April 13th, 2006
There’s some talk around the liberal, Democratic leaning blogsphere about what it is that the Democratic party can do to energize and motivate the base, given the apparent grassroots passivity that some observe. The apparent grassroots passivity seems counter intuitive, given how poll after poll shows that Democrats are preferred over republicans to take control of Congress after the November elections; and, yet, Democratic voters do not appear to have turned out in large numbers in the recent CA-50 special election for. Understandably, one wonders, What can the Democratic party do to motivate the grassroots and the general public?
Here are my suggestions:
1. For better or worse, all movements need a leader… a central voice that crystallizes the aspirations and motivations of the countless of faceless, and voiceless masses. Elected Dems have not provided that single voice/leader that crystallizes our hopes and frustrations. The 2006 elections, even though they are “just” a midterm election, should be approached by the Democratic party as if the elections were a presidential election — even going so far as to hold a national convention to present a New Democratic Deal for America (think of it as a New Deal 2.0) to the country.
Dems must capitalize on the “perfect political storm” that exists at the moment. But to do so, the Democratic party must designate one person to be the voice of the party, and then the party must make sure not to undermine that voice by keeping saboteurs from running to FauxNews and/or the Hannity radio program. For my money, I’d love to see either Dean and/or Feingold as the voice of the party that crystallizes my aspirations and motivations. Unfortunately, the inner circle of the Democratic party establishment would never allow Dean nor Feingold to be the voice and face of the party; nonetheless, although I will not get my ideal Democratic representative to speak for me, Dems should consider designating one person to be the voice and face of the party because it’ll facilitate communication with the public. (Please note that, even though I’ve suggest the designation of a single voice, I understand that this is unworkable; accordingly, the next best thing is to designate a handful of representatives (2-3) to be the voices of the party — that is, select 2-3 voices that can speak to different audiences (clearly, centrist/corporatist Dems would think it intolerable if they don’t have a seat at the table)).
2. Though some elected Dems have moved closer towards a draw down/pull back position on Iraq, more Democratic representatives must come out in favor of a pull back from Iraq; moreover, elected Dems need to speak with one voice on this issue. We, the American public, are disillusioned with Bush’s Iraq invasion and are actively looking for alternatives to simply “staying the course” and other such lame slogans as “A Plan for Victory.” It’s clear that elected Dems are split on this issue on policy grounds, and not merely on the politics of the situation — that is, some elected Dems do fear that a precipitous pull back down of troops from Iraq would create even worse repercussions over the long term; however, the Democrat hawks are not presenting an alternative to the current course, which simply unacceptable, because the public craves something different, period. I, along with the vast majority of the Democratic grassroots, and an ever increasing number of the John Q public support immediate pull back from Iraq. The bottom line is that Americans want to be presented with an alternative plan on Iraq, because we know that simply staying the course is, in fact, a plan for failure; unfortunately, Democrats have not coordinated the formulation of an alternative plan, even though they have at their disposal an imminently credibly, digestible and workable Democratic response to the quagmire in Iraq. That plan, of course, is the Murtha Plan — which: Every. Single. Democrat. Should. Support. It’s good politics and good policy.
3. Follow the Ross Perot model. Perot spent millions of dollars on long-form infomercials during his ’92 bid for the presidency; an act that, to my mind, was the biggest single factor to propel his insurgent candidacy in that election. Dems need to do the same thing. Create half-hour or hour-long infomercials wherein the designated voice(s) of the party intimately walk the American public through a narrative presenting, in stark contrast, what the Democratic Party stands for and, too, how the New Democratic Deal for America will touch and improve our lives. The key of these long-form infomercials is that Dems would control the message and presentation, with no moderator to interrupt with some pretension at objectivity. Moreover, the long-form infomercial would allow for an adult conversation, on a myriad of issues, with the American public.
April 11th, 2006
This is pretty upsetting… unfortunately, if it were up to social conservatives and to the republican party, ideally (from their point of view), one day the United States will exist under a similar anti-privacy regiment as El Salvador:
Ever imagine what it might be like to live in a place that voted to thoroughly criminalize abortion? A place that sent abortion providers to jail? That policed hospitals? That investigated a woman’s uterus? Welcome to 21st-century El Salvador, the state of anti-abortion.
This is how a New York Times photo gallery introduces us to a series of dramatic black and white shots, with equally dramatic and even more moving captions. For example:
The Incarcerated: Carla Herrara, 11, clutches pictures of her mother, Carmen Climaco, who was given 30 years for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.
