Contrary to the feeling many of you seem to have, the Democrats can be back on top by Spring if they simply say NO. This Repug Dynasty can be cut quite short simply by saying NO to everything that they want and making them compromise to the Democratic side. For all of the hoopla about Repugs gaining control, it must be remembered that the Repugs only gained control of one chamber. Some of you will say that they gained control of the purse strings and that that is important. Yes it is, but it's also the source of their greatest weakness.
The intensity is ratcheting ever higher as we move toward the final stages of the health care fight. It's been a good week for reformers overall. Pelosi and Reid are both whipping for strong bills, including a very strong public option (in the House) or a respectable public option (in the Senate). Progress is being made on other key components of the package including the affordability issue. Even traditional media sources like The Washington Post and the New York Times are waking up to the fact that even though they have been declaring health care reform on life support and the public option dead for six months, something decent might actually pass.
The only down moment of the week has been the confusion caused by the White House on the Senate strategy. This whole muddled are-they-or-aren't-they backing Harry Reid or backing Snowe's trigger-designed-not-to-trigger mess was just a poorly handled distraction. I mean, look, anyone who has been in DC longer than a week knows that if you have a meeting at the White House with more than five people in it, that certain folks with their own agenda will start leaking stuff to the media, so whatever the intent of all that was, it was bound to undermine Reid and our overall momentum. The White House is now on the record denying that was their intent, and folks there have sworn to me they are backing Reid to the hilt, so I believe them and that's all good, but it was still a mess.
I think we're still moving forward, though. The next few days will tell us what kind of deals can be cut, but no matter what, I think the strategy for progressives remains the same as it has been from the beginning of this fight (more in the extended entry):
I have a thought to add on what I think is an important broader point to Darcy's post last night on the lack of opportunity for bipartisanship.
The point for me is what happens when you pursue this game anyway. In every election, Democratic Party institutional structures (principally the party committees and, if a Democrat is President, the White House) target vulnerable Republicans, many of whom are moderates. Think DeWine-Brown, Chafee-Whitehouse, Talent-McCaskill, Collins-Allen, Sununu-Shaheen, Smith-Merkley. If Specter had not switched, he would have a big bulls-eye on his back, too. They also target moderates and drive them into retirement with the threat of a strong challenger-see Warner, John. They also target open seats where voters may have elected moderate Republicans- there are places, for example, where moderate Republicans decide not to run because they are facing a high-profile, highly-recruited Democrat who will mop the floor with them.
Targeting resources in this way keeps moderates out of the House and Senate and decreases opportunities for bipartisanship. Yet the White House keeps insisting on bipartisanship, and we find ourselves in a no-win scenario. If this were 2002, the Republicans looking at our side across the negotiating table probably would have been Chafee, Snowe, Collins (at least initially), Specter, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and maybe DeWine or Voinovich. Instead, we're dealing with Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe. Why? Because we kicked out all the rest (and tried to beat Collins with Tom Allen). That is a major ideological shift. When you have this going on, and the White House keeps pursuing bipartisanship, it is self-defeating. Instead of compromising with a Lincoln Chafee, you find yourself compromising with a John McCain. If you beat McCain, you find yourself at the table with a Saxby Chambliss. And so forth.
The positive result of this is that you eventually find yourself with such a hard-right, "party of no" Senator, like Kyl or someone, that won't even come to the table, and Obama can do his "well, I reached out and tried" shtick and then muscle something through. I don't care as much about window dressing bipartisanship, like Obama doing that shtick or holding inauguration dinners for "my dear friend Sen. McCain", so whatever. But my concern is that Obama's philosophy does not line up with the "muscle something through" way of doing things, and that he will diddle around for months and try and move to the right, chasing whichever Senator he has to deal with further and further to the right to get to their position instead of telling them to fuck off. That's where you find the negative result. My point to add onto Darcy's post is that the blind pursuit of bipartisanship becomes a dangerous game where you both waste the nation's time at the negotiating table and/or you end up with a bill so devoid of progressive principles it's not worth doing anything on.
This whole set-up reminds me of the prophecy in the Harry Potter series- "neither can live while the other survives." You can't have (a) a strategy of targeting moderates (b) an insistence upon bipartisanship, and (c) a willingness to drag things on/not muscle legislation when you can't get bipartisanship, all at the same time. Something has to give. The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders have to pick and choose, and for our country's sake, I hope they give up this blind pursuit of bipartisanship.
Those who support Progressive causes are in an odd position these days: we're often in the majority on issues that matter; and we're seriously talking about how to turn what, just a few years ago, was a wish list...into a "reality list".
Staying in the majority, however, requires the assistance of centrist voters--and that means, from time to time, finding philosophical compromise with voters we'd like to keep "in the fold".
