend voting blocs". He is so freakin right and this is the MIDDLE. Enough of Lieberman, Blue Dogs, and Dems who are "moderates" because they are afraid of the word "liberal". Until Ds come home and circule the wagons in UNITY, I am keeping my support conditional. If they vote with the Rs, they might as well be Rs and have the RNC support them - NOT ME.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Election was no mandate
Posted by: Michael Turnauer, Vancouver,WA on May 4, 2005 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. The Democrats' stand against several Republican initiatives, including a couple of their pet causes, is proof positive that Bush's winning a second term was far from the mandate he claimed it to be for Republicans. How could 51% (and a 3 point margin) be seen as an overwhelming approval for an incumbent President? During wartime?

The Republicans' net gain in the house came only by way of Texas extraordinary mid-decade redistricting. Their gains in the Senate came by highly questionable means (Daschle's narrow defeat with the help of party activists posing as independent reporters).

Bush claims that the elections represented capital earned for himself and Republicans. True to their borrow-and-spend nature their capital could prove to have more likely been on loan for which the 2006 elections may prove to be payback time. If the Dems roll over on Bolton the way they did on Negroponte, though, their chances go from slim to none.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parry called it exactly right
Posted by: jimb on May 5, 2005 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter who your candidate is, steel balls or not. You can run Jesus Christ up against Bush and he'll lose if he can't get his message out. If anyone thinks that the candidate can control how the public receives that message, they're delusional. Candidates are at the mercy of the media. At least Kerry had a little less resistance from the MSM than Gore did. The number of major newspaper endorsements he got was phenomenal. But, there was little anyone could do to stop the spin on the Swift Boat Liars or "Rathergate" if the press wasn't willing to do it's part.

Parry's right. We're moving in the right direction. We just need to speed it up a little and wake up the Democrats in Congress to what they've got working for them. Some of them get it. Too many of them clearly don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edward
Posted by: Edward George on May 5, 2005 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been a Democrat for more years than most of your readers have lived but I believe that this phenomena is easy to understand as the "cornered rat" syndrom. When you have no other way out you have to stand and fight. That is what Goldwater did when he founded the resurgence of Republicanism. The problem is not "why" it is "how." So far it is just reaction without strategy and tactics but where do we go from here? We would do well to study how they did it.

It seems to me we can do better but not if we just trust to luck. The implied lies of their propoganda machine has served them well. However, there is still much truth in "You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." That same propoganda can also be their Achilles heel if we use the language of the people to attack it. However our attempts will backfire if we talk down to the people. In particular they don't like to be told that they have been fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazing Feat
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Jul 4, 2005 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved this article and its criticisms of the shortfalls in the strategy of the Democrats. I have to see it's disappointing to see that Democrats are not being more aggressive to present and define their own message that would not only appeal to the liberal base, but cut through and divide the Republican Party (in the sense of "divide and conquer"). The core strategies I believe would be able to do this are these: picking up the flag of the working class to offer debt-relief, championing the causes of Veterans' health care and benefits (in this poin they need to pay attention to "Operation Truth"), and the final more difficult point is to try to meld progressive policy with Christo-American ideals. I have to say that although Progressive talk radio is fairly new, it is impressive to see how much of an impact it's already having. I also agree with the comment that the resistance to progressive media outlets is incredibly naive and narrow-minded. Point in case is how Al Gore's quest for creating a liberal channel was downgraded to settle for his "Current" channel (from what I understand it is to be an MTV channel with raw-documentaries a-la MTV's "UNfiltered").
Along with the effective framing of it, Progressive messages need to spread out onto the public in an equally effective manner. As long as Fox Channel News exists Progressives will be at a huge disadvantage. However, I believe that Progressive should not try to create a liberal news channel to be the mirror-opposite of Fox because not only would it be commercially unsound but mediocre at best. I would envision a Progressive channel that is more attractive, creative, and commercially effective than the dull Fox channel. Shows that would mirror CNN segments –with a Progressive point of view- should be present but I would envision a more “wholesome” channel. I would picture a channel in which the Progressive agenda would be transmitted not in a monotonous fashion but in a more entertaining and appealing way the likes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The channel could be filled with appealing programs the likes of Monday Night Football but with a Progressive twist. On Sunday mornings (or any other day for that matter) you could have a religiou leader with Progressive values with his own show that would counter the religious right ... or imagine Oprah for progressive ... just think of the possibilities!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]