Gooey center
By Carolyn Winter and Roger Bybee

For some time, it should have been crystal-clear that the Bush-Cheney regime was utterly and proudly impervious to record-level disapproval ratings, massive outpourings of democratic public outrage, exposures of flagrant violations of both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, and revelations about slavishly serving the interests of huge corporations and campaign contributors.

If progressives seek to exert some power in this situation, we need to consider devoting less attention to further documenting the obvious engorging of the rich at home and the bloody pursuit of empire abroad. Instead, we might try focusing some of our efforts on those who unintentionally "enable" the Bush Administration: the Democratic Congress and the mainstream media.

While the Democrats envision themselves as safely positioning the party for a massive triumph in November 2008 they need to consider that they have utterly failed to fight tenaciously to end the occupation of Iraq, preserve civil liberties, and improve the living standards of ordinary Americans. Rather than setting the stage for a major win in 2008, the Democrats may be succeeding only in deflating, disillusioning and demobilizing those who turned out in huge numbers to repudiate Bush in 2006. Recent congressional approval ratings of 18 percent illustrate the danger of alienating the Democratic base.

The Democrats’ enabling behavior has taken many forms, especially when it comes to their acceptance of the assumptions behind the supposedly successful "surge" and the war itself. They go blithely instead of pointing out emphatically that the ongoing U.S. occupation will ignite perpetual resistance and heighten Shiite-Sunni tensions until the U.S. finally withdraws. Each day provides additional examples of Democratic enabling: accepting the Republican expansion of wiretapping; rejecting a clear denunciation of Armenian genocide in order to ensure smooth Turkish cooperation with the Iraq war; failing to raise taxes on hedge-fund billionaires; and openly leaning to confirm a dubious attorney general nominee.

The weak Democratic responses to the administration’s ever-more unpopular positions on the war and domestic issues (like S-CHIP veto) have been paralyzing to progressives bearing witness to the spinelessness. At this point, the Democrats seem utterly obsessed with winning the next election not carrying out the public mandate from the last one. It is difficult for the public to clearly discern any clear Democratic vision for America. As venal and vicious as the Republicans are, they forthrightly stand up for their vision. Progressives urgently need to develop a coherent strategy to impact both the Democrats in Congress and those running for President that their base wants decisive change in both foreign and domestic policy. This means moving them beyond narrow departures from the Republican agenda and obvious electioneering to setting a persuasive progressive agenda.

By this time it is clear that most of us have been far too optimistic about the Democrats’ commitment to end the war despite 69 percent public support for that position. Part of the Democrats’ timidity can be traced to their preoccupation with the media response to their positions and the resulting implications for winning elections. The media feeds this by accusing them of partisanship every time they challenge the administration. However, by fixating on polls and the media Democrats often lose sight of the public’s fundamental desire for honesty and commitment in meeting the nation’s most critical needs.

With ever increasing intensity, the Democrats have allowed discussion of the apparently endless U.S. occupation of Iraq and domination of its resources to be replaced by a largely-empty debate about details rather than principle. With regard to Iraq, this has led to a focus on timelines or quibbles about tactics rather than seriously questioning the purpose of our presence in Iraq or the impact of our continuing occupation on the Iraqi people, our own armed forces and the well-being of our nation.

On a broader level, the challenge facing progressives is to think of a way to influence Democrats and third parties, where appropriate, to develop an agenda that can attract a broad segment of groups that want change in America. The following are some steps that should be considered in this effort:

1.) Re-focus public discourse on the genuine reality of the situations at home and abroad rather than responding to the surreal framework of elite debate. For example, we need to respond forcefully to the underlying absurdities of the pro-war position (e.g., Bush’s supposed "democracy promotion" and supporting a pro-Iranian government in Iraq while menacing Iran) rather than getting fixated on timelines or tactical issues. We need to rise above the debate du jour, and push Democratic candidates to declare their clear intention to withdraw combat troops and shut down U.S. military bases in Iraq. We also need to develop intermediate positions on health care, trade, and other complicated issues that don’t provide all the answers but state the goals (e.g. universal healthcare that excludes a central role for insurance companies). The aim of this program is to consolidate the Democratic base behind compelling, deeply-felt principles that will command a response from now-aloof congressional leaders.

2.) Mobilize all existing progressive groups toward a broad, autonomous movement built around progressive themes rather than a laundry-list of issues. This means genuinely representative leadership of coalition building efforts. If we don’t have broad leadership that includes ethnic, gender, age, and geographic diversity, we will never attract the base from these groups.

3.) Consolidate existing progressive groups around a broad, inclusive set of themes. We need to build toward an expansive, sweeping movement, so that we are not all off on our own particular issues.

4.) Develop a short-term strategy to keep pressure on ending the war and moving the candidates toward serious progressive positions. How do we effectively confront Hillary’s hawkishness (i.e. swallowing the Bush line on Iran and planning to ceaselessly fight the resistance in Iraq that is incited by the very presence of the U.S. military)? How do we encourage liberals to consider why they would want to continue a manipulative and calculating centrist dynasty?

The Clintons had eight years in the White House and the Bushes have had 12 years. Isn’t there anyone else? Given what we have endured over the past two decades, surely we are owed better than someone who has cynically enabled W’s crusades.

October 21, 2007

---

---