More on Robust Opposition

Arianna Huffington gets this right:

Republicans realize that Lamont represents a re-energized opposition, a reinvigorated Democratic Party fueled by progressive ideals, a willingness to stand up to the GOP smear machine, and a motivated netroots. This scares the hell out of Bush and company, which is why they are throwing their support behind Lieberman. They already know how to beat Lieberman Democrats. Indeed, they beat Lieberman Democrats in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Lamont Democrats are a whole different story. The jump in new Connecticut Democratic voter registration and record turnout in the primary are telltale signs for all to read.

That's why the stand Democratic presidential hopefuls take in Connecticut is so vital. The Lamont/Lieberman battle is no longer a Dem vs Dem race. The facts are clear: Lieberman's campaign is running on Republican resources, Republican consultants, Republican voter files, Republican swift boat groups.

So any Democrat who isn't standing strong for Lamont is, in effect, providing cover for the Radical Right -- Lieberman's vows to caucus with Democrats notwithstanding. Do you really think Rove and the NRSC aren't expecting some future quid for their quo? And how surprised would you be if, in exchange for some plumb committee chairmanship, Lieberman ends up caucusing with Republicans -- and sanctimoniously justifying it as for the good of bipartisanship and the good of the country?  Read more.

The middle is only useful if there are two sides to mediate.  As I said the other day, in a de facto one-party system, there are no moderates, only collaborators.  That's what the DLC Dems have become, no matter how differently they think of themselves as bi-partisan idealists.  Even if you don't agree with the "progressive ideals" that Huffington hopes will animate a reinvigorated Democratic party, the country still needs a healthy Democratic Party.  So hold your nose if you must, but vote for the candidate with the D next to his name this November.

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

Point blank:

How does a crass, craven operator/political buyout artist such as Maria Cantwell make the Democratic Party healthier?

I realize this might seem like treading upon the same familiar terrain, but I'm trying to advance the argument: with the presidential campaign cycle starting, for all intents and purposes, in the summer of 2007 (thereby constraining what a lame-duck Bush can do, and putting the focus on the next would-be presidency), just how absolutely necessary is it to have a Democratic Senate for, in essence, the six months from January '07-July '07?

Isn't it much more important to send the signal to Democrats that if they want to win the party nomination in '08, they must oppose the war and have the courage of their convictions, something not seen at the presidential level since the 1992 Clinton campaign (and which went out the door after the 1994 Republican revolution, which made the Clintonistas turn policy-making into nonstop politicking)?

[Jack Whelan]

I don’t buy your argument, Matt. ‘08 is much less important than ‘06 because we are dealing with an emergency now. If this were politics as usual Bush would be a severely lamed duck who would be powerless to do much in the next two years, but he will do what he thinks god is telling him to do unless there is a way to stop him. I believe we are very likely to attack/invade Iran in December (or shortly thereafter) if we don’t have some way to stop the Bush people in November. We can’t let Bush get another unchallenged right-wing Supreme Court nomination. We need to get subpoena power and to make this administration feel that it cannot act with impunity. If Dems have a majority, Cantwell will vote on partisan lines to oppose the administration on all these issues. Her character and opportunism are irrelevant. Nothing could be clearer to me, and I think you are making things too complicated or hypothetically abstract. This is not about the character of the individual candidates; it’s about whether individual candidates are more or less likely to be part of the counterforce against the Bush madness. Cantwell is getting the message, that supporting the war or Bush aggression is no longer a tenable Dem position. She's not an idiot; she does what's in her political self-interest. Do you think McGavrick is more likely to oppose Bush aggression? If you could guarantee that the Dems will get a senate majority without Cantwell’s seat, then we would have the luxury of entertaining your argument. Until we have a way to stop Bush, everything else is secondary.

jw

[Matt Zemek]

Well, Jack, it's not as though I don't know where you're coming from. Goodness knows, I totally understand the motives, thought patterns and long-term goals behind your strategy.

My question, then, is this: how long is nose-holding necessary to save the Republic? On the other side of the coin, when do we get to stop nose-holding?

With a party as spineless as the Democrats have already been during the Bush years, I think it's very unclear as to what approach would make the Democrats ultimately more robust in their opposition. Voting for them just because there's no (R) beside their name is precisely what will enable them to stay in bed with K Street lobbyists and not get off their dime.

[Jack Whelan]

Matt--

Regarding noseholding, I expect very little from the political sphere. My basic philosophy is that because politicians have so much power, the first priority is to prevent them from doing harm. I don’t think anything really positive is truly initiated in the political sphere; real initiatives for social improvement emerge from developments in the cultural sphere. That’s what’s lacking now—a spiritual/cultural movement that has political implications (e.g.the civil rights movement under MLK or Liberation Theology in Latin America). Until something like that develops, for me politics is essentially about keeping one side from getting too powerful and unaccountable.

Politics has always stunk, and it is going to stink until there’s a reason for it not to. Whenever you have high concentrations of power and money you’re going to attract the kind of people who really lust for power and money, and so Washington is always going to be filled with people like that, and bad guys will always be a force to contend with in either party. I’m not saying it’s impossible for anything good to get anything done there, but my expectations are pretty low. Good things get done usually only when politicians feel pressure from factions in the cultural sphere. The Republican party right now is more “robust” because it is feeling pressure from the cultural right in a way that the Dems are not feeling it from any coherent spiritual/cultural movement on the left.

Until something like that emerges, I expect very little from the Democrats as a party or any individual Democrats no matter how decent or noble they may be. The main role now for the Dems is to prevent the GOP from dominating the political sphere. If they can get some kind of sane health care or energy policy, great. If they can return our foreign policy toward something more mainstream, fine. Getting back to the equilibrium of the Clinton years is a realistic goal, otherwise my expectations are minimal; leadership from politicians is not the answer. Hope lies in the cultural sphere.

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

That explains a lot and clarifies a lot. It's entirely authentic and consistent with everything else you espouse.

I guess, as a freshly wounded/disillusioned progressive, I'm wondering how I can make important political choices and yet not feel that I'm sacrificing my own integrity and moral compass at the altar.

Thanks again.