We previously discussed the disconnect between Democratic leaders and liberal voters in the increasing complaints of leaders like Vice President Biden over Democratic “lethargy.” Democrats in Washington once again seemed shocked that voters are not eager to fight for their retention. Now, Biden has added the helpful advice to Democratic voters to “stop whining” about things that they did not get in Washington and to “buck up.”
The “buck up” comment was meant as an improvement over the “whining” comment. It turned out that “whining” was not greeted by voters as an improvement over “lethargy.”
Here is the latest statement:
“And so those who don’t get — didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better, continue to move forward and — but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything that we stand for in terms of the initiatives we put forward.”
By “everything [we] wanted,” I assume Biden is including the fulfillment of our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute war crimes such as torture — which the Administration blocked.
I assume it includes removing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which the Administration is trying to preserve by asking a court not to impose a national injunction freezing the policy.
I assume it includes allowing dozens of privacy lawsuits to go forward against companies, which the Administration blocked despite evidence of unlawful surveillance by the Bush Administration.
I assume it includes allowing torture victims to seek review in federal court, which the Administration has successfully blocked.
I assume it includes protecting pristine areas along the East Coast from drilling, which the Administration has fought to open up for development even after the BP accident.
I assume it includes reducing the faith-based programs of the Bush Administration which raised concerns over the separation of church and state, which Obama expanded.
Well, it includes a lot of things that democratic and independent voters wanted. What they got was a Democratic majority saw power as the end to itself rather than the means to fight for principle. For civil libertarians, “those folks who are against everything that we stand” include the Obama Administration which has been a perfect nightmare in the adoption and expansion of Bush policies.
Yet, Biden wants civil libertarians, environmentalists, and liberals to stop whining and buck up. The Administration made a cynical calculation that liberals and civil libertarians and environmentalists have no where to go and that they have to support the Democrats regardless of these obnoxious policies. Now, they are simply shocked that voters are not enthusiastic about their continuing in power.
The Democratic leadership has conveyed that the only principle that they are committed to is their retention of power. All other principles — torture, the environment, privacy, free speech — are immaterial to that one overriding goal. They just do not understand why everyone does not see it that way.
Well, I am one of those whining, lethargic voters and I cannot get myself to buck up to support leaders who turned their back on such core values. Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than “we are not as bad as those guys.” The problem for voters is that, by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they cynical calculation by the White House was correct. There is no reason why Democrats should fulfill their commitments in these areas if voters do not hold them accountable. I know some on this blog may disagree, but I personally think I will stick with the whining for now.
Source: Real Clear Politics
@Byron: Congratulations. Sounds like they dodged a bullet. Although I am certain I had nothing to do with their education, because I do not teach, I am pretty certain people LIKE me did. Don’t give providence credit, you should be thanking those public school teachers professors that got through to them and taught them something despite your best efforts. But then, I can’t expect you to be thankful for any public servant just doing their job, you are too busy resenting them for it.
Tony,
If Republicans gain control of Congress, I believe they’ll view that as vindication for their behavior. I doubt it will matter to them HOW that goal was accomplished. Do I want to send a message to Democrats? Sure! But I want to send an even more urgent message to Republicans.
I think some Democrats are as willing to screw us just as much as the Republicans. I happen to believe there are MORE Republicans willing to screw us. My fear is not baseless.
Taibbi wrote about the time he spent following Bernie Sanders around when he was a member of the House in one of his books. It was definitely an eye-opening look at how Congress really works–and at what Republicans did when they had power. I really don’t want to have the Republicans put back in charge of the Rules Committee again.
I quote from Taibbi’s book “Smells Like Dead Elephants.”
Excerpt from the chapter “Four Amendments and a Funeral: A month inside the house of horrors that is Congress:
“The House Rules Committee is perhaps the free world’s outstanding bureaucratic abomination–a tiny airless closet deep in the labyrinth of the Capitol where some of the very meanest people on earth spend their days cleaning democracy like a fish. The official function of the committee is to decide which bills and amendments will be voted on by Congress and also schedule parameters of debate. If Rules votes against your amendment, your amendment dies. If you control the Rules Committee, you rule Congress.”