In years past, the issue of the death penalty has created a considerable chasm between Progressives and centrists; with the one side concerned about the misapplication of capital punishment, and the other convinced that, for the most heinous of crimes, the only way to achieve a truly just outcome is for the guilty party to face the most severe of punishments.
What if we could bridge that gap?
In today's discussion we propose to do exactly that: to create a death penalty process that only executes those who are truly guilty and excludes those who might not deserve to be put to death...in fact, those who might not be guilty of any crime at all.
One of the most important labor-based organizations in Washington. D.C. is American Rights at Work (araw.org). ARAW publicizes abuses of workers' rights and mobilizes pro-union citizens in support of the Employee Free Choice Act and similar pro-worker initiatives. Much of the time they report on employer misbehavior. However, ARAW also identifies employers who choose to bargain in good faith with their workers (the Labor Day List).
Unfortunately, businesses often lurch from one strategy to another. One cannot be sure that an employer with decent labor practices today will not make an abrupt turn tomorrow. Some union militants might criticize the Labor Day List because they find compliments to employers unacceptable.
The Labor Day List is not a blank check to big business. It is an effort to demonstrate that collective bargaining can contribute to organizational health and effectiveness. ARAW's strategy is designed to build the unionized sector of the economy and change the landscape for workers.
Perhaps this will seem a big jump in my argument, but I want to suggest that Barack Obama is pursuing a parallel strategy when he embraces Colin Powell and Warren Buffett. He is not adopting the Powell or Buffett agenda. He is seeking to build a political coalition and win a minimum agenda. Powell and Buffet add to his political constituency. They make enhance his mandate.
The minimum agenda is not my agenda. It is merely the beginning of what I want done in a new Administration. Buffett may or may not care about the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ultimately have to go beyond the politics Buffett and Powell embody to improve the living standards and security of the majority of Americans.
We're all tired of capitulation. We all think offshore drilling is pretty darn evil. But are we willing to give up a crack at something we need for the hubris of those reasons?
Let's talk about the New Energy Reform Act of 2008. If you haven't been paying attention, that's the name of the proposed energy bill sponsored by the "Group of 10" Senators in order to address all those concerns everyone has about energy. There are certainly a good bushel of bad apple policies in the bill, but some pretty awesome oranges in there too that might make the bill worthwhile. Let's take a look at both, plus some context, in the extended entry.
After 9/11 George W. Bush put the country on a permanent war footing and created a new role for himself--The Decider. In so doing he revitalized his presidency and greatly expanded and solidified his political base. His most rabid supporters now saw little difference between Osama bin Laden and Harry Reid. They were both enemies of Bush and needed to be defeated by any means necessary. In this domestic war confrontation was unavoidable and to be welcomed. His base demanded it, and Bush was happy to oblige. It was the source of his power.
In the wreckage of the Bush presidency Barack Obama has pursued a different means of obtaining power. He would end the political wars and declare himself The Uniter. In this role confrontation is his enemy and must be avoided. (This does not apply in Obama's current struggle with Hillary Clinton because she is seen as a Divider. She and her supporters just don't get it. Once they are disposed of, Obama can begin bringing us together.)
President Obama will be under tremendous pressure from his base to fulfill his role as a uniter. They trust him to worry about the details and are unlikely to push him in any particular direction. On policy Obama's path of least resistance will be to the right. Confrontation will sap his power. (The media will also provide a check on Obama's liberal impulses. For them Republican rule is the natural order of things. Democrats must be bipartisan.)
Premeditated capitulation will likely be the legislative strategy of the Obama administration. This helps account for Obama's disturbing language on health care and Social Security.
1. Knowing that the new President will be more center than left, and that the Democratic leadership will likely be the same in the next Congress as it is now, it is likely that progressives will be asked to live with the same kind of co-existence deal with DLC types that we had in the 1990s. How do we respond to such a deal?
2. What would the nature of such a deal look like? What would we oppose no matter what, demand that we get no matter what, agree to negotiate on?
3. Given the dispersed and democratic nature of the online movement, where it is up to everybody to decide for themselves what they will and won't support, is this kind of traditional "deal"- the kind of deal that traditional groups and power brokers might agree to- even possible? Or desirable? Or is it better to think in terms of each blogger, each online activist, making their own decisions on what to support or oppose on each issues, and not even getting into the insider-y world of negotiations and deal-making.
4. What would "a deal" look like prior to the 2008 election? Once a nominee is picked, what role do online activists want to play in helping that nominee win? How important is it that online activists work to hold the Democratic nominee accountable, and push them to move the right way on issues, during the general election campaign?
5. Given the fundamentally different nature of the netroots vs. more traditional styled organizations, do you have ideas about how to make sure online activists' views are really heard?
STATE BLOGS
