I feel that I should depart at this point from my discussion of the pitfalls and opportunities of the Democratic victory, to address the eulogies being delivered and printed on the death of Gerald Ford.
I know that is a custom to never speak ill of the departed and to laud them in the most exemplary terms, so as to almost turn them into instant saints. I have always deplored this custom for when it comes to prominent men it is important that we not indulge in revisionist history, and assess a life as it was. Ford did some good things, and one can find those in any of the eulogies written, so the reader must forgive me if I do not repeat them here.
But I do find myself at odds with much that has been said and written about our “accidental” President though he was not so much accidental as the creature of his disgraced predecessor.
First we need to put the ascendancy of Ford into context. It was caused not only by the crimes of Richard Nixon but also by the crimes of Nixon’s Vice-President. The corruption of the Republican Party of today may well be nothing more than a continuation of the corruption of that period and even before.
Nixon’s Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, was “allegedly” guilty of both bribery and tax evasion, crimes, which he had committed before Nixon chose him to be his running mate. Yet Agnew, like Nixon was above the law. Instead of being impeached and prosecuted, he was allowed to escape prosecution in return for his resignation. It was this outrage which elevated Ford to the Vice-Presidency, and he was chosen for that post by a man who had committed even more serious crimes, Richard Nixon, and here I am talking not only of the Watergate crimes but of the manner by which Nixon was elected.
First Nixon was aided in his first election by the treachery of Henry Kissinger, who, at the time, was considered a trusted ally of Johnson emissary Averell Harriman, leader of the Paris talks. Kissinger used his contacts with the Johnson administration to tip-off the Nixon camp about an anticipated breakthrough in the Paris talks. Nixon set out to sabotage those talks by secretly offering the South Vietnamese “more” than they would get from the incumbent Democrats. The result was the negotiations floundered, Nixon was elected, the war went on for more than another four years with untold American, Vietnamese and Cambodian casualties, and was then concluded on the same terms, and conditions as had been on the table in the fall of 1968.
The decision to pardon Nixon won Ford a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2001, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, acknowledging he had criticized Ford at the time, called the pardon “an extraordinary act of courage that historians recognize was truly in the national interest.”
I respectfully disagree. Nixon’s pardon did not end the nightmare for the nation and certainly not for Nixon’s subordinates. For years thereafter, Nixon’s subordinates were tried, convicted and many went to jail. They paid the price while the head of the conspiracy escaped and even managed to be rehabilitated.
Was the pardon an act of courage or was Ford taking care of someone who had been a close friend before, who had brought him to the Presidency and who remained a friend thereafter? Nixon’s crimes never even disturbed Ford enough to interfere with their continued friendship.
But what of the claim that Ford was a healer, a non-partisan statesman? He vetoed 66 bills in his barely two years as President. Congress overturned 12 Ford vetoes, more than for any president since Andrew Johnson. Does that sound like a man working with the opposition party?
One of the bills he vetoed was the Freedom Of Information Act one of the cornerstones of our Democracy today. That was passed over Ford’s veto.
Even though Ford in an interview released posthumously, criticized the Iraq war, he has to bear some responsibility for that fiasco, for he launched the careers of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Scalia.
Some give him credit for an Amnesty program for Vietnam War resisters but it should be noted that the program was widely regarded as a failure, even by the people who administered it. Only 21,800 of the 350,000 eligible persons were granted clemency. It was left to Carter to grant anything meaningful.
Ford may have been virtuous and moderate compared to the present Republican Party, or to the Nixon or McCarthy Republicans, but he was hardly the paragon of virtue, which is the image now being evoked.
May he rest in peace!
Friday, December 29, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Iraq - Whence from Here?
In my last column I pointed out that the Democrats’ victory in this election does not assure success in the next election two years hence.
I urged Democrats to focus on the climate of corruption in Washington. They have made a good start in this area. Hastings was denied the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee and while Jefferson will be seated, he will be denied any consequential committee assignment. All earmarks have been shelved.
