forbesfacts

DemocracyAction

2006-07-03T22:04:00.000-07:00

The New Republic’s Peter Beinart provocative and historically based book “The Good Fight” is a must read for any liberal who needs a refresher on where we have been and some thoughtful ideas as to where we should, or could go. His thesis is creating quite a stir among liberal intellectuals, with the New Republic under his guidance standing out as a liberal hawk. And while Beinart told me face to face that what I call genetic doves may be hard to bring on board, he has the Democratic Party’s interest firmly in heart. His book makes a very good case for why liberals should remain aggressively engaged in policing the world.

The first three chapters summarize the split in the liberal’s movement since the end of World War II. Already, there were two camps: The anti-communist liberals (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Scoop Jackson etc.) and the anti-anti-communist liberals (McCarthy, McGovern and most of the students in the street) followed by the split between hawks and doves with Gore in the former group and Mondale in the later. He accurately makes the case that it is this split over foreign policy that has probably undermined the liberal movement most of all, and has contributed most to the substantial weakening of the Democratic Party.

It is a debate that I think must be made and thanks to a belatedly dovish John Kerry appears to be under way in the Democratic Party, albeit reluctantly and without the confidence that the debate will actually help the party and the country. It is a debate I think DemocracyAction members should get involved in if for no other reason than we are a Petri dish of how tolerant dovish liberals might be of such a position.

In my view, had Clinton, who started off a very reluctant warrior despite his Democratic Leadership Council roots, grabbed the country’s center for the Democrats like Tony Blair did in the U.K. we could have had an enduring hawkish liberal majority that no doubt would have survived 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq. But it seemed he cared less for the Democratic Party and more for himself, or was not as good a politician as we give him credit for. It was an opportunity lost, with a stake driven through the heart of a potential liberal comeback by Monica Lewinsky, hanging chads and a new level of viciousness from the right.

Unlike Beinart, I vehemently opposed the Iraqi war. But not because I am a dove. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo. I would support intervention in Darfur and any place on the planet where indiscriminate killing or human rights violation occurs. But there was something very fishy about Iraq and I never trusted Bush’s motives. I also felt that there were many ways to skin that cat and reduce the suffering there including by dropping the sanctions with links to human rights improvements and satisfactory monitoring. I also had no real problem with Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Baghdad and felt the methodical dishing out of punishment by destroying palaces was a good approach for a creep like Saddam.

But I understand that many will not agree with me. Some of us are doves deep to our souls. Our very nature shuns confrontation and resents bullies. I wouldn’t be surprised if this genetic passivity doesn’t encompass 30% of our country’s population and close to a majority of Democrats. But I also recognize that there are genetic hawks too. Hardliners like Dick Cheney, John McCain and Rick Santorum who want nothing to do with carrots and only wield sticks. I would guess that this may also be about 30% of the population and a slight majority of registered Republicans.

Which leaves everyone else. The moderates. Unfortunately for a liberal moderate movement, middle of the road Republicans are hardly represented in Washington. Through the efforts of the likes of Tom DeLay and the Republican Party apparatus, middle of the road Republicans are completely sidelined and only hardliners are getting elected, leaving maybe only a handful of Republican senators to work with and virtually no congressmen. But these so called elected officials are not representative of the people, which leaves a huge opportunity for the Democrats if only the party could reconcile its foreign policy differences and then wage a multiyear campaign to convince moderate Republicans that the Democratic Party is really the one for them.

Of course, I understand the argument that comes from the far left that a pro-war Democratic Party is not for them. But it doesn’t have to be pro-war. Beinart is correct here that Democrats can and must agree on a common foreign policy position that is not ridiculously and dangerously hawkish like Bush’s has been, but is not going to avoid our moral responsibility as the world’s great power to help others who are in need, even if we have to go it alone.

Darfur is the perfect example. Rather than spend exhaustive energy convincing the UN Security Council to take meaningful action in the Sudan, the United States should just go in with any country that wants to join us. When the moral imperative is so great, I believe unilateralism should be our party policy, and I believe it will be hugely successful with the people if it is competently applied like it was under Clinton.

