[NYTr] Parry: Why the Dems Could Lose in 2008

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP - Dec 12, 2007

[I'd put the title differently --  It's not the possibility of losing
that needs attention, it's the absence of principled opposition among
the democrat leadership that creates the likelihood of losing.  For at
the grassroots level it's the principles that matter.  That's Parry's
point.

On the right it seems certain that the fundamentalists have principled 
views which do not mesh with neocon views on executive power and
executive privilege.

But I doubt if either Parry's message - or my individual postings --
reach those people - so we're having to address those who support the 
spinelessness of Dems in the face of neocons. Impeachment will remain
off the table until/unless the Pelosis and the Clintons and the
de-Fazios recognize their complicity in the evil that has been done by
this executive AND by this legislature and its predecessors. The
concentration camps like GITMO have not yet been dedicated to housing
people like you and me, but the foundations and the infrastructure are
solidly in place, and as in the Germany of the early 1930's the people
to run the camps are already there -M]


Consortium News - Dec 9, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/120907.html

Why the Democrats Could Lose

By Robert Parry
December 9, 2007

National Democrats are upbeat about their chances in Election 2008,
citing George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the weirdness of top
Republican presidential candidates bogged down in squabbles over who
has the right religious outlook or who is the most hostile to illegal
immigrants.

But the smug Democratic hierarchy may be inviting defeat, again, by
ignoring the fact that many Americans want leadership that appeals to
them on the higher plane of principle. Instead, Democrats often treat
Americans more like consumers than citizens, selling them new social
programs rather than articulating an uplifting national cause.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York summed up this consumer-over-citizen
approach when she announced her health care plan on Sept. 17:

"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a
mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?" [Boston
Globe, Sept. 18, 2007]

Perhaps a different question might be: why would a presidential
candidate see the founding principles of the United States as somehow
at odds with the desire of parents to want health care for their
children?

With her dubious dichotomy, Sen. Clinton suggests that it’s an
either-or situation – and that the founding principles must take a
backseat to health-care policy.

One outgrowth of this pragmatism-not-principle approach is that
national Democrats have shied away from rallying the American people
around the ideals of the Republic, even when they have been under
assault by Bush and his administration.

These Democratic leaders don’t seem to think that ephemeral notions –
like checks and balances, the rule of law, and inalienable rights –
matter that much to the average Joe. In this view, health insurance and
other social benefits should trump all.

Iraq War Sellout

Congressional Democrats have operated in a similar fashion, teasing the
American public with promises to stop the Iraq War but then treating
the issue as just another bargaining chip, albeit one covered in the
blood of nearly 3,900 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis.

While many Americans oppose the Iraq War on grounds of morality or as a
matter of legal principle, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
D-Maryland, told the Washington Post that Democratic leaders were ready
to drop their promise to deny Bush any more blank checks for the war if
they can get another $11 billion for domestic programs.

“Everybody knows he [Bush] has no intention of signing anything without
money for Iraq, unfettered without constraints,” Hoyer said. “I think
that’s ultimately going to be the result.” [Washington Post, Dec. 8,
2007]

Ironically, however, the Republicans are now so accustomed to the
Democrats caving in on Iraq War funding that the White House is
signaling that it has no intention of giving the Democrats anything
extra for their predictable collapse. Bush seems prepared to veto the
domestic spending – and pocket another Iraq War blank check.

In contrast to this ever-waffling Democratic leadership, the
Republicans do understand the political value of appealing to Americans
on a higher plane.

The GOP – the party of tax cuts for the rich – has convinced millions
of average Americans to vote against their own financial interests in
order to advance their principles, from protecting gun rights to
outlawing abortion to breaking down the barriers between church and
state.

The Republican CNN/YouTube debate on Nov. 28 was dominated by questions
and answers that emphasized right-wing goals over programmatic details.
Though one may disagree with those priorities, they do go beyond the
voter’s pocketbook and address a larger purpose for the nation.

Fear of Flying

National Democrats have been reluctant to engage on this higher plane
for many years, beyond occasional feel-good speeches stressing
non-controversial values like community and inclusiveness.

The Democrats shy away from standing up for constitutional principles,
possibly because they see these concepts as too abstract for common
citizens.

Democrats have been weak, too, in understanding the value of truth in a
democracy. Even when a Republican administration is on the hot seat,
the Democrats have shown a proclivity to trade away a difficult
showdown over accountability for some votes on domestic programs.

In 1993, the incoming Clinton administration and the Democratic
majorities in the House and Senate helped Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush sweep under the rug the full story about national security
scandals, such as the Iran-Contra Affair and the Iraq-gate scandal,
both involving secret military shipments to the Middle East.

President Bill Clinton later explained that he felt it was more
important to build goodwill with Republicans whose help he needed on
domestic programs than to pursue the truth about those historical
issues. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

As it turned out, Clinton got no help from the Republicans on his
domestic agenda and no reciprocity when it came to Clinton’s own
scandals. The Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 by rallying
their base around the issue of Clinton’s immorality.