The elephant in the room is, of course, Iraq. Here there have been many voices demanding that Democrats come up with a plan. The Left calls for an immediate withdrawal or at least a timetable, and on the Right there is a call for Democrats to come up with a plan for victory or the latest euphemism, “Success.”
I submit that this is not the time for Democrats to take a position as a party and to allow free discussion among its members.
I urge this because the decisions will in any case be made in the White House and the Congress can only marginally affect policy. In addition there is no good solution. Of course Congress has the purse strings but I would seriously doubt the wisdom of cutting off funds for our troops.
Furthermore, too many on the left at times sound too much like isolationists and/or pacifists and these positions are disastrous both from a policy and a political standpoint.
Not to recognize the serious consequences of a failed state in Iraq is as serious a “State of Denial” as the Administrations claim that things are going well, or that the decision to invade was wise. Of the few things that this Administration is right about is that failure in Iraq will have serious consequences.
The withdrawal of American troops will mean a heightened civil war in Iraq with enormous civilian casualties both among Sunnis and Shiites and is very likely to draw other states in the region into the conflict. The Saudis have already announced that if American troops withdraw they will go to the aid of the Sunni population in Iraq. This could draw Iran further into the conflict on the side of the Shiites, and potentially could lead to hostilities between those states. If this were to happen the Kurds might well decide it is time to get away from the mess and declare their independence. This would probably cause the Turkish Kurds to want to join their brethren, which would bring Turkey into the fray because they would not allow part of its territory to break away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have already begun to flee their homeland to escape the violence. Such increased violence would multiply the exodus to neighboring states, particularly Sunni Jordan, causing destabilization of that nation. It is almost inconceivable that with such a scenario Syria and ultimately Lebanon would not be drawn in. The conflagration is hard to imagine. Ultimately it would cause a flood of refugees to leave the Middle East and overwhelm Europe and possibly the U.S., which could not effectively keep out desperate people.
If anyone thinks that such a conflagration, or even a much smaller one, would not seriously interrupt the flow of oil they are dreaming, and while some on the left don’t think that this should be a major concern, there is little, if any, doubt, that a major reduction in Middle East oil would cause a world wide depression at least on the scale of 1929. It might eventually force a return of US troops and be the beginning of a World War on an unimaginable scale.
Lest I be accused of playing the role of Cassandra, let me remind the reader that Cassandra’s predictions were true. But even if this is a worst-case scenario, isn’t it about time that we dealt with the worst case rather than, as this Administration has done, always expecting the best and never preparing for the worst.
If this sounds like I am advocating the Bush policy of “stay the course”, or the McCain policy “of a surge” which may soon become the Bush policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, the damage is done and our troops at present levels are not improving the situation. While a much larger troop deployment early on could have made a major difference, it is now too late, which appears to also be the view of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Thus we are caught in a dilemma. To stay serves no purpose and leaving spells disaster. What are we to do? The President is the Commander in Chief. For as long as Bush holds that position he will call the shots and any attempt to lay out a policy by the opposition serves no purpose. Ultimately, it is highly likely that we will still be in Iraq in 2008 and that it will be a major issue in the Presidential and Congressional elections. At that time the Democratic Presidential candidate will have to take a position, but it will be a position on the basis of the facts, as they then exist.
I believe that our best hope will be to make the Middle Eastern nations see a Pandora’s box opening before them, and realize that only they can deal with the situation. Before 2008 or right after the election we will have to advise them that we have done all that we can and are withdrawing. We should urge one of those countries, be it Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Jordan to convene a regional summit and try to reach agreement among them. Their future is even more at stake than ours. They must form a multinational, multi ethnic, all Muslim (drawn from both sects) military, and impose a settlement on Iraq. We can lend logistical support, but our armies will have no further role to play. Will this work? It is a long shot, but it is less of a Hail Mary pass than any of the alternatives.