The photo gallery is part of an NY Times Magazine piece on how abortion was criminalized in El Salvador, and how that small Central American country is at the “vanguard” of a movement against abortion:
In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don’t apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990′s, in a period after the country’s long civil war ended. The country’s penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.
It goes without say that the abortion issue, that is, whether women and couples should have control over their reproductive futures, or whether such control should be placed in the hands of the state, is a central question in today’s political landscape in our own country. On the progressive side there are many that contend that: 1. Because it would be political suicide for republicans to end access to abortion, that therefore it is unlikely that they’ll criminalize the procedure; 2. Even if abortion is criminalized at the federal level, such an unlikely eventuality may bring with it some pragmatic and political advantages, because it would create an opportunity at the state level to “experiment” with local solutions; and, 3. Presently, Democratic candidates must be afforded wide latitude on the abortion question by their constituents, because elected Democrats must find some way of neutralizing the issue come national/presidential elections.
Now, while it may appear as a truism that over the long term criminalizing abortion would result in political suicide for republicans, that does not necessarily preclude them from inadvertently succeeding in criminalizing the procedure over the short term. After all, sometimes events get ahead of one’s ability to effectively manage and react to them — I present exhibit A., the Iraq invasion: clearly the situation in Iraq has gotten ahead of the Bush Administration’s ability to contain events and, therefore, is now merely reacting to events on the ground. With some pieces of the puzzle already in place (i.e., Roberts & Alito, et al; a religious right movement that’s confident of its ability to influence the republican party and, thereby, the terms of our national debate; and, too, a Democratic Party establishment that’s been forced to take on a defensive posture on abortion), it’s not difficult to imagine how, over the short term, abortion may be inadvertently criminalized if a certain tipping point is reached — even if it comes at the expense of long term electoral loses for the republican party. The risk, once that tipping point is reached towards criminalization, is that it may be years — if not decades — before our nation and the political establishment are once again ready to reverse course. After all, it’s taken 30-plus years for abortion opponents to come as close as they are to steering our nation back to a time when the right to privacy was not thought to be a constitutional guarantee.
If abortion is criminalized at the federal level it’ll be left up to the states to formulate their own local approaches. Accordingly, rather than waging a one front campaign, if one can think of the federal abortion issue as a single front, we’ll be forced to mount a 50 front wide campaign in defense of reproductive sovereignty. Clearly, some front lines will be easier to hold, while others will be deemed too deep in hostile territory to hold on to, thus sacrificeable. Accordingly, as with all wars, whether hot or merely ideological, there’ll be some collateral damage, primarily inside of those territories thought to be sacrificeable. The question thus becomes, as with all wars, what level of so-called collateral damage are WE willing to tolerate? Understandably, the vast majority of the collateral damage will be suffered by the poor (women and couples), the less educated, and by those living in rural areas. However, aside from the tangible collateral damage that will be incurred by particular individuals, the criminalization of abortion would open the door to other, though less tangible, more offensive and corrosive elements to a free and open society. For example, since the criminalization of abortion would inevitably depend on a Constitutional finding against an inherent right to privacy, we may end up having to engage in new battles where privacy is concerned — whether the issues at hand arise from medical, criminal or employment related matters. The point here is that, clearly, the criminalization of abortion would come with unacceptable levels of collateral damage and, too, at a high risk of introducing unintended consequences against Americans’ right to privacy.
Sure, the states could each serve as a petri dish; wherein, the theory goes, locally tailored and unique solutions could emerge that, at long last, would end the national debate on abortion; allowing the country to exist under a 50 state consensus on reproductive freedom — each state with its own unique response to the issue of abortion. Of course, the petri dish compromise is contingent on the abortion criminalization pushers and on the right to privacy advocates honoring an eventual compromise. Because, clearly, once one side or the other breaches whatever compromise is formulated, the other side would be compelled to push back. Clearly, the criminalization pushers see abortion as an abomination and as being morally repugnant; therefore, any compromise that, in their view, tolerates medical abortions in even one of the 50 states will be interpreted as unacceptable and as unfinished business. Now, from their standpoint, they would be correct; after all, the end goal of those seeking to criminalize abortion is to totally and utterly end medical abortions in our country, period. Now, our nation has already endured — and not very well, I might add — one national compromise on an issue where, in fact, there was no compromising, let’s not forget (yes, that compromise: the Missouri Compromise, which split the nation). It is clear, given the rhetoric of the abortion criminalization pushers, that this is an issue on which there’s no compromise. After all, does anyone really believe that any sort of compromise can ever be maintained when those seeking to criminalize abortion see themselves, however delusional, as marauding abolitionists unshackling fetuses from bondage? Now, I don’t mean to suggest that we’re any where near the level of tension that must have existed when that first national compromise collapsed. However, just as the abortion criminalization pushers will not tolerate the continued practice of medial abortion in even one state of the Union; likewise, those of us that support the right to privacy and that defend our reproductive sovereignty should not be willing to accept any compromise that would undermine these core principles.
