|
(November
1, 2005) They came so close to winning the last two
presidential elections – and probably actually
won them both but didn’t fight for them as if
it mattered.
They’ve
shown what they can do to stop the corporate-controlled
government takeover of the country when they stood strong,
united, and on message against social security privatization.
They have
a DNC chairman who can speak a clear message that gains
the attention of Americans who long for plain speaking
again.
They have
a solid progressive base of grassroots support with
which polls say the national leadership is out of touch.
They have
the opportunity to oppose a President whose public approval
rating is hovering around an incredibly low 35%.
Yet
the Democrats aren’t seizing the day.
They look as if they’re just hoping the Republican’s
“culture of corruption,” as House Minority
Leader leader Nancy Polosi labels it, will bring Republicans
down on its own. They seem to be doing little to aid
it or to craft an alternative. It’s as if they’re
hiding.
So, why
do Democratic leaders look as if they’re playing
dead on issue after issue and presidential appointment
after appointment? Are they really dead inside, just
holding on like a dieing person on life-support, every
so often letting out some sound and then falling back
unconscious?
The right-wing
program continues to regressively change everything
we’ve traditionally valued. Out of touch with
the rest of the world, it amounts to a reverse Robin
Hood economic agenda in fundamentalist Christian guise.
Bush’s
two Supreme Court nominees are evidence of both the
cynical right-wing attitude toward the American people
and the Rove White House’s well-honed ability
to marginalize Democratic effectiveness.
Observing
how the Democrats caved in, backed off, tried to excuse
their cow-towing, and voted for the Roberts appointment,
they are convinced that the second appointment could
be an old White House crony who claimed Bush was the
“most brilliant man she’s every met.”
They were confident they could weather any temporary
fuss the Democrats would raise.
They knew
that the Democrats would be disorganized with milk-toast
leaders, and would eventually cave in. They could easily
portray whatever objections the Democrats temporarily
made as merely a tempest in a teapot.
It was the
right-wing that objected to Miers’ nomination.
Unlike the Democrats, the radical right-wing doesn’t
compromise, settle, or play dead. They value their position
and those who support them enough to even take on their
own President.
For them,
it’s not enough that Miers is conservative, another
stealth far right candidate. They want an outspoken
Scalia-type fighter, someone who’ll aggressively
promote and defend their agenda.
In contrast,
Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid couldn’t wait
an hour to endorse Miers and even announce that he’d
recommended her. Other Democratic leaders seemed already
to concede rather than shaping the debate to come.
Where was
a response like: “We don’t know much about
Miers except that she’s another friend of the
President. The American people expect us to make sure
she’s not the Supreme Court equivalent of FEMA’s
Michael Brown.”
While the
Democratic leadership said what the White House wanted
to hear, the right-wing spoke clearly. William Kristol,
editor of the Weekly Standard, in an October 4th column
called Miers’ appointment a “combination
of cronyism and capitulation.”
What’s
wrong with Democratic leadership that they
won’t wake up and take back the debate? I’ve
been puzzled about their timidity, but frankly I think
it’s a combination of the following.
1) They’re
safely above the consequences of the right-wing’s
agenda. They’re rich with as much investment
in the corporations that benefit from that agenda as
the Republicans. They personally benefit from the right-wing
tax cuts that many of them supported.
They’re
not the people who were up to their necks in sewerage
in New Orleans, whose votes weren’t counted in
Florida and Ohio, or who are losing the safety net that
compassionate government provided and Bill Clinton helped
dismantle by signing such acts as the Republican “Welfare
Reform” bill.
2) They
can speak from a position of upper-class, mostly
white, privilege. They can discuss how to deal
with the rest of us without feeling the consequences
of the “compromises” they support. They
can complain about the “horrors” of what
the Bush administration is doing but go home every night
to expensive suburban homes and fine dining.
3) As a
part of this privilege, they position themselves like
ladies and gentlemen. They need to look nice.
They don’t want to look like those right-wingers
who speak candidly, even with meanness.
So, they
don’t speak consistently as if something matters
to them, as if something will affect them. They’re
objectively above the fray, civilized, and thus out
of touch.
4) They’re
afraid to be demonized by people who
already don’t like them. They want to be loved.
Bill Clinton is certainly a prime example. I suppose
it’s no more than most of us want, but they do
it at the expense of the country.
5) They’re
full of liberal guilt. Knowing how
badly the poor and minorities have been treated in the
past, they don’t want to offend anyone at all,
not even those right-wingers who offend the poor and
minorities.
6) They
want to stay in office, increase their congressional
pensions, and maintain the prestigious adoration of
the offices they do hold.
7) They
value being in office more than anything else.
They think that just holding their place is important.
This all
suits the right-wing just fine. Why should the right-wing
care if Democrats keep their political positions as
long as they continue not to be an effective roadblock
to the right-wing’s agenda?
And
then we don’t demand any better. We think
it’s the best we can do.
© The Fairness Project, November
1, 2005.
May be reprinted in full with full credit and notification
of The Fairness Project.
|