To be sure, we have a President who can veto a bill. Still, unlike you, I’m not ready to suggest I think it’s okay if the GOP gains control of Congress. I can’t imagine Republicans writing bills that will benefit people like me or unemployed individuals who have exhausted their unemployment insurance.
“I think you are being unfair to Glen Greenwald”
Carlyle,
Let’s agree to disagree on this.
Byron,
You fallen back under the “Randian” spell, but you are a good guy and I like you despite your illusory grasp of economic and political reality. As for your daughter being well educated, able to hunt and encouraged to make her own way in the world, you don’t seem to realize how that separates you from most of your fellow travellers and makes you the good man you are.
“@Swarthmore: That is a lie, I do not think the Tea party can take over and privatize, I do not think that is possible in reality.”
Tony C.,
Did you think it possible prior to Bush that many of the constitutional protections we have would be thrown out the window? Privatization has already pretty much happened with Para-Military Corporations providing security in the war zones and elsewhere, with corporations taking over highways throughout the country, with the institution of for-profit schools. I could name examples all day and I must say that your protesting that it can’t happen reflects an optimism that has little to do with reality.
Tony C:
I sent my children to public schools and paid attention to what they were doing so I did influence them and apparently positively. One is graduating next May with 2 majors, physics and Spanish. the other is doing a major in economics and a minor in math [a young lady for all your probable thinking conservatives teach our women how to be barefoot and pregnant. Guess what we don’t, we teach them how to fend for themselves and be productive members of society. My daughter is a meat eater and she knows how to kill what she eats both literally and figuratively].
I think they understand reality pretty well you twit. Thank providence that you and people like you had no hand in their education, they surely would have ended up on the skid row of intellectual capacity.
SM:
“Delay and Schafly are out rallying the troops.”
God save us all. At least from Tom Delay, I dont know very much about Schafly.
@Elaine: I won’t for any Republicans, don’t worry. Voting for them sends a message of approval. Just because I punish one criminal (Democrats by withholding my vote) does not send other criminals the message that I endorse their activities. Voting for DEMOCRATS sends them a message that you DO approve of their tactics. I don’t understand why you would, other than a baseless fear of what the big nasty Republicans might do. But clearly, if you read Taibbi, Democrats are just as likely to screw us as Republicans.
Elaine Did you read what I posted? Delay and Schafly are out rallying the troops. DeLay has much to gain when the conservative Texans take back the house committees.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2946015117.html Phyllis Schafly and Tom DeLay think there is a difference between democrats and republicans and they are urging christians to S.T.O.P. Obama and vote republican.
Tony,
In an earlier comment, I stated that I didn’t know if I would vote for Obama in 2012–if he runs again. There are definitely Democrats I would NOT vote for if they were running in my district/state–someone like Thomas Dodd…for instance.
I happen to think the current Republican are a reprehensible group…much worse than the Democrats. I’d hate to send Republicans the message that voters approve of their tactics and what they’ve been doing. I don’t want to see the Republicans rewarded.
@Byron: Schools don’t proselytize children; they teach them settled science, meaning what virtually every academically published, peer-reviewed expert on a topic agrees upon.
If it doesn’t match your belief system, you are welcome to ruin your child’s ability to think by having them parrot you and never think for themselves; it is your right as a parent.
What is taught children is our best approximation to reality, not a faith or belief system like religion. If reality conflicts with your beliefs, that is your problem, and you are welcome to forego your right to use a public school and home school your children.
Just like you are welcome to forego your right to report a crime and just suffer the loss. That doesn’t keep you from having to pay your fair share for law enforcement, because even if YOU don’t report crimes against you, you still benefit from law enforcement in prosecuting OTHER crimes. They convict and jail criminals that if let loose or not monitored would run rampant and victimize you (and everybody else, if they could just get away with it).
The same thing goes for schools. The fact that the majority of the populace is educated and the majority of the populace has a rough idea of how reality actually works, that is a benefit to you by creating a more productive and expert society you (and all of us) can exploit, even if you personally choose to live in a fantasy world.
You may be too short-sighted to **comprehend** that benefit, but it exists, and it takes money to make it happen, and you can’t be a freeloader just by stubborn refusal to recognize it.