When the circumstances are murkier however, different solutions are called for. Bombing Iran for instance should not be part of the Democrat’s policy. A better approach to this ridiculous standoff over religion, lost face and their desire to have the bomb is to thoroughly engage the Iranians on every level they are willing to go. The same should hold true to Cuba and North Korea. Once every carrot imaginable is rejected, then a stick approach can be used. Or better yet, maybe we beat them with carrots. The patronizing belief that we not only need to be the babysitters of the world as well as the policemen ignores the reality that all leaders of all countries think they are just as right and legitimate as we do and to treat them as anything but legitimate is only counter productive.

To convince the American people of this new approach, it needs to be presented in an overriding philosophical context. It’s not dovish; it’s not cut and run. It’s aggressive engagement. Respectful global leadership. And its action more than words. As Beinart points out, liberals believe that America must continue to earn the respect it once had in order to lead while the current right wing leadership just thinks being American is enough. People will buy rhetoric that we need to maintain our ideals in order to lead if it is said confidently and in a global context. For the Democratic leadership to come out with platitudes that omit any mention of Iraq and our position in the world leaves such a huge gap in the role of government that Republicans are going to be able to run a nuclear powered aircraft carrier right through it and the people are going to see that something is missing.

In summary, I encourage all to read Bienart’s book I believe we need to come to a consensus as a party as to what our country’s foreign policy role should be vis-a-vis dangerous regimes and failed states. Simultaneously, we need to make it possible if not imperative that moderate Republicans unrepresented in Washington will want to become Democrats without triangulating our core beliefs, and new voters will want to join our party, a party that is once again proud to be American

Francine can win in November

2006-06-12T17:17:00.000-07:00

Like everyone else, I am extremely disappointed in Francine Busby’s loss in the run off. Notwithstanding the cost of her gaff about immigrant’s papers and voting, I believe she lost because Republicans are too loyal to their party, regardless of how bad it is and in her district they are just too many Republicans. These people want nothing to do with Democrats. They have been conditioned over the years to despise Democrats, to consider Democrats synonymous with Communists, laziness and anti-Americanism. I know, I grew up down there.

Francine generally tried to be a centrist candidate—god knows she was way to the right of my beliefs--yet because of the visceral anti-Democratic feeling of the majority of the voters in her district, she hit a ceiling. Nothing short of a radical shift will help her win in November. If ever there was an election a Democrat should have won, it was this one. I also think what happened to her is foreboding for California’s 4^th and the 11^th Congressional Races.

The radical could happen however. First, Billbray could get caught between now and November having broken the law (likely) or been too close to others who have broken the law. Investigations into any links he had with Enron, Cunningham and Abramoff among others is imperative. I believe the Busby campaign and the blogosphere need to do all they can to investigate this guy’s past and watch his present. But more will be needed than the hope that he will start imploding the moment he reaches Washington. He’s a crafty seasoned fellow and unlikely to make any new mistakes.

But Francine could get past this guy by challenging voters and by Swiftboating the attack ads.

Many people don’t know that it was John Kerry would devised the tactic of sending the Swift Boats straight into enemy fire rather than merely playing decoy as they were originally commanded to do. One of his biggest mistakes as we know in the Presidential campaign was not turning his campaign straight into the direction of the Swiftboat for Truth ads and attacking the integrity of those who sponsored them.

Busby should have done the same. As soon as the righty newscasters and ads came out quoting what she said to that paperless immigrant her campaign should have attacked, challenging people, warning them that the ads were propaganda and linking that method to the Republican Party and asking them, is this what you want more of, “Lies, half truths, distortions?” “If you like your government not being straight with you, then vote for the Republican Party. If you think my opponent is perfect, vote for him. You know what I meant, then he could work on my campaign without being registered to vote. Don’t listen to the lies.”

That tactic is still available heading into the November race. But it will no longer be
Swiftboating because the enemy is safe now. Swiftboating must be immediate. But there is more she can do.

