Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.
It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.
It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.
It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.
It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.
For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.
Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “[m[aybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.
How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.
So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.”
Source: The Hill
Swarthmoremom,
“I thought the tea party would take us back to the 1950′s but Maureen Dowd says in today’s NYT that we must be careful or they will take us back to the 1750′s.”
I’m sure there are men out there who’d be deliriously happy to return to times when women like us “knew our place.”
😉
The Obama administration made a very bad decision here, but there is an election in about 6 weeks. The tea party take over of Congress is the most urgent problem. I thought the tea party would take us back to the 1950’s but Maureen Dowd says in today’s NYT that we must be careful or they will take us back to the 1750’s.
All but especially Buddah and Kay.
See this Glen Greenwald article, President Obama wants to use state secrets privilege to dismiss suite by the father of Anwar Awliki against the president’s intention to have his son assassinated with no court overview.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
this far surpasses in humor the court room stories by Franz Kafka and Lewis Carrol.
Swarthmoremom,
I REMEMBER how bad things were for women. Back in the mid-sixties, female teachers who were pregnant–and married–were expected to leave the classroom once they began “to show.” At least that’s how it was where I live. I know. It happened to my sister…who left her teaching position when it became obvious that she was pregnant.
Thanks for all your posts, Slarti. All I know is when I watch “Madmen”, I see how bad things were for women in the past not the future. That is if we can keep the tea party out of office.
LK,
Answer your question, I will say why I think either choice leads to the same bad result relates to Citizens United. The Roberts Court pulled the trigger on what semblance government for the people by the people with that case. The Fascism Fix is in. Citizens United is the receipt. Congress could remedy this, but they won’t. Allowing corporations to control the campaign process violates the covenant between the government and the people to be a government to represent the people, not legal fictions. But the career politicians don’t care.
They see poll numbers that tell them both parties are fairly reviled. Do they seem concerned? Nope. Because Company X is going to fund the campaign next cycle.
The DNC has done deliberate damage to our rights by endorsing torture, doing nothing to restore habeas corpus and – most revolting – has in fact expanded upon the GOP power grab by saying “not only can we detain you without due process, we can execute you without due process”. Both parties have blood on their hands.
All the bad lessons of fascism are coming. The Citizens United Waltz has begun. Only the tempo to be set.
Kay,
If you’d payed attention to what I said, I was advocating a single-issue non-ideological meta-party as the only way I can think of to push for CFR. To be successful in the two-party system you need to have a big tent that the moderates can feel comfortable in. The Republicans are sowing the seeds of their own long-term destruction in their quest for ideological purity – unfortunately their short term success will likely prove to be to the detriment of all of us. In answer to your question, I was too young (I was 11 in 1980) and oblivious to have any intelligent opinion on John Anderson’s positions and after I ‘got to know’ Sarah Palin, I volunteered for President Obama (the first time I’ve ever been active politically beyond voting). Everything that I have seen and everything I know makes me believe that for all of President Obama’s faults we are much better off for having elected him over John McCain. Finally, I think that trying to view politics in general black and white terms is short-sighted and inane – we are all shades of grey, congressmen and women run the gamut from mostly corrupt to mostly virtuous and President Obama has done a great deal of good as well as harm. The more progressives that think like you do, the greater chance that we are all screwed – it is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Do you really want to advocate doing nothing?
p.s. Your views on abortion are a microcosm of the arguments you’ve been making here. If the majority of pro-choice people think like you it wont be long before the state is forcing women to bear their rapist’s children…
lottakatz,
I agree money later is a problem, but I think that money now is the bigger problem and also the problem which should be addressed first. Also, I see no way to prevent companies from hiring whoever they want. As an aside, I would note that the Obama administration instituted unprecedented rules about people moving from the administration to lobbying positions and vice versa – credit where credit is due.
re your most recent comment:
There will never be liberal majorities – without the blue dogs the Democrats would be the minority party and no progressive legislation would ever pass. Progressive change requires moving the blue dogs slowly leftward fighting for every inch.
Elaine,
Thanks for the support.
All,
I’m tired and have other things that need my attention for awhile so I’m taking a break from blogging for at least a week or so – see you on the other side…
Swarthmore mom: “The Dallas Morning News is reporting that when the republicans take over in the fall, the Texas republicans will be taking over the powerful committees again. Some are the same people that held them prior to 2006. So how does throwing the bums out (the democrats) and putting Barton back in charge of energy change anything. That is what we need in charge of energy policy – a denier of global warming. Get rid of Nancy Pelosi and put the Texans back in charge. Maybe we don’t have twenty years with regards to the environment.”
———
I don’t think the environment has 20 years before it’s pushed over an edge that’s gong to have dire consequences for everything on earth so fast or slow regarding the US (and China) is moot IMO. Europe has take the lead on the global environment/CO2 and I hope they can do some good.
Barton! Man, we have had some moral and intellectual degenerates in Missouri but they had the courtesy not to wear it like a merit badge. Barton… if only there was a face-palm smiley…
I can only quote from my own first posting on this thread: “…a Democratic Senator is not necessarily a liberal Senator. We don’t need more Republicans in office and we don’t need more Blue Dogs in office. We need more Liberals in office and they need to be voting to craft and pass liberal Democratic legislation.”
(If I were writing that fresh I’d correct some syntax and also leave out the last “Democratic”)
Mike S and Blouise re: sociopathic types rising to power.
I see crazies in the House but sociopaths in the Senate. The House has a greater turnover than the Senate (not by much) and I see the job security of the Senate as a big problem. Also they are co-equals among themselves due to their allocation so they don’t have to form alliances based on reason or compromise, party politics is enough. They are as a group, much more able to just game the entire system than the House is due to the (disproportionate IMO) power they have as a group. (41 people can totally shut down the legislative system. Can, and are. They are also able to hide from their constituents better and for longer. One can see their Representative more easily than their Senator has been my experience. Even if you elect a bad Representative there’s is the possibility that you can get rid of them more quickly than a Senator.