Tony C The republicans will take over the house and possibly the Senate and maybe the presidency next time and they certainly will privatize as much as they can. It is their goal. They are having a right wing revolution. You really think the courts offer that much protection. You are a tea party enabler and a hater of democrats. I am a registered democrat so I assume you want to punish me by repealing the health care bill. It does help some people by outlawing denial of benefits for those with pre-existing conditions. Some democrats might not by on our side but all the republicans are against us.
@Elaine:
Actually I think I missed that, but I just read it from your link. I was out of the country in August on academic business. I had read several articles similar to that, and wrote here off the top of my head, but as usual Taibbi presents it more clearly and brilliantly.
What I want to know is this: After reading that article, how can you possibly believe that Democrats are on your side? How can you possibly believe that Obama is anything but a fake populist?
And more importantly, how can you possibly believe that a newbie to the House or Senate could ever get anything they wanted without the White House AND Democratic leaders AND Republican leaders behind them? Can you not see, after reading this article, they would be powerless?
This article just reaffirms my commitment to punish Democrats for these crimes, and their crimes against the health care bill, and their crimes against civil rights. They are all of a cloth, this place is filled with con-men.
I sincerely do not understand how you or anybody can read this stuff and still say, “I am voting for that man, I will vote for him to retain power.”
I would rather have a stalemate.
@Swarthmore: That is a lie, I do not think the Tea party can take over and privatize, I do not think that is possible in reality. If they get into office they will be powerless, and they do not have magical powers to change the Constitution. Nothing will be privatized unless the White House and both Houses agree to it wholeheartedly, and if you think THAT is a risk, then there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and the Tea Party, is there?
Swarthmore Mom:
I sold all my stock in 2009 and have no intention of getting back in for the foreseeable future. I had been buying gold up until about 2008 but have stopped that as well. I think this is the time to be investing in real estate particularly vacation properties. I wish I could afford one, they are almost free what with the 4% interest rate and the low demand.
The markets are full of uncertainty and people are making money but I doubt you would call them investors. I don’t have the stomach for gambling. We are also going into October which is historically a rather volatile month. Probably more so this year with the election and all of the uncertainty that is causing.
Anyway just some random thoughts/opinions to be taken with a grain of salt.
Elaine:
Yes I think public schools ought to be privatized, I believe there is a philosophical reason to do so or maybe you would call it a reason of principle. Namely the many competing and divergent philosophies held by numerous individuals. Public schools basically are vanilla and teach the minimum required skills as determined by faceless bureaucrats at the state and federal level [my wife is a teacher].
I personally believe a free market in education would give more choices to parents. I would want to send my children to a school that taught western philosophy and was heavy in the sciences and math. Someone else might want to send their child to a school that taught math and Zen with art history. In other words you as an individual would have the ability to determine what and how your children learned.
I imagine that the best teachers could, in a system like that, command higher compensation than they now receive. From your posts here I am fairly certain you would be one of the teachers who would benefit from a private system.
Byron Are you buying stocks? It looks like a good opportunity. The market has been going up. Economic conditions are improving and republicans are taking over the house and possibly the senate. It looks like a good opportunity. Congress will be more favorable to the corporationns and they can cut those pesky social programs, right?
Byron,
“But don’t you think that if college were private that alumni would give more money to their school and so the individual schools would be the ones providing financial aid rather than government?”
Hell no!!! I’m not an idealist–I’m a realist. I remember how well that “trickle down” theory worked for our society.
*****
Do you REALLY believe that we shouldn’t have publicly funded elementary, middle, and high schools?
Elaine:
I think public funding of higher education has increased the cost of a college education. I paid for mine and was able to afford a public university and so I would say I have benefited greatly from that ability. And yes I know it was subsidized by tax payers, but they have been repaid for their generosity. But don’t you think that if college were private that alumni would give more money to their school and so the individual schools would be the ones providing financial aid rather than government?
Anyway, I understand that some things need to be paid for in a society by everyone. Roads are certainly an example of that. Many things can be privatized. I imagine public colleges and universities could be as well.
Byron,
What about Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “Farenheit 451?” I read “1984” decades ago so it’s not fresh in my mind–but I don’t recall it being about a “progressive” society. Maybe we view the term progressive in a different light.
http://medilldev.net/2010/09/senate-committee-hearing-on-for-profit-education-accused-of-being-unbalanced/ Republicans come down on the side of unregulated for profit schools.