She can talk about immigration. I would approach this as a transition from corruption. “Forty five percent of you believe our government is corrupt and that we need new leadership. But 49% seem to think that immigration is so bad in this country that it trumps corruption. I see it a little different. Yes, illegal immigration may be costing our communities $10 billion a year. But congress is stealing $350 billion per year, giving most of that to their cronies in the form of no bid contracts, a suspicious war and tax cuts primarily for the richest 1%. But if you want to talk about immigration, let’s talk about immigration.

“For starters, why hasn’t anyone thought to include Mexico in the talks about immigration? Has it ever occurred to Mr. Billbray and this other hardliners that when a country has twenty million people living on $2 per day and the man that owns the telephone company is worth $30 billion that maybe the problem is there, not here? Recent studies have shown that Mexico’s inefficient monopolies take away no less than 1% in GDP.

“Without these monopolies there could be millions of new jobs in Mexico that would not only substantially reduce immigration to our country but could create new high paying jobs here too. But for some reason our Republican leadership doesn’t say anything about this. It’s almost as if they revere the Mexican system because the rich are so rich and the poor are so powerless. Well if am elected congresswoman in November I intend to bring Mexico into the talks. I want to know what they are going to do to reform their economy to reduce immigration and if I don’t like what I hear I will support stiffer measures. I want these people to meet us half-way.

“And there is more to this. If we can get Mexico to further reform its economy we can create good jobs for Americans who are willing to go there. Management, engineering, construction, banking. These are all areas where Americans, especially those with Spanish language skills can find good work.

Further, I want to see a more open border form them too. Why is it harder for an American to get into Mexico to work than it is for a Mexican to get into the U.S. This is absurd. Fair is fair.

Now I know that many Democrats may not like the sound of this, as if it is too much like globalization, but let’s face it folks, stopping poor people from coming to a rich country to feed their family is not only questionable morally, it is nearly impossible to enforce without acting immoral. The solution is to work both sides of the border. Yet nobody is calling for just that.”

What Francine and many other Democrats don’t get is that by and large Republicans don’t want to share power with Democrats and are not interested in unity. And after six years of single party rule, Democrats should not be interested in working with the other side either. Francine should stop this talk. What she should do instead is talk up the Democratic Party and talk down the Republican Party. She needs to trust her leadership abilities and the ability of the Democratic Party to lead this country to a better place. All she has to do is pick up 10% of the Republicans who voted for Billbray, or 15% of the Democrats who didn’t vote. These could easily all be women. She just needs to convince them that the parties have changed. She should let the people know that she was a Republican once and she knows what it’s like to have been betrayed.

Francine can still win. But she needs to go on the offensive big time.

Democratic Strategy to Win

2006-05-12T21:52:00.000-07:00

If the Democratic Party wants to regain the house and Senate this November, it has to avoid getting trapped in one on one fights with Republican incumbents and wage a comprehensive campaign as a team. They need to attack the entire Republican Party in two ways: First, by pointing out that the party is a fraud. It has violated every tenet of its own philosophy and as the rampant corruption within it proves can no longer be trusted to govern. Second, that it is a party devoted and controlled by only a few: Corporations and Evangelical Christians.

The Democratic Party on the other hand is the party for everyone else. It is the party of fiscal responsibility, small and effective government, honest and transparent government, a clean environment, a women’s right to choose, civil liberties, fair elections, true patriotism and sensible solutions based upon facts not ideology. It has respect for what government can do and therefore governs better than Republicans, who let their disdain for government show by trashing the very institutions that are supposed to make this country safe and prosperous.

The Democratic tent has never been so broad. But this is not a weakness, as unwieldy as managing it might be. It is a giant strength. The Democrats should embrace this tent and find common ground within it. Forget about trying to appease the far right, who will never be satisfied anyway. Democrats need to stand for what they believe in, and speak the truth about the Republican Party. There is no reason to be afraid to trash the majority party. It deserves it and people will be suspicious if they are not held to account.

Scarborough a populist?

2006-03-20T19:27:00.000-08:00

Is Joe Scarborough suddenly a populist, siding with America's workers over his party's partners in crime? By finally getting it that our current government is owned by corporations, his oppostion to the current Pension Reform Bill (a pension version of the bankruptcy bill where all the risks fall on the worker) is refreshing, I think.