I have wondered about when it became common knowledge that we had to "go right" to win. I never paid much attention to that trend, except to be mildly curious.
Then came Iraq, and it really made a lot of us wonder why so many in our party were supporting that invasion. Were they fooled, or were they actually in agreement, complicit.
It wasn't just the war, it was the trade deals, the bankruptcy bill, and for the last couple of years...the FISA mess.
It always ended up with the theme that we were just too liberal, that we did not understand the reality that we had to go along with the right wing to get along. It was always our fault, we were called liberals, activists, fringe. We just did not understand. We actually believed that by standing up for things you believed in you might just win.
This blogger presents a scenario about what was really at stake in 2003 between the think tank consultants in our party, and the rest of us. It is interesting the way he presents it.
The Feud Between the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic National CommitteeSome of the conflict between Dean and the DLC stems from the 2004 campaign. In that campaign Dean was asking a very relevant question: What if the whole Hollywood production that has been titled “America’s Right Turn,” was nothing more than a phantom, a marketing creation, a fad, right up there with Pet Rocks and Cabbage Patch dolls? What if the strategy of the Democratic Party was merely like one of those bad Hollywood sequels, Rocky VIII, Crocodile Dundee Does Kansas City, Superman Redux? What if there was an error on the part of all the pundits who have made American politics a cacophonous squawk like a huge flock of crows descending on a particularly foul and rotting corpse?
What if our party and our country really did not want to be dragged kicking and screaming to the right? Trouble is the media's message was always with those who preached the gospel of moving right.
Dean officially announced his presidential candidacy in June 2003, fully a year ahead of the convention and half a year before the first primaries. In his announcement he threw down a gauntlet to his own party saying, “Most importantly, I have wanted my party to stand up for what we believe in again.” What Howard Dean was trying to tell us was that the rise of the Republican Counterrevolution could be a much more complex and sinister phenomenon that the mere fact that one bright morning in America people had suddenly awakened and decided to become Republicans.
Howard Dean showed that Liberal America still had a pulse, and a pretty strong one at that. All the prescriptions and therapies being advocated by the self-designated care givers such as “slowing down” and “relaxing,” “toning down” the advocacy may in fact be doing the patient more harm than good.
Oh, dear God, do you remember the times they told him to "tone down" his message. He was not even a liberal, and he could see what had happened. We had been hijacked.
After the Democrats won in 2006, you would have thought it was a time for rejoicing, but the DLC-types were determined to poison the water. Former Clinton aide and now-television-commentator James Carville fired a shot at Dean during an election night analysis on CNN. It surprised me that a person for whom numbers represent the main weapons of a well-stocked arsenal should come out shooting without any ammunition other than remarks from some anonymous Republicans (his wife, maybe). After comparing Dean to Donald Rumsfeld (as low a blow as one Democrat can make against another)
The writer, who has written for The NYT Magazine, The Nation, In These Times, and others....has written an extensive article covering several of the problems in the party.
The FISA battle is part of this division in the party in my opinion. I think Pelosi and Reid could have waited until we had a new president. But they did not. This is not a good thing to put Obama through right now, and I think many of us resent what they did. He's being put on the spot by party leaders.
Many of us feel there is a certain amount of CYA involved for the Democrats, and that is tragic. Some of the other instances where they ignored their base were fading into the background in our excitement over our candidate. But that is not how the game is played.
They are changing the law to "conform to past conduct".
TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.
I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.
It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful."
McJoan's diary on FISAWaiting in the wings to once again be sure he is from the "policy shop" of the Democrats....is Al From. He has an op ed in the WSJ advocating free trade. He makes it clear that his group is still relevant and still in control. He says that with just a few minor tweaks to social programs we will all be able to love free trade as much as he does.
Confessions of a Pro-Trade DemocratThere is no doubt that many Democrats worry about reducing trade barriers. That is at least in part because the Bush administration has given trade a bad name by repeatedly resisting efforts to strengthen the guarantees of health insurance, job training, placement and portable pensions that can help workers cope with change. Under such circumstances, many hard-working Americans who are nervous about their economic futures are understandably wary of additional competition.
But globalization is here to stay. We need to respond with American ingenuity and optimism, rather than fear. Our biggest economic challenge is to create a path toward opportunity and mobility in the global economy. We need to build on the success of our exporters, and find a strategy that helps U.S. workers and businesses beat our competitors. The next president also needs to forge a new social contract that deals with the anxieties that often make middle-class families resistant to trade.
With such new policies in place, hopefully Democrats will welcome low tariffs and open trade. Once middle-class anxieties are addressed, most people will come to accept that our country is better off with an open economy. We need trade agreements that share the benefits across the economic spectrum, and also include sensible labor and environmental standards.
This group with Al From as boss was a
leading advocate of the Iraq invasion. They are not going to be willing to give up the "right turn" they have made.
The FISA bill will pass as is. There is going to be a confrontation about Iran before long.
Just think about it. What if it was all hype about that "right turn"? They managed to get us into one tragic war, and if indications are right...the powers that be might go along with another.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