I urged Democrats to focus on the climate of corruption in Washington. They have made a good start in this area. Hastings was denied the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee and while Jefferson will be seated, he will be denied any consequential committee assignment. All earmarks have been shelved.
The elephant in the room is, of course, Iraq. Here there have been many voices demanding that Democrats come up with a plan. The Left calls for an immediate withdrawal or at least a timetable, and on the Right there is a call for Democrats to come up with a plan for victory or the latest euphemism, “Success.”
I submit that this is not the time for Democrats to take a position as a party and to allow free discussion among its members.
I urge this because the decisions will in any case be made in the White House and the Congress can only marginally affect policy. In addition there is no good solution. Of course Congress has the purse strings but I would seriously doubt the wisdom of cutting off funds for our troops.
Furthermore, too many on the left at times sound too much like isolationists and/or pacifists and these positions are disastrous both from a policy and a political standpoint.
Not to recognize the serious consequences of a failed state in Iraq is as serious a “State of Denial” as the Administrations claim that things are going well, or that the decision to invade was wise. Of the few things that this Administration is right about is that failure in Iraq will have serious consequences.
The withdrawal of American troops will mean a heightened civil war in Iraq with enormous civilian casualties both among Sunnis and Shiites and is very likely to draw other states in the region into the conflict. The Saudis have already announced that if American troops withdraw they will go to the aid of the Sunni population in Iraq. This could draw Iran further into the conflict on the side of the Shiites, and potentially could lead to hostilities between those states. If this were to happen the Kurds might well decide it is time to get away from the mess and declare their independence. This would probably cause the Turkish Kurds to want to join their brethren, which would bring Turkey into the fray because they would not allow part of its territory to break away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have already begun to flee their homeland to escape the violence. Such increased violence would multiply the exodus to neighboring states, particularly Sunni Jordan, causing destabilization of that nation. It is almost inconceivable that with such a scenario Syria and ultimately Lebanon would not be drawn in. The conflagration is hard to imagine. Ultimately it would cause a flood of refugees to leave the Middle East and overwhelm Europe and possibly the U.S., which could not effectively keep out desperate people.
If anyone thinks that such a conflagration, or even a much smaller one, would not seriously interrupt the flow of oil they are dreaming, and while some on the left don’t think that this should be a major concern, there is little, if any, doubt, that a major reduction in Middle East oil would cause a world wide depression at least on the scale of 1929. It might eventually force a return of US troops and be the beginning of a World War on an unimaginable scale.
Lest I be accused of playing the role of Cassandra, let me remind the reader that Cassandra’s predictions were true. But even if this is a worst-case scenario, isn’t it about time that we dealt with the worst case rather than, as this Administration has done, always expecting the best and never preparing for the worst.
If this sounds like I am advocating the Bush policy of “stay the course”, or the McCain policy “of a surge” which may soon become the Bush policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, the damage is done and our troops at present levels are not improving the situation. While a much larger troop deployment early on could have made a major difference, it is now too late, which appears to also be the view of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Thus we are caught in a dilemma. To stay serves no purpose and leaving spells disaster. What are we to do? The President is the Commander in Chief. For as long as Bush holds that position he will call the shots and any attempt to lay out a policy by the opposition serves no purpose. Ultimately, it is highly likely that we will still be in Iraq in 2008 and that it will be a major issue in the Presidential and Congressional elections. At that time the Democratic Presidential candidate will have to take a position, but it will be a position on the basis of the facts, as they then exist.
I believe that our best hope will be to make the Middle Eastern nations see a Pandora’s box opening before them, and realize that only they can deal with the situation. Before 2008 or right after the election we will have to advise them that we have done all that we can and are withdrawing. We should urge one of those countries, be it Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Jordan to convene a regional summit and try to reach agreement among them. Their future is even more at stake than ours. They must form a multinational, multi ethnic, all Muslim (drawn from both sects) military, and impose a settlement on Iraq. We can lend logistical support, but our armies will have no further role to play. Will this work? It is a long shot, but it is less of a Hail Mary pass than any of the alternatives.
