I realize that I need to provide a lot more context to the pessimism of my previous post. So, in the extended entry, I provide a quick timeline of recent major political events since the Democratic takeover of Congress, and explain how the progressive movement is in serious jeopardy in 2008 unless we can reverse the current trends of the debate on the Iraq war:
Now that Congress has a record low approval rating, it is important to remember how we were all told this time last year that the 2006 midterm elections were a victory for conservatives, and a defeat for progressives. Prominent conservatives, Republicans and other media figures all declared last year's election as a great victory for conservatives. Here are just some relevant quotes to demonstrate this, starting with Laura Ingraham, October 30, 2006:
[A]ll these Democrats are running fairly conservative campaigns…. Ronald Reagan is up there smiling down on us right now saying that, all things considered, conservatism isn't doing so bad.
William Bennett echoed Ingraham, asserting that "Democrats have an advantage" because they have recruited candidates in competitive districts "who, except for the 'D,' you would think are conservative Republicans."
Look at blue dog conservative Dem victories, and look at Northeast liberal GOP defeats. The changeover in the House may well be a conservative victory, not a liberal one.
But despite the new House leaders, White House officials are not writing off the chamber as a bastion of liberalism, Snow said, adding that Bush believes the chamber will actually mirror his thinking on issues -- and perhaps even reject Pelosi's on occasion.
"Three dozen blue dogs have voted against her on various issues," Snow said, using a nickname for conservative Democrats. "And it's the conservative Democrats who made real gains."
"[L]iberalism didn't win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found other than on the Democrat [sic] side of the aisle."
CARLSON: [S]he [Pelosi] was one of the architects of this midterm election strategy, in which you saw a lot of genuinely -- or some genuinely conservative Democrats. Heath Shuler -- I mean, that guy's more conservative than most Republicans in the House.
****
Never forget that we were told after last year's elections that the actual victory was for conservatives and conservatism. I remember fighting against that narrative at the time, but it is growing more and more difficult to not see that narrative as accurate. A working conservative majority in firmly in place where filibusters and vetoes and be used indefinitely by the Republican minority and Bush until enough conservative Democrats break ranks and pass conservative legislation on virtually everything. Republicans were broadly defeated by progressive messaging on Iraq withdrawal, economic inequality and corruption, but a combination of Bush staying in office, a sizable Republican congressional majority after the 2004 elections, and intentionally conservative recruiting by Rahm Emanuel in several House districts allowed conservatives to stay in power nonetheless.
Conservatives and Republicans claimed this Congress was conservative, and the working conservative majority bears them out. I say we let them have it. If Republicans and conservatives make any complaints about the way Congress is operating, let's just point out that they claimed in was a conservative Congress last year. Record low approval ratings demonstrate that America doesn't like this conservative majority anymore than they liked the previous conservative majority, after all. This is especially since the same liberal leadership that conservatives and Republicans keep complaining about actually appear to be proposing things that the majority of the country would like to see passed into law:
"Do you think the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?"
Right direction 50%--39% Wrong Direction
America is tired of conservatives being in charge. They want progressives for a change.
This poll on college football, taken last year, reminds me of the conservative working majority in D.C. when it comes to Iraq, S-Chip, FISA, and pretty much any issue:
When asked about the best way to decide the national champion in college football, fans showed a strong preference for a playoff tournament. When given three options, 69% favored "a playoff tournament involving the top 4, 8, or 16 teams that would replace the bowl games." Just 15% say they favor "the current system, where the top two teams at the end of the regular season meet in one of the bowl games," and 16% favor the compromise "plus-one" system that would involve "a one-game playoff between the top two teams after all the bowl games have been played."
So, a supermajority of college football fans favor a playoff tournament, but the college football powers that be continue to resist one. I am not entirely sure why this is the case, but in all likelihood it has something to do with money, college presidents, large alumni donors, and the conference based caste system in college sports. Like with the conservative working majority, the will of the vast majority of the population is thwarted in favor of the interests of a small elite. And since college football fans keep coming back in record numbers anyway, maybe that small elite is right to assume that they can get away with it.
I wonder, where else other analogues can be found for the conservative working majority's opposition to the overwhelming will of the population? I am sure that this si something we can see mirrored in many other aspects of our culture apart from college football. Also, it seems possible to be that American Idol is actually an opposite phenomenon, whereby the popular choice often emerges victorious over the more critically acclaimed choice (I actually have no idea if this has ever happened, but I'm throwing it out as a possibility). What other areas of our culture are responsive to the interests of a powerful elite at the expense of mass public opinion? What are the more democratic areas of our mass culture? Even though I will be traveling most of the day, I think compiling a list along these lines would be a useful thought experiment for a Sunday afternoon.
