Progressives Poised to Take Control of the Democratic Party
Progressives Poised to Take Control of the Democratic Party
By David Sirota, In These Times
Posted on November 6, 2006, Printed on November 6, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/43799/
In its widely-circulated August profile of House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, Time noted, “House Democrats have been more unified in their voting than
at any other time in the past quarter-century, with members on average voting
the party line 88 percent of the time in 2005.” The numbers don’t lie. But
they do obscure a little-discussed truth: Divisions in the Democratic Party are
sure to grow larger, whether the party wins or loses the mid-term elections.
For the better part of 20 years, Democratic divisions have seethed under
America’s political surface, with only the rare contested presidential primary
providing a release valve. Any number of self-defeating pathologies emanating
from inside the Democratic Party have worked to raise the temperature: From
President Bill Clinton’s embrace of corporate-written trade deals that crushed
the party’s working-class base to congressional Democrats’ complicity in the
Iraq War and rejection of the growing anti-war movement, Democratic Party
elites have gotten used to kicking the party base in the face.
The situation is ready to explode. What the late Paul Wellstone called the
“Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” is growing feisty. And progressives
are increasingly in a position to flex their muscles thanks to a convergence
of factors: the rise of Internet fundraising, the ascendancy of blog and vlog
(video blog) media and the crushing economic forces that are radicalizing
previously apolitical middle-class constituencies. These developments have
exposed the Democratic establishment to the same kind of pressure that
conservative grassroots activists have exerted on the Republican Party to great
electoral success.
Nowhere was this changing dynamic more on display than in Connecticut’s
recent Democratic senatorial primary and its aftermath. Businessman Ned Lamont —
a first-time statewide candidate — toppled 18-year incumbent Sen. Joe
Lieberman after running a campaign against Lieberman’s support for the Iraq War,
Social Security privatization and lobbyist-written trade deals that have
decimated the Nutmeg State’s manufacturing economy. Lamont was grossly outspent
thanks to Lieberman’s corporate-funded war chest, but he built a grassroots
campaign by tapping into his party’s newly energized voters.
In response, a frightened Democratic Party in Washington tried to pretend
nothing happened. Like frustrated children covering their ears and yelling “I
can’t hear you!,” Democratic senators welcomed Lieberman back to their caucus
after the summer recess — even though Lieberman announced he was abandoning
his party to run in the general election against the Democratic nominee.
Though many Democratic lawmakers officially endorsed Lamont, many also suggested
to reporters they were still hoping for a Lieberman victory in the general
election. That Lieberman ran to the media to berate his party, likened his
opponent to a terrorist sympathizer and declared his refusal to endorse
down-ballot Democrats in other races seemed of little interest to Democrats
comfortably insulated in the Senate club.
But theirs is a false sense of comfort. Whether the Democrats win or lose on
November 7, the party is in for a wild ride.
If they win
When the hangover from election night clears, a Democratic-controlled
Congress will face a giant faultline between its senior members and its
rank-and-file. The chairmen of key committees are among the most progressive lawmakers
in Congress. Further, these are senior legislators who have been waiting for a
chance at the majority for years — not rookies who will take up their
gavels with no ideas about what they want to do. And they will be bolstered by the
emerging progressive technological and grassroots infrastructure that
provided the keys to mid-term victory.
The hotspots will likely arise on the panels that oversee the most
ideological issues and have the most progressive chairmen. In the House, that’s the
Ways and Means Committee (taxes and trade), the Energy and Commerce Committee
(health care and energy), the Education and Workforce Committee (education and
pensions) and the Judiciary Committee (civil liberties and potentially
impeachment), expected to be headed by Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel (N.Y.),
John Dingell (Mich.), George Miller (Calif.) and John Conyers (Mich.),
respectively. In the Senate, that’s the Armed Services Committee (Iraq) and the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (all of the above), expected to be
chaired by Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Ted Kennedy (Mass.), respectively.
What will happen, for instance, when Chairman Miller pushes through
legislation that outlaws the most vicious of Corporate America’s pension cutback
schemes? Will people like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — who has bragged
about starting his own K Street Project — lead the opposition? How about when
Chairman Levin introduces a resolution demanding an exit strategy from Iraq?
Will he face a battle not only with Republicans, but with Democrats backed by
neoliberal, pro-war think tanks like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)?
And what about when the Bush administration sends down its next
corporate-written trade deal? Will Democrats have the unity to defeat it? The answer is
that progressives will certainly have a decent chance of enacting their
agenda — but not without bruising fights within the Democratic caucus.
To be sure, important areas of unity exist on consensus issues like raising
the minimum wage. And the non-ideological committees will be in a position to
make significant, unimpeded progress. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, respectively headed by Rep. Dave Obey (Wis.) and Sen. Robert Byrd
(W.Va.), will have little trouble ripping up President Bush’s draconian budgets
and forcing him to either accept or veto substantial funding increases to
health care and education programs. Similarly, a House Government Reform
Committee headed by firebrand Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) will have the backing of
every Democrat who wants to see the Bush administration investigated on a wide
variety of non-ideological issues like war profiteering and corruption.
Nonetheless, a Democratic majority will not have the luxury of avoiding the
issues that divide it. At a time of stagnating wages and a job outsourcing
crisis, continuing to skirt the subject of globalization and international
economic policy would likely result in the shortest-lived congressional majority
in American history. And besides, a potentially growing faction of Democratic
lawmakers will demand action one way or the other. If, for instance,
Democratic Senate candidates Jon Tester (Mont.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey
(Pa.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Lamont are victorious, they will add to an
existing bloc of senators that is already planning to demand reforms to America’s
trade policy.
