“‘This administration may be over,’ Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans’ 1960s and ’70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. ‘By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over.‘” Are we at the turn of the tide? As even committed conservatives and right-leaning observers start sticking a fork in the Dubya administration, newly confident Dems begin to prepare for a return of the House. Foremost in their plans is “a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls…a Democratic House would [also] launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House’s first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.”
Tag: Democrats
State of Emergency.
Defying Dubya’s talk of a veto — in keeping with the Operation Offset line of thinking, he wants less spending to help mitigate his ridiculous tax giveaways — and Dennis Hastert’s declaration that it was “dead on arrival” in the House, the Senate passes an $109 billion emergency spending bill 77-21. “The Senate bill would provide $70.9 billion to the military to pay for personnel, operation and maintenance, and procurement costs, along with diplomatic efforts such as democracy-building programs. The Senate more than doubled a $58 million request for peacekeeping assistance in Sudan, providing $173 million. Bush requested $19.8 billion in hurricane-related assistance, and the Senate responded with $28.9 billion — adding projects large and small.”
Coming In from the Cold (War).
“[F]or all their practical failures, conservatives have at least told a coherent political story, with deep historical roots, about what keeps America safe and what makes it great. Liberals, by contrast, have offered adjectives drawn from focus groups and policy proposals linked by no larger theme.” In keeping with the intellectual territory he staked out after the 2004 election, former TNR editor Peter Beinart makes the case for a return to Cold War liberalism in a NYT excerpt of his new book, The Good Fight (also discussed in the recent Atlantic Monthly.)
I couldn’t agree more with Beinart’s paragraph above, but I don’t think the lack of a sufficiently robust national security emphasis is really the defining element missing among today’s Dems. Are there really Democrats out there who don’t agree with Beinart’s three main assessments here, that (a) America faces a real enemy in Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror networks, (b) our foreign policy should be less hubristic and more attuned to both local contingency and international institutions, and (c) our national sense of self should emphasize our own fallibility at times? Beinart would probably target the MoveOn crowd, but as Eric Alterman noted in the last round of this back-and-forth, that’s just a DLC straw man, roughly akin to Joe Klein’s cadre of phantom lefty consultants in the last update.
Plus, I think there are two significant historical problems with the Cold War liberalism Beinart unreservedly espouses, which he fails to discuss here. For one, Cold War liberals could very easily be seen as best inattentive to and — at worst complicit in — the excesses of McCarthyism. If the enemy abroad becomes the central defining focus of your national narrative, then the enemy within is undoubtedly going to start eating at you as well. For another, (and as John Gaddis, among others, has pointed out) — for all its early sense of diplomatic complexity and limited, realistic goals — the Cold War liberalism Beinart promotes all too readily (d)evolved into the guiding rationale for wildly wrongheaded foreign policy interventions, most notably in Vietnam. (You’d think Beinart would pay more lip service to this issue, particularly as he himself made much the same mistake in shilling for the Iraq war in The New Republic.)
In short, I agree with Beinart’s assessment that the Dems lack a sense of usable past, but the problems with his argument can be encapsulated by his ideal of a what a good, hawkish, Cold War liberal Democrat should look like these days: That, if Beinart’s tenure at TNR is any indication, would be Joe Lieberman, a politician who’s not only been flagrantly cheerleading for the administration during the current war, but has exhibited little interest in today’s wartime civil liberties issues. Simply put, Joe Lieberman would hardly be my choice of template for the Democratic party. (Who would? That’s easy: Russ Feingold, who’s displayed a strong commitment to preserving both national security and civil liberties at home, while arguing for a more level-headed, less-in-your-face American foreign policy.)
Bleeding Turnip (Day.)
