Planning for the future
It's been a relatively easy time to be a Democrat in America, if not substantially (we've failed to stop the President from doing any number of terrible things), then at least rhetorically and ideally. Bush is so bad and his poll numbers so low that one's political convictions need only require a gesture in the direction of the numbers. Anti-Bush sentiment comes fast and easy, and indeed much of the Democrats' 2008 election strategy seems to consist in simply saying what they are not. However, Congress remains deeply unpopular, for whatever reason -- failure to end the war? Lack of substantial legislation passed? Who knows, and who knows what's fair criticism in this respect.
But while it's easy to declare Democratic allegiance on paper, one occasionally comes across things like this: a recent Zogby poll that shows 52% of Americans in favor of "a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon." Note that this is rather unclear as to whether the poll is asking if we should strike Iran now, or at some indeterminate time in the future when they are definitely "building a nuclear weapon." I would guess that people getting their news from the major networks think that Iran is, indeed, in the process of making a bomb.
I was incredulous at this number at first, and then frustrated, and then angry at my fellow citizens (especially Democrats -- 44% in favor!), but I was cooled somewhat by remembering Brecht's quip about the Soviet Union, when they found that their policy was unpopular among the population, that they should "dissolve the people and elect a new one." Obviously, this can't be done and shouldn't be thought. But I got to thinking that there will probably be many more moments like this if and when a Democrat gains the Presidency, albeit with the government, not the populace. (Although I'm sure, given my views, that I'll oppose the majority quite a few more times, too.) It's easy to cheer the Dems now, but for me at least, Washington politicians remain an infuriating bunch, across the board.
If you think about, it obviously makes sense to laud Democratic measures that are coming up against Presidential vetoes, like SCHIP and increased social spending. What makes me nervous, though, is that all these are are measures against Bush's policies. They're not necessarily true-blue progressive legislation. And when you consider the fact that 17 Republican senators just voted in favor of expanding SCHIP, you wonder how "liberal" the bill really is. (One mustn't lose sight of the strategic side of things here, though -- it could be that Republicans see the President's unpopularity and want to distance themselves from him; under different circumstances, the same Republicans could vote against the bill to make a Democratic congress look bad.)
So, when Hillary's sitting in the White House, and there's a good chance she will, what will the picture look like? Assuming there's still a Democratic majority in congress, how strong will the legislation be? How progressive the policy? My point is that it will be hard to know, because there will be no alternative to judge it by. SCHIP expansion is great, but what if it could insure an additional 5 million? What if we could guarantee insurance for all children, period? For all Americans? Anything less is anathema to me (while at the same time realizing these things take maneuvering and lots of time), but I have much less confidence in the Democrats. And how will they act in many other areas that are crucial to people like me: poverty, election reform, gay rights, women's rights, foreign policy, demilitarization? Bearing in mind the sluggishness of American progressive reform, there is a potential trap here of accepting with complacency whatever the Democrats offer us, because they are "our" party (and in my case, just barely -- I'm registered, but in less dire circumstances I would string these people up by their toes for what they've done). I guess I'll cheer on election night, but really I would think we should be depressed that Bush is simply finally stepping down from power, rather than having been impeached (not gonna happen), or, in a better world, in a military brig.
Of course, we'll get a lot of hemming and hawing from pundits and Republicans after the election that the Dems only won because of Bush's unpopularity, and, whatever the election spread, we'll get calls from all quarters to govern "modestly" and "from the center" because "that's what the American people always want" (always). Notwithstanding these popular fictions, I think it's high time progressive strategists, social justice advocates, and yes, Democrats, kicked it into high gear and really tried to get things done. And I won't accept anything less. Thoughts on this? Am I courting a social democrat's idle fancy? Should I be more cynical? Is my suspicion misplaced? What are others' thoughts for the future should the Democrats win?
And if they don't, I hope we can all agree that the world is "fucked up," and not just "strangely fucked up," in Austin-5000's distinction.
But while it's easy to declare Democratic allegiance on paper, one occasionally comes across things like this: a recent Zogby poll that shows 52% of Americans in favor of "a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon." Note that this is rather unclear as to whether the poll is asking if we should strike Iran now, or at some indeterminate time in the future when they are definitely "building a nuclear weapon." I would guess that people getting their news from the major networks think that Iran is, indeed, in the process of making a bomb.
I was incredulous at this number at first, and then frustrated, and then angry at my fellow citizens (especially Democrats -- 44% in favor!), but I was cooled somewhat by remembering Brecht's quip about the Soviet Union, when they found that their policy was unpopular among the population, that they should "dissolve the people and elect a new one." Obviously, this can't be done and shouldn't be thought. But I got to thinking that there will probably be many more moments like this if and when a Democrat gains the Presidency, albeit with the government, not the populace. (Although I'm sure, given my views, that I'll oppose the majority quite a few more times, too.) It's easy to cheer the Dems now, but for me at least, Washington politicians remain an infuriating bunch, across the board.
