I'm pretty disappointed at the outcome over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs leadership fight. Denying Lieberman the chair would have been a sign that the Senate Democratic caucus was willing to stand up for itself over the next two years, but instead we were given another sign that the legislative branch no longer matters that much in the United States.
However, given the focus on how this vote means that "the left has been foiled again," I want to push back against the idea that the last two weeks has not somehow been a string of defeats for progressives. There have been setbacks, such as today's Lieberman vote, but there have also been real victories. In the extended entry, I accentuate the positive.
Here are some good things that have happened over the last fourteen days:
The leadership of the U.S. House has moved to the left. At first, I was pretty disappointed with Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff. However, it seems increasingly clear that removing Emanuel from the House has resulted in a net gain for progressive leadership in that chamber. Given that Obama probably would have picked someone in Rahm Emanuel's mold even if he did not select Emanuel himself, this means our choices were either no Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel temporarily serving as Chief of Staff, or Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel clone temporarily serving as Chief of Staff. On net, I will take the former, and I am currently leaning toward the move as a net gain for progressives. If the left was "foiled" again, then I wonder why so many center-right House Democrats are feeling unhappy.
Lieberman did not get off scot-free: Keep in mind that Lieberman was punished, that 13 Senate Democrats voted to punish him even more, and that he probably would have been stripped of his full committee chair entirely were it not for Obama. While what happened wasn't the punishment that Lieberman deserved, I'm with Matt on feeling good about the thirteen independent minded Senate progressives who seem to have emerged. That may not seem like much, but thirteen independently minded, Democratic progressives is actually a lot better off than we were six years ago when Feingold might have been the only one.
1- All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.
2- All U.S. combat forces must withdraw from all cities, towns, and villages as soon as the Iraqi forces take over the full security responsibility in them. The U.S. withdrawal from these areas shall take place no later than June 30th, 2009
As I had hoped, this is indeed a no residual forces agreement. The differentiation between "all U.S. forces" in section one and "all U.S. combat forces" in section two make that clear. The "all forces" and "all combat forces" was a line that most Democratic candidates tried to blur back in 2007. Those following the issue closely were aware that "all forces" actually meant "no residual force" and "all combat forces" meant "residual force." So, this agreement means an end to all residual American military presence in Iraq by December 31st, 2011 at the latest. This is just an utterly massive progressive victory. The key is that it was engineered by the Iraqi government, rather than Democratic Party leadership. This gets to David's point earlier today about how the progressive movement needs to focus on organizing other than as an assistant to the Democratic Party's electoral efforts. Progressive change can happen, as long as we look
Now, I'm not going to argue that everything is all smiles und sunshine. The fifty-state strategy is in real peril, corporate bailouts continue apace, and neither Senate Democrats nor the Obama administration appear poised to be progressive paragons over the next two years. However, even in these areas, the fifty-state strategy might be revived, the bailouts are partly socialist nationalizations and thus quite left-wing, and the new bosses in the White House and the Senate will be a hell of a lot better than what we have had for the last fourteen years. My point is that progress is being made, and all is not lost. We are winning some of these fights so, and at least making progress in others. For crying out loud, we won a major policy fight in Iraq even though it was opposed by the Bush administration, the Democratic congressional leadership, and the incoming Democratic President. If that alone isn't a hopeful sign, I don't know what is.