“Up until now, you have probably thought that when you saw Democrats dumping their traditional principles in order to run pallid, market-tested campaigns appealing to swing voters with rhetoric borrowed from the G.O.P., they were doing so because they had been listening to consultants, pollsters, focus groups and so on. Well — according to Mr. Klein, you have it precisely backwards. In Joe’s world, the consultants and the pollsters and even the money are all on the other side, forever driving the cowardly politicians to the partisan extremes. Consultants on the Democratic side seem always to turn out to be liberals in Mr. Klein’s telling, and liberalism itself is usually the sad result of a candidate listening to consultants.” By way of Ted at The Late Adopter, Thomas Frank of What’s the Matter with Kansas? eviscerates Joe Klein’s new book Politics Lost. I liked the TIME excerpt decently enough, but Frank pretty much takes the book apart here.
House for Sale: New Wallpaper, Same Rotting Foundation.
After a deal is reached with irate Republicans on the House Appropriations committee (who were piqued by a rather tame anti-earmarking measure that has since been broadened beyond appropriations bills), the House GOP pass a cosmetic “lobbying reform” bill 216-207 that emphasizes disclosure of donations, gifts, and earmarks rather than outright bans. “A solid phalanx of Democrats and 12 Republicans, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) and Republicans pushing for stronger measures, cast votes against the legislation…Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) said the bill was less than a window dressing and should be rejected. Later, to reporters, he called the bill ‘pathetic.’ On the House floor, he added: ‘We’re losing our moral authority to lead this place.’“
Stem the Tide? / Burns & DeWine.
“‘What Democrats want to do is gin up their turnout in the suburbs and divide Republicans, and right now they may do that’ said Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. ‘This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans.‘” According to the NYT, congressional Dems think they may have a winner in November with the stem cell issue. And, also in election news, polls suggest the once-highly vulnerable Abramoff flunky Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) may be shedding the taint of Casino Jack, while potentially beatable Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) looks to do the same with Donald Rumsfeld.
Two out of Three Ain’t Bad.
Further dispatches from the GOP freefall: As the Republican Congress desperately tries to look busy, that bastion of the liberal media FOX News puts Dubya’s approval rating at a new low — 33%.
Small-R Republic.
“What the Democrats still don’t have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society. Indeed, the party and the constellation of interests around it don’t even think in philosophical terms and haven’t for quite some time. There’s a reason for this: They’ve all been trained to believe — by the media, by their pollsters — that their philosophy is an electoral loser. Like the dogs in the famous “learned helplessness” psychological experiments of the 1960s — the dogs were administered electrical shocks from which they could escape, but from which, after a while, they didn’t even try to, instead crouching in the corner in resignation and fear — the Democrats have given up attempting big ideas. Any effort at doing so, they’re convinced, will result in electrical (and electoral) shock.“
By way of The Late Adopter (whom y’all really should be reading), The American Prospect‘s Michael Tomasky makes the case for a Democratic turn towards small-r republicanism and a renewed embrace of the common good. This is the closest article I’ve seen in some time to my own thoughts on where the Dems need to go these days (and in fact sounds a lot like a side-project I’ve been working on in my spare time, which I’ll share with y’all more as it progresses.) “The task before today’s Democratic Party isn’t just to eke out electoral victories; it’s to govern, and to change our course in profound ways. I’d like to think they can do it. But the Democrats must become republicans first.“
Breaking News: Rain is wet.
Sit down before you read this one, folks. In the well-duh dept., the Post front-pages the following story today: “Anger at Bush May Hurt GOP at Polls.” Really? Who woulda thunk it? Next you’ll be telling me that Santorum might be going down too.
Steep Ascent.
“‘If this election comes down to the individual, race-by-race, case-by-case campaigns, like we’ve seen for the last four cycles, the Democrats don’t have enough top-tier candidates to win 15 seats,’ Amy Walters, a House political analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said, referring to a net gain. ‘But they do have enough second- and third-tier candidates who can ride a wave.‘” Even given Iraq, Abramoff, and the current GOP implosion, it seems that Dems will have their work cut out for them if they’re going to succeed in taking back the House this November.