In this fluid majority scenario, the progressive movement that exists
outside the Democratic Party will be more important than it is now — but only if
it serves as a progressive ideological force, and not simply a partisan one.
If organizations like Moveon.org, unions and the consumer/environmental/civil
rights advocacy groups are willing to prioritize their policy agendas over the
Democratic Party insiders’ desire simply to win the next election through
expediency, the progressive movement will become a kingmaker that lawmakers
will rely on for their survival and success. Say goodbye to the era of
Democratic lawmakers laughing off the grassroots like they did after the Lamont
primary victory, and say hello to Democratic lawmakers pleading for grassroots
support.
But, again, getting to that point will require the progressive movement to
be comfortable not just going up against Republicans, but going up against
lawmakers of both parties who cross its agenda. And if recent trends are any
indication, the progressive movement is more than ready to assume this role. The
Lieberman primary as well as other lower-tier primaries against Reps. Jane
Harman (D-Calif.) and Al Wynn (D-Md.) indicate that progressives are not about
to allow a Democratic majority to become complacent. On the contrary —
Democratic legislators could be scrutinized even more closely by progressives.
If they lose
If circular firing squad competitions were an Olympic sport, Democrats’
typical post-election behavior would make them gold medal contenders. This is a
party that has a lot of practice blaming each other — and in particular, a lot
of experience watching the conservative, Big Money wing of the party
dishonestly stereotype progressives as the reason for electoral defeat.
After the 2000 election, DLC chief Al From viciously attacked fellow DLCer
Al Gore for supposedly being too populist (so much for loyalty). It didn’t
matter that after Gore’s Democratic convention speech — arguably the most
populist moment of his candidacy — he surged in the polls. What mattered to the
Washington insiders was they could use his 2000 election loss as an excuse to
publicly berate progressives.
If Democrats somehow manage to seize a mid-term loss from the jaws of
victory in 2006, the DLC will undoubtedly again fabricate a storyline that blames
it entirely on progressives. Somehow, we will be expected to believe that even
though polls show a strong majority of Americans are angry with the Bush
White House and want an exit strategy from Iraq, Democrats will have lost
because they didn’t outhawk Bush by pushing the war even more aggressively than
him. The DLC will issue a glossy report titled something like “Democrats Lost
Because They Refused to Embrace the Politics of Genghis Khan” and then publish
an accompanying book of essays by the DLC’s political “experts” entitled
“Embracing Our Inner Genghis: A Blueprint for Democratic Victory in 2008.”
But this time around, progressives won’t have to take the distortions
sitting down. With the party insisting on running its 2006 campaign without
embracing the kind of bold economic, health care, anti-corruption and national
security stances the public wants, a very compelling case can be made that the
party lost the election because it projected weakness and timidity. And unlike
in the past, the case will be made in a forceful manner by a strengthened base
that has become increasingly influential, thanks to its growing power as a
fundraising and grassroots political resource.
All of this will play out not just in the C-SPAN symposiums that the DLC
feeds on, but also in Congress, most acutely in the House. There, Pelosi has
steadfastly represented the progressive wing of the party, using her platform as
minority leader to push her caucus away from K Street’s influence and towards
a far more populist agenda. At every turn, however, she has been undermined
by the likes of Hoyer. When she pushed Democrats to take a serious position
on the Iraq War, Hoyer berated her efforts to the Washington Post. When she
worked to distance the caucus from corporate lobbyists, Hoyer pitched himself
in news stories as the Democrats’ chief point of contact for the lobbying
community. When she tried to stop the credit card industry-written bankruptcy
bill, Hoyer refused to help and instead voted for the abomination. The list goes
on.
Hoyer’s behavior has been simultaneously ideological and tactical. The
antithesis of a conviction politician, he is the quintessential backroom dealer —
a lawmaker who in an earlier era would have had a snappy, all-too-friendly
nickname among the smoky back room crowd. His political moves have clearly made
Big Business happy, and they have also positioned him to make a renewed case
for his own promotion after a mid-term election loss. In short, his constant
pecking at Pelosi is all about his being able to argue “I told you so” if
Democrats lose — and then making a run against her for minority leader with
the full backing of the Wall Street wing of the party. In all likelihood, this
is the very scenario Hoyer privately dreams of, because if Democrats win the
House, he’s going to have his hands full with Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) who
has already announced his intention to run against Hoyer for Majority Leader.
Pelosi will certainly be on the ropes with a Hoyer challenge and a mid-term
election loss. But will the progressive movement mobilize to preserve her
status as leader? It’s a safe bet that Hoyer, who is a polarizing figure inside
the Democratic caucus, will not be allowed to waltz to the top unchallenged.
That leaves either a surprise run for leader from one of the senior
progressives like Miller or Obey, or more likely, an attempt by professional
self-promoter Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). Either way, an unpredictable situation will
ensue — one where the ideological poles of the party will each use leadership
candidates as vehicles to express their aspirations.
It goes without saying that a Democratic victory in 2006 would be much
better for progressives and the country as a whole. The fights and problems that
will come with a win are the enviable troubles of political riches, rather than
political poverty. But progressives must not be tricked by the usual
Democratic Party propaganda that promises a utopia after the election. No matter
what the outcome on November 7, a new fight begins on November 8.
David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption
Conquered Our Government–and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/43799/