If you think about, it obviously makes sense to laud Democratic measures that are coming up against Presidential vetoes, like SCHIP and increased social spending. What makes me nervous, though, is that all these are are measures against Bush's policies. They're not necessarily true-blue progressive legislation. And when you consider the fact that 17 Republican senators just voted in favor of expanding SCHIP, you wonder how "liberal" the bill really is. (One mustn't lose sight of the strategic side of things here, though -- it could be that Republicans see the President's unpopularity and want to distance themselves from him; under different circumstances, the same Republicans could vote against the bill to make a Democratic congress look bad.)
So, when Hillary's sitting in the White House, and there's a good chance she will, what will the picture look like? Assuming there's still a Democratic majority in congress, how strong will the legislation be? How progressive the policy? My point is that it will be hard to know, because there will be no alternative to judge it by. SCHIP expansion is great, but what if it could insure an additional 5 million? What if we could guarantee insurance for all children, period? For all Americans? Anything less is anathema to me (while at the same time realizing these things take maneuvering and lots of time), but I have much less confidence in the Democrats. And how will they act in many other areas that are crucial to people like me: poverty, election reform, gay rights, women's rights, foreign policy, demilitarization? Bearing in mind the sluggishness of American progressive reform, there is a potential trap here of accepting with complacency whatever the Democrats offer us, because they are "our" party (and in my case, just barely -- I'm registered, but in less dire circumstances I would string these people up by their toes for what they've done). I guess I'll cheer on election night, but really I would think we should be depressed that Bush is simply finally stepping down from power, rather than having been impeached (not gonna happen), or, in a better world, in a military brig.
Of course, we'll get a lot of hemming and hawing from pundits and Republicans after the election that the Dems only won because of Bush's unpopularity, and, whatever the election spread, we'll get calls from all quarters to govern "modestly" and "from the center" because "that's what the American people always want" (always). Notwithstanding these popular fictions, I think it's high time progressive strategists, social justice advocates, and yes, Democrats, kicked it into high gear and really tried to get things done. And I won't accept anything less. Thoughts on this? Am I courting a social democrat's idle fancy? Should I be more cynical? Is my suspicion misplaced? What are others' thoughts for the future should the Democrats win?
And if they don't, I hope we can all agree that the world is "fucked up," and not just "strangely fucked up," in Austin-5000's distinction.
posted by to scranton at 10:27 PM
4 Comments:
Yeah, well, hold your horses. Clinton is not a shew in. Consider this nightmare scenario: Benito Giuliani runs against Clinton. The anti-war Dems are disgusted because their candidate is not a virgin dove and bolt to some truly pure anti-war third party putz (Ron Paul, Nader, does not matter), thereby robbing Clinton of her majority and putting another one of Podhoretz's boys in command of the Military Industrial Complex. It could very well happen. The Republican base will remain loyal even if their candidate is pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control just so long as he promises Armaggedon-triggering turmoil in the Middle East.
Indeed, Pat Robertson seems to have signed on to the Rudy Machine.
I couldn't agree with you more that partisanship means nothing if it doesn't deliver progressive reform. That said, I too find this 52% number you cite alarming. Equally disturbing is the fact that a Ron Paul can go from fringe to serious candidate overnight while a Dennis Kucinich would have to chokeslam Hilary Clinton on national tv in order to even get noticed. It's simply not going to be easy for Dems to reform this country if most indicators suggest that the a large number of people in this country are willing to support a guy who would privative every last thing 20th century Democrats sacrificed so much for. What to do about this? Is it really all the media's fault? From 1896 to 1932 we had eight years of a Democratic president (itself made possible only by TR running as a third party candidate). From 1969 to 2008, twelve years (itself made possible largely by another strong third candidate siphoning off Republican votes). There's obviously a lot more going on here, but I think the general point is clear: Democrats are scared shitless of looking like Democrats because Republicans by and large are more likely to be voted into office by an American electorate far more conservative than we'd like to think.
Perhaps to an extent, Robot. On the other hand, it is well-documented that Republicans post-WWII accepted a much more moderate stance and more or less bought in to the welfare state scheme (the New Deal was, for Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, "untouchable" to an extent). Anyway, any attempt here to pin down any exact reason(s) for the retreat of liberalism will be largely futile, at least on my end. The important thing is to keep pressure on Dems after the election on any number of issues, but let's say especially 1) Iraq and 2) universal healthcare (of course it won't be single payer), which should be the sine qua non of any Democratic electoral mandate. If those things fail, then yeah, we're fucked.
Post a Comment
<< Home