Monday, December 11, 2006
How Secure is the Victory For Democrats?
In my last two postings I address first the question of bipartisanship and explained it is unlikely that there will be much bipartisanship, if any. In the following commentary I queried whether the new so-called conservative members are likely to push the Democratic Party to the Right and concluded with a resounding NO.
Now I address just how secure the victory for the Democrats is. A look at history is instructive in how much a great victory carries over to the next election.
For this purpose I go back to the historic election of 1946. The President was Harry Truman and at that time, hardly more than three weeks before the midterm elections his approval rating dropped to 32 percent. As the reader will quickly surmise, there is a parallel here to the unpopularity of President Bush prior to the just concluded midterm elections. I should add that there was another similarity to the election now. The Democrats then had a lock on the Southern vote, just as Republicans have now.
The results of the elections of 1946 were that in the House Republicans picked up 54 seats. The GOP wound up with a 59-member dominance over the Democrats. When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans occupied 75 percent of the seats outside the South. That is a far greater victory than Democrats achieved in this election
Just as in this election, it was doubtful that Democrats could win the Senate with only one third of the Senate up for election, but Republicans picked up 13 seats to take control of the chamber, 51 to 45. Compare this to the five seats that Democrats picked up in the Senate and the approximately thirty seats they picked up in the House.
In addition the unpopular Republican President Bush will not encumber the Republican ticket in the next election. Two years after that disastrous election for the Democrats, the very same Democratic incumbent President, Harry Truman, would lead the ticket.
But a lot can happen in two years. In fact a lot can happen in one campaign. . When 1948 came Truman campaigned vigorously against the "do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Congress," while largely ignoring the Republican nominee, Governor Dewey. In November 1948, to the astonishment of almost everyone (Who can forget the headline, “DEWEY WINS”) and to the consternation of Republicans, Truman won reelection and Democrats recaptured Congress. They picked up nine seats in the Senate and so many seats in the House that they not only recouped their 1946 losses, but also erased all gains made by the GOP in three previous elections. Of the 50 Republican newcomers in the House in 1946 who ran for reelection, 35 went down to defeat.
Can history repeat itself in reverse? I fear that it can.
Can Democrats avoid this? I believe that they can but the point is that nothing can be taken for granted. Democrats must be prudent. Whether they achieve anything or not they must not be seen as “a do nothing Congress.” Investigations will be useful, but for the most part they will only make the outgoing Administration, which is not running for reelection look even worse than they do now. But if there is one thing we can count on, Republicans will be running away from this Administration; they are already doing so. So it will be difficult to run against the record of this Administration. It will have to be based on the record of this Congress, and if they accomplish nothing, they will have to show that they did their best and that Republican obstructionism is to blame. They will have one advantage by being in the majority. They will control the agenda.
Well then what are Democrats to do? As important as the Iraq war was in this last election one other issue may very well have been more important; and that is the issue of corruption. Democrats cannot; must not shilly-shally around on this issue. The possibility that Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker, might have picked Alcee Hastings, a man who had once been impeached and removed for taking a bribe while a federal judge would have been a disastrous beginning.
Now Pelosi faces a new dilemma. Representative William Jefferson, Dem. of New Orleans has been reelected to his seat. He was the Democrat who hid $90,000 in his freezer. He has argued that it has been about a year since the money was found and no indictment has been handed down, proving he is innocent. All it proves that the evidence to support an indictment has not been found, but that hardly puts him above suspicion, and Democrats must show that they stand for Congressman being above suspicion. This is a hard one politically. Jefferson was just reelected by his constituents-he is black and probably will have the support of much of the black caucus in Congress, but the Democrats must show that to serve in a Congress they control, one must be above suspicion. The House has the power under the Constitution to refuse to seat members who they do not consider qualified. Democrats must refuse to seat Jefferson. The fall out within the Party will be much less, than the fallout among the American people if they seat him.