Getting rid of our own House of Lords would be the best step we cold take to move to a more responsive government.
If you were a Democratic delegate, what do you think should be the Democratic plank?
Slarti,
“If Democrats are defeated by Republicans in this election, the most likely conclusion that they will draw is that they need to move to the right to get elected. A quick example: do you think that the election of Scott Brown has caused the Senate (or the Democratic senators) to become more progressive? I don’t.”
Excellent point! I’m with you on this one. Now a lot of Republicans think they need to “make nice” to the Tea Party in hopes of getting elected.
**********
To those who’d like to take the fast train to Hades:
Hello!!!!! Do you really think that Democrats in New York should vote for Carl Paladino…Democrats in Delaware should vote for Christine O’Donnell…Democrats in Nevada should vote for Sharron Angle??????????
Perish the thought!
Yes I believe that laws passed by Congress are not effective when there is judicial corruption. Even if CFR was passed by constitutional amendment implementation and control would depend on the courts.
Are you an Obama supporter? (I was totally wearing an Obama button etc.) If so, do you think that DOJ’s position that a criminal prosecution is not required for DOJ incarceration was Obama’s policy or that Obama didn’t know what his men were doing? Do you think that CFR would produce Democrats who are better than those we already have?
What do you think about the old positions of John B. Anderson?
I would like to say also to Buckeye that I think abortion is a dead issue. The coalition supporting abortion rights is dead. The poor feel that they are pressured to have abortions. The middle and upper class and everyone who works for the feds puts their daughters on birth control pills advertised to control acne and PMS and they don’t even know anyone who ever had problems getting an abortion.
Slarti, in your response to TonyC you said: “As for your argument about the corrupting influence of money now vs. money later, that also fails to pass the smell test. A necessary part of CFR would be to eliminate money poured into lobbying which is corrupting the system, so lucrative lobbying jobs for retired congressmen wouldn’t be available and if you think that the offer of a job sometime in the future is more corrupting than the offer of a pile of money now, then you are seriously confused…”
——–
While I agree with you that a total overhaul of the campaign finance system is needed. I always supported the total public finance model. Ain’t gonna’ happen.
Regarding TnyC’s point though, he is correct about the money later. It’s not just being hired as lobbyists’. It’s joining law firms as window dressing for them, vague consultant positions and sitting on boards of companies- a few meetings a year, signing off on a report or two and doing that for 4,5,6 different companies each paying you a couple hundred K. It’s what the House and Senate members that aren’t independently wealthy do.
I recall when the prescription drug reform was passed a few years ago reading about people in the House (primarily) that were senior staffers that were leaving immediately to take jobs with big pharma and a couple of Representatives that were not going to run for reelection because they had jobs with big pharma waiting and as I recall it, one Representative resigned to work in the private sector immediately. It was amazing. The big money is later. Campaign contributions or other legal gifts add up but are controlled, the private sector money from employment later is not and it’s huge.
Kay,
So you’re saying that no laws passed by Congress can be effective without addressing judicial corruption? You haven’t made any argument as to why there is a linkage between the problem you’ve detailed and CFR. In any case, CFR could be implemented via Constitutional amendment (I’m not saying that this is or isn’t the best way) totally bypassing the judiciary. How would you address the issue that you have detailed? How would this solution solve the problem exacerbated by the Citizen’s United ruling? Everything is not about your personal pet issue – I understand that it is important to you (and important in general) but I think that the principles of triage tell us that campaign finance reform is far more important to address at this point.
Buckeye,
I don’t see how a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts for only the middle class before the election strengthens Tony C’s case in any way – he has failed to provide any valid argument as to how allowing the election of more Republicans will in any way make the Congress more progressive. Tony C’s argument seems to imply that somehow Democratic losses in November should make it more likely that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire for millionaires and for other progressive legislative goals to be achieved.
Dear Ima ass and stupid from abusing my personal vices, (while a paraphrase it’s accurate and probably the same person) Turley blawg has a rule: “no personal attacks” so take it elsewhere troll.
Slartibartfast
I have been reading what you wrote. The only reason I supplied details about my experiences with extra judicial incarceration was to prove it. I don’t see how campaign finance reform can be implemented if the judges take payoffs from insurance companies and incarcerate people who complain about judicial corruption — such as Richard Fine as well as myself. There are lots of good laws that are simply ignored. Such as the reports to OMB required by the Privacy Act which DOJ simply doesn’t file. Who can make DOJ conform with the law if the administration chooses not to?
Kay,
No. Try reading what I said instead of posting lengthy diatribes about your personal experiences – I think that the ability to legally influence politicians via unlimited amounts of money is a far more significant problem and that campaign finance reform will in turn make it much easier to fix other problems.
Tony C
I have a hard time understanding how not voting for Dems this year will keep Reps from getting a veto-proof majority down the road. Please explain.
A veto-proof Republican majority would be almost impossible to reach this year, but to not vote would increase the likelihood of that occuring in later elections if your ploy fails to impress the Democrats.
It might also mean that the Tea Party backed candidates actually will win this year which will threaten not only abortion rights reversals and DADT setbacks, but will ensure that any new Supreme Court justices will be even more right wing than the four now dismantling any insulation between corporations and individuals as far as campaign donations.
Ms. Pelosi is still talking about voting on the tax cuts even if the Senate waffles. If those tax cuts extensions, for the middle class only, don’t happen by election time, then your case is strengthened.
Dear Slartibartfast
So are you claiming that we have extra judicial incarceration because we don’t have campaign finance reform?