Republicans approve of a Democratic controlled Congress significantly more than do either Democrats or Independents. Really, it makes sense, since the conservative governing majority in Washington has not been stopped by Democratic control of Congress. FISA was passed into law. The Iraq war has escalated, without any conditions being attached to it. Liberal political speech is condemned on the floor of the Senate. Republican filibusters are at a record high blocking everything in sight, and when that fails there is still Bush's veto to whip Congress into line. Effectively, Washington is still governing to the benefit of Republicans, and to the disgust of Democrats and Independents.
You know, I have to admit, that outside of the residual forces disaster, Hillary Clinton is rapidly moving up in my rankings of Democratic candidates for President. Say whatever else you want about the Clintons, but they don't take bullshit Republican attacks lying down or cowering in a corner. And if there is one thing I can't stand right now it is Democrats who won't stand up for themselves, who stab their allies in the back in order to appeal to D.C. elites and Republicans, and then ask us to keep fighting for them. At least Clinton fights back, and hard, whenever attacks are directed her way. That is a big plus in my book.
Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.
He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."
Though he said he is likely to approve the increased request -- it would accompany a pending request for an additional $147 billion in war funding -- Durbin said he would work to attach conditions to it that would require troops to begin coming home in the spring.
Now, in a number of instances here, the reporter for the Chicago Tribune puts words in Durbin's mouth rather than actually quoting Durbin. However, the words that are being put in Durbin's mouth are not entirely inaccurate. The Democratic strategy, in both the House and the Senate, has always been to pass whatever supplemental appropriations bills for Iraq that Bush requests, at least in terms of the amount of money he requests. Rather than deny funding altogether, the strategy is instead to attach conditions to the money that is appropriated. These conditions include, but have not been limited to, troop readiness standards, withdrawal timelines, and benchmarks for the Iraqi government. This is even the strategy of the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses, who have argued that funds should be approved, but that they should only be approved on the condition that they are used for a fully funded withdrawal. The problem with this strategy is that there is a working conservative majority in Washington, D.C. that opposes any conditions begin attached to Iraq funding. So, by making it clear from the start that they intend to appropriate the money, all that the working conservative majority needs to keep doing is have Bush veto those conditions, and then uphold the veto, until enough Democrats cave and allow another blank check on Iraq to pass.
Democrats have no intention of denying funding for Iraq. Instead, they want to use funding to end the war. However, as long as Bush remains in office, and the Bush Dogs remain unmoved, the working conservative majority has the votes to do this indefinitely. If Congress is ever going to engage in a real showdown with Bush over Iraq, then we need 218 members who would rather that the war not be funded at all than for the war to be funded without any conditions attached to it. Right now, we are nowhere near 218 votes on that front. Back in May, fully 86 Democrats voted against even going for a second round against Bush, with only two Republicans defecting to the anti-war side. That means we need to swing at least 70 votes to prolong the fight this time. Note that I said "prolong" the fight, rather than win it. Even if we get 70 votes to force Bush into a third round this time, there is still no guarantee any conditions will be applied to the funding.
The money will almost certainly be appropriated, and another 1.5% of our gross national income will be sent to Iraq. We sent along another 0.7% back in May, and the DoD appropriations bill sent another 3.5% indirectly to Iraq. That makes a running total 5.7% of our gross national income spent on Iraq and the military so far this year. This is simply not sustainable. Among other things, the Soviet Empire's war in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Empire. The longer we keep sending 5-6% of our national income down the Iraq sinkhole, the more likely it becomes for the Iraq war to destroy us. We need to get these votes, but it is a task I am not particularly optimistic about at this time. Another blank check it probably on the way. Perhaps a better strategy is to figure out how, in 2008, to punish those who allowed it to happen, and end the working conservative majority.
BLACKSTONE SPENDS big on lobbyists, as Democrats waver on investment-fund taxes.
The private-equity firm paid $3.7 million for lobbying in the first half of this year - 15 times what it paid in all of last year. About half represents bills owed from 2006, representatives say. Democrats weigh doubts about proposals to raise taxes on private equity and hedge funds. Conservative "Blue Dogs" form task force to decide; black caucus members argue funds benefit inner cities...
BET founder Bob Johnson, who has started hedge and equity funds, tells Rep. Rangel a hike would hurt urban areas.
This collaboration, of corrupt white Blue Dog and corrupt CBC members, is part of the working conservative majority we're dealing with. This bitter pill with hedge funds is one example, but the basic pattern is the same.
STATE BLOGS