The other scandal that Democrats must address is earmarks. That is not to say that all projects that are covered by earmarks are necessarily bad, but members of Congress should approve no expenditure without full committee approval, a full vetting by the Congress and a vote on the merits. Simply, revealing who inserted the earmark is not reform. Pork will always be around, but it should never be within the control of any one member, or be inserted in the dead of night, or out of the public view, and certainly not out of the view of all the members of the Congress.
That will be a good start but Democrats need to do much more.
Now I address just how secure the victory for the Democrats is. A look at history is instructive in how much a great victory carries over to the next election.
For this purpose I go back to the historic election of 1946. The President was Harry Truman and at that time, hardly more than three weeks before the midterm elections his approval rating dropped to 32 percent. As the reader will quickly surmise, there is a parallel here to the unpopularity of President Bush prior to the just concluded midterm elections. I should add that there was another similarity to the election now. The Democrats then had a lock on the Southern vote, just as Republicans have now.
The results of the elections of 1946 were that in the House Republicans picked up 54 seats. The GOP wound up with a 59-member dominance over the Democrats. When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans occupied 75 percent of the seats outside the South. That is a far greater victory than Democrats achieved in this election
Just as in this election, it was doubtful that Democrats could win the Senate with only one third of the Senate up for election, but Republicans picked up 13 seats to take control of the chamber, 51 to 45. Compare this to the five seats that Democrats picked up in the Senate and the approximately thirty seats they picked up in the House.
In addition the unpopular Republican President Bush will not encumber the Republican ticket in the next election. Two years after that disastrous election for the Democrats, the very same Democratic incumbent President, Harry Truman, would lead the ticket.
But a lot can happen in two years. In fact a lot can happen in one campaign. . When 1948 came Truman campaigned vigorously against the "do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Congress," while largely ignoring the Republican nominee, Governor Dewey. In November 1948, to the astonishment of almost everyone (Who can forget the headline, “DEWEY WINS”) and to the consternation of Republicans, Truman won reelection and Democrats recaptured Congress. They picked up nine seats in the Senate and so many seats in the House that they not only recouped their 1946 losses, but also erased all gains made by the GOP in three previous elections. Of the 50 Republican newcomers in the House in 1946 who ran for reelection, 35 went down to defeat.
Can history repeat itself in reverse? I fear that it can.
Can Democrats avoid this? I believe that they can but the point is that nothing can be taken for granted. Democrats must be prudent. Whether they achieve anything or not they must not be seen as “a do nothing Congress.” Investigations will be useful, but for the most part they will only make the outgoing Administration, which is not running for reelection look even worse than they do now. But if there is one thing we can count on, Republicans will be running away from this Administration; they are already doing so. So it will be difficult to run against the record of this Administration. It will have to be based on the record of this Congress, and if they accomplish nothing, they will have to show that they did their best and that Republican obstructionism is to blame. They will have one advantage by being in the majority. They will control the agenda.
Well then what are Democrats to do? As important as the Iraq war was in this last election one other issue may very well have been more important; and that is the issue of corruption. Democrats cannot; must not shilly-shally around on this issue. The possibility that Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker, might have picked Alcee Hastings, a man who had once been impeached and removed for taking a bribe while a federal judge would have been a disastrous beginning.
Now Pelosi faces a new dilemma. Representative William Jefferson, Dem. of New Orleans has been reelected to his seat. He was the Democrat who hid $90,000 in his freezer. He has argued that it has been about a year since the money was found and no indictment has been handed down, proving he is innocent. All it proves that the evidence to support an indictment has not been found, but that hardly puts him above suspicion, and Democrats must show that they stand for Congressman being above suspicion. This is a hard one politically. Jefferson was just reelected by his constituents-he is black and probably will have the support of much of the black caucus in Congress, but the Democrats must show that to serve in a Congress they control, one must be above suspicion. The House has the power under the Constitution to refuse to seat members who they do not consider qualified. Democrats must refuse to seat Jefferson. The fall out within the Party will be much less, than the fallout among the American people if they seat him.