As for elected Democrats needing more breathing room on the issue of abortion from the progressive grassroots, frankly, I simply wish that elected Dems would speak candidly on the issue — without some consultant standing over their shoulders telling them how they should respond. As has been remarked over and over again, no one is for abortion; however, we should all be for the right to privacy, and for sovereignty and security over our bodies — these, of course, extend to reproductive our freedom. Some have dismissed and caricatured what, at best, can be described as the shorthand version of the grassroots-approved Democratic Party comeback formula:
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog (DailyKos.com) – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. [ Sen. Barack Obama ]
While this caricature touches on the major themes that the Dem grassroots have been agitating for and calling on the Democratic Party to pursue, I think that it intentionally misreads what the grassroots is really trying to say; which, very simply, is: formulate a Democratic agenda that shores up the advances of the New Deal, be vigorous advocates for that agenda, and refuse to let conservatives/republicans define the national debate — yes, a’la George Lakoff, shift to a progressive frame and redefine the terms of the debate. What does this have to do with abortion? Well, unlike the minority that seeks to criminalize its medical practice, the majority of Americans support access to abortion; because Americans intuitively understand that abortion, in spite of the rhetoric, is about one’s right to privacy, and about security and sovereignty over one’s body. Unfortunately, because those seeking to criminalize abortion are dominating the debate and its terms, these core principles, privacy and security, are being left out of the national debate by elected Democrats. So, while I’m perfectly willing to give Dems some breathing room while they get their bearings, it is unconscionable for anyone to ask the American people to surrender our right to privacy, and our security and sovereignty over one’s body.
We all agree that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.” Likewise, we can also agree that those seeking to criminalize medical abortion by overturning and/or undermining Roe v. Wade present a direct threat to our right to privacy, and to our personal security and sovereignty; accordingly, our Democratic representatives must be expected to engage the abortion debate on these terms, and not merely accept the terms imposed by the abortion criminalization pushers.
April 3rd, 2006
“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):
Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)
The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).
[...]
In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.
This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:
"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.
Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?
As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:
There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.
Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.
Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.
Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.
In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.
March 27th, 2006
FireDogLake brings us a civic action for today’s busy and time starved activist:
The Rubber Stamp Republican Congress is about to get a wake-up call.
For Phase One: The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding more hearings on the illegal domestic NSA spying without a warrant on Tuesday. They will also be holding hearings on Sen. Russ Feingold’s censure resolution on Friday. We’d like to get their attention, and let them know that illegal actions of the President and upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are issues about which Americans care deeply.
If you have ten to fifteen minutes today, please take part in FireDogLake’s "Citizen Action" plan.
Here’s the plan:
We’re headed back to the FAX machines this morning. Please take some time to FAX the members of the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about this issue.
But start with the following header, in big type, across the top of your missive:
[...]
Here are the FAX numbers for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
- Arlen Specter, Chairman – Pennsylvania – Fax (202) 228-1229
- Orrin G. Hatch – Utah – Fax (202) 224-6331
- Patrick J. Leahy – Vermont – Fax (202) 224-3479
- Charles E. Grassley – Iowa – Fax (515) 288-5097
- Edward M. Kennedy – Massachusetts – Fax (202) 224-2417
- Jon Kyl – Arizona – Fax (202) 224-2207
- Joseph R. Biden, Jr. – Delaware – Fax (202) 224-0139
- Mike DeWine – Ohio – Fax (202) 224-6519
- Herbert Kohl – Wisconsin – Fax (202) 224-9787
- Jeff Sessions – Alabama – Fax (202) 224-3149
- Dianne Feinstein – California – Fax (202) 228-3954
- Lindsey Graham – South Carolina – Fax (864) 250-4322
- Russell D. Feingold – Wisconsin – Fax (202) 224-2725
- John Cornyn – Texas – Fax (972) 239-2110
- Charles E. Schumer – New York – Fax (202) 228-3027
- Sam Brownback – Kansas – Fax (202) 228-1265
- Richard J. Durbin – Illinois – Fax (202) 228-0400
- Tom Coburn – Oklahoma – Fax (202) 224-6008
Head over to FireDogLake for more on this action.