In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the Republican-controlled House for
lying about a sexual relationship and – although acquitted by the
Senate – his reputation was forever tarred. As Republicans hammered
away at Clinton’s ethical lapses, the Democratic counter-argument
boiled down to: Gee, look at the booming economy.

But that pocketbook self-interest wasn’t enough to save the Democrats
in Campaign 2000. Texas Gov. George W. Bush managed to overcome public
doubts about his competence by stressing his supposed commitment to
restore “honor and decency” to the Oval Office.

That pledge – along with fond memories of the elder George Bush and
some artificial scandals about Al Gore’s integrity – got Bush close
enough to snatch the White House, while Republicans also continued to
dominate Congress through 2006. [For details, see our new book, Neck
Deep.]

Public Outrage

Finally, in Campaign 2006, the Democrats started giving voice to the
public’s outrage over the lies that had justified the U.S. invasion of
Iraq. Millions of Americans also were alarmed by how brazenly Bush was
trampling the nation’s constitutional liberties by asserting his
“plenary” or unlimited powers as Commander in Chief.

Trying to salvage the congressional Republican majorities, Bush played
the fear card again and again on the campaign trail, essentially
arguing that he would keep Americans safe so they could comfortably go
shopping at the mall.

In effect, the principle v. self-interest balance tilted toward the
Democrats. They were the ones with the more idealistic vision of the
United States as a brave nation that would not surrender its
Constitution in the face of fear.

The election result was a surprising victory for the Democrats as they
won back control of the House and the Senate.

Rank-and-file Democratic activists began demanding that their new
majorities stand tough against Bush’s open-ended war in Iraq and seek
his impeachment if he continued his arrogation of constitutional powers.

But the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic consultants quickly began to
reassert their influence over the national party. They called on the
leaders to shelve proposals for curtailing the Iraq War and throw out
any notion of impeachment, instead pushing for “kitchen-table” issues
like raising the minimum wage.

"People are not looking to their individual members of Congress to
solve the Iraq War," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "For the
House to be focused on it now would look like partisan bickering rather
than getting on with the people's business."

Lake’s view of the Iraq War as a diversion was shared by several
leading Democrats in Congress, including Hoyer and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of
Illinois.

Referring to Bush’s Iraq War “surge” and the need to focus on the
Democratic domestic agenda, Emanuel said, "I know where support for
more troops is, and I know where support is for the minimum-wage
increase.” [Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2007]

But Democratic grassroots outrage forced the congressional leadership
at least to pay lip service to stopping the war. So, the Democrats
conducted what amounted to a phony legislative battle, putting up some
symbolic anti-war resolutions and trying to attach timelines to war
funding bills.

When faced with Republican filibusters or a Bush veto, however, the
Democrats ran up the white flag. Instead of conducting their own
filibuster to block another blank check for the war, the Democrats
surrendered.

On the constitutional front, not only did they keep impeachment “off
the table,” as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said, the Democrats
failed to mount any sustained investigations of Bush’s high-handed
abuse of his powers.

Rather than launch Fulbright-style investigations of the disastrous
Iraq War, Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, chose to make an unlikely run for President. Other committee
chairmen held some scattershot hearings but nothing sustained and
comprehensive.

Even with the new revelations that Bush’s CIA destroyed videotapes of
alleged torture of terror suspects, the Democrats have mostly confined
themselves to calls for the Bush administration to investigate itself.

To put it mildly, the Democratic behavior over the past year has not
been inspirational. [For more on this pattern, see Consortiumnews.com’s
“Democrats’ Year of Living Fecklessly.”]

Edgy Base

Now, the Democratic leaders are acting as if they’ll be guaranteed more
seats in Congress and a return to the White House if they don’t offend
anybody over the next 11 months.

But the Democratic base is edgy. They’ve seen this wishful thinking
before – and it usually ends up with another muddled Democratic
campaign and another Republican victory.

Since Hillary Clinton is seen as a chief practitioner of this politics
of principle-avoidance, many rank-and-file Democrats are turning
against her.

Some would have preferred Al Gore, who combines a depth of experience
on key issues like the environment with the foresight to have opposed
Bush on the Iraq War and his assault on the Constitution. But Gore has
opted for a life as an acclaimed private citizen.

That has caused many Democrats who are uncomfortable with Sen.
Clinton’s obsessive pragmatism to shift toward Sen. Barack Obama of
Illinois, despite his limited experience and his own tendency toward
conciliation over conflict.

While Obama received high marks for his eloquent keynote address to the
Democratic convention in 2004, it was striking, too, in its failure to
criticize Bush by name or to articulate why the country should fire its
sitting President.

As other Democrats joined Obama in pulling their punches, John Kerry
emerged from the convention with an extraordinary zero bounce.

Still, a growing number of rank-and-file Democrats appear ready to
gamble now on what they hope will be an uplifting Obama candidacy, over
the prospect of a grim-and-grinding Hillary Clinton campaign.

More than anything, many in the Democratic base want to send a message
to the Democratic leadership that –regardless of what the professional
pollsters might say – principles do matter to Americans.


[Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his
sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com.]