The other scandal that Democrats must address is earmarks. That is not to say that all projects that are covered by earmarks are necessarily bad, but members of Congress should approve no expenditure without full committee approval, a full vetting by the Congress and a vote on the merits. Simply, revealing who inserted the earmark is not reform. Pork will always be around, but it should never be within the control of any one member, or be inserted in the dead of night, or out of the public view, and certainly not out of the view of all the members of the Congress.
That will be a good start but Democrats need to do much more.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
"Has the Election Pushed the Democratic Party to the Right?
I concluded my last commentary with, “Next time - Has the election of so called Democratic conservatives pushed the Democratic Party to the right? I respond with a resounding, NO!
I raise that question because much of the media has focused on the Democratic candidates who won in States and Districts that had in the past been heavily Republican and dubbed them “conservatives” who could not be counted on to carry out the Democratic progressive agenda.
This analysis is in my opinion misplaced because it ignores both what the term conservative means in common parlance and what the so-called Democratic conservatives believe in. (I should add that in my view the term conservative as used today is misplaced, since today’s so called conservatives want to conserve little and have a radical agenda for change.) But even in today’s context conservatives can be defined by their position on a number of crucial issues, as follows:
1.) the economic ones
2.) environmental ones
2.) the social ones
3.) the fiscal ones
4.) the foreign policy ones
5.) the racial ones
Using these broad categories as a way for evaluating the new Democratic members of Congress, let us look at two who have been dubbed “conservative” and a potential problem for the Democratic leadership in the Congress.
For example Senator elect Casey of Pennsylvania has been referred to as one of the new breed of conservative Democrat on the basis that he favors an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Even in this area, however, he supports the morning after pill, and on abortion he favors exceptions to save the life of the mother and in case of rape & incest. In addition he favors state funding of contraception.
On Social Security he opposes Social Security privatization. On Medicare he believes that the Medicare Part D program is fundamentally flawed. He wants to fill the "doughnut hole" of missing Medicare Rx costs and wants to Expand Health Care Coverage. On the minimum wage he has stated, “A Minimum Wage Increase is Long Overdue.” On taxes he has stated, [we should] repeal the tax cut for people making over $200,000 a year.
On the environment he has stated that a clean environment should be a top priority and that Congress must help curb environmental pollution. Bob Casey supports increased funding for Brownfield clean up and reinstatement of the polluter-pays principle in the Superfund program so that polluters pay to clean up their own pollution. He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Even on Social issues where he is most out of step with the majority of Democrats, particularly on abortion, he opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage; approves of civil unions so as to allow gay couples to adopt & share employment benefits, favors increased penalties for “Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes” and is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce.
On fiscal policy he urges fiscal discipline to lower interest rates. He feels that budget deficits choke investment and drives business to ruin.
On Iraq policy he is more hardline than most Democrats by opposing any deadline or timeline for pulling our troops out, but he wants to ask tough questions about colossal intelligence failure.
On the racial issues he is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce, though he takes a tough stance on illegal immigration and on gun control.
The bottom line is that while he would not stand shoulder to shoulder on all issues dear to the liberal wing of the Democratic party he is hardly someone who would undermine the Democratic majority.
But is he an exception from other so called conservative Democrats elected in this election. Let us look at Senator elect Webb of Virginia who was written off as being a “Blue Dog Democrat” as soon as he was elected and before. The emphasis was that he was a Republican who served 4 years in the Reagan Administration first as Assistant Secretary of Defense, then as Secretary of the Navy. Nevertheless, shortly after his election he said,” the most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''
On Iraq he feels so strongly that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb ''tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, ''How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''I'd like to get them out of Iraq.'' Bush said, ''That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''That's between me and my boy.''
Webb told the Washington Post: ''I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall”. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration.
It is impossible to review in one analysis where all the so called conservatives in the new Democratic Congress stand but on the basis of these two, who have been much maligned as not being on board with the Democratic agenda, I would say that Democrats are united as never before on most major issues, and that the obstacles to progress lies not in division within the Democratic Party, and certainly not between the newly elected Democrats and the old stalwarts, but rather by the fact that Republicans still have enough votes in the Senate to block action, and if that is not enough there lurks the Presidential veto.
These, however, are the obstacles to progress and not that newly elected Democrats shift the party to the Right.
I raise that question because much of the media has focused on the Democratic candidates who won in States and Districts that had in the past been heavily Republican and dubbed them “conservatives” who could not be counted on to carry out the Democratic progressive agenda.
This analysis is in my opinion misplaced because it ignores both what the term conservative means in common parlance and what the so-called Democratic conservatives believe in. (I should add that in my view the term conservative as used today is misplaced, since today’s so called conservatives want to conserve little and have a radical agenda for change.) But even in today’s context conservatives can be defined by their position on a number of crucial issues, as follows:
1.) the economic ones
2.) environmental ones
2.) the social ones
3.) the fiscal ones
4.) the foreign policy ones
5.) the racial ones
Using these broad categories as a way for evaluating the new Democratic members of Congress, let us look at two who have been dubbed “conservative” and a potential problem for the Democratic leadership in the Congress.
For example Senator elect Casey of Pennsylvania has been referred to as one of the new breed of conservative Democrat on the basis that he favors an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Even in this area, however, he supports the morning after pill, and on abortion he favors exceptions to save the life of the mother and in case of rape & incest. In addition he favors state funding of contraception.
On Social Security he opposes Social Security privatization. On Medicare he believes that the Medicare Part D program is fundamentally flawed. He wants to fill the "doughnut hole" of missing Medicare Rx costs and wants to Expand Health Care Coverage. On the minimum wage he has stated, “A Minimum Wage Increase is Long Overdue.” On taxes he has stated, [we should] repeal the tax cut for people making over $200,000 a year.
On the environment he has stated that a clean environment should be a top priority and that Congress must help curb environmental pollution. Bob Casey supports increased funding for Brownfield clean up and reinstatement of the polluter-pays principle in the Superfund program so that polluters pay to clean up their own pollution. He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Even on Social issues where he is most out of step with the majority of Democrats, particularly on abortion, he opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage; approves of civil unions so as to allow gay couples to adopt & share employment benefits, favors increased penalties for “Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes” and is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce.
On fiscal policy he urges fiscal discipline to lower interest rates. He feels that budget deficits choke investment and drives business to ruin.
On Iraq policy he is more hardline than most Democrats by opposing any deadline or timeline for pulling our troops out, but he wants to ask tough questions about colossal intelligence failure.
On the racial issues he is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce, though he takes a tough stance on illegal immigration and on gun control.
The bottom line is that while he would not stand shoulder to shoulder on all issues dear to the liberal wing of the Democratic party he is hardly someone who would undermine the Democratic majority.
But is he an exception from other so called conservative Democrats elected in this election. Let us look at Senator elect Webb of Virginia who was written off as being a “Blue Dog Democrat” as soon as he was elected and before. The emphasis was that he was a Republican who served 4 years in the Reagan Administration first as Assistant Secretary of Defense, then as Secretary of the Navy. Nevertheless, shortly after his election he said,” the most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''
On Iraq he feels so strongly that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb ''tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, ''How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''I'd like to get them out of Iraq.'' Bush said, ''That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''That's between me and my boy.''
Webb told the Washington Post: ''I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall”. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration.
It is impossible to review in one analysis where all the so called conservatives in the new Democratic Congress stand but on the basis of these two, who have been much maligned as not being on board with the Democratic agenda, I would say that Democrats are united as never before on most major issues, and that the obstacles to progress lies not in division within the Democratic Party, and certainly not between the newly elected Democrats and the old stalwarts, but rather by the fact that Republicans still have enough votes in the Senate to block action, and if that is not enough there lurks the Presidential veto.
These, however, are the obstacles to progress and not that newly elected Democrats shift the party to the Right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
