Sometimes, political spin is emotionally comforting. Sometimes, spin is even convincing. But sometimes, spin nakedly leaps at you like the laughable swill it is.
This week, Nancy Pelosi lurched at us with some of the laughable stuff. After conceding that the Democratic Congress indeed met a few bumps in the road in its miserable year of 2007, she nevertheless proceeded -- sometimes, as well, pols just can't help themselves -- to counter criticism of her hapless institution by declaring: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Which reminded me of the historical; namely, Henry Adams' observation that, politically speaking, the last quarter of the century in which he mostly lived "was poor in purpose and barren in results" -- one that produced "little but damaged reputation." In that sense, his era was indeed "historic"; just not the kind one would be tempted to brag about. And in that sense it could be said that the period of 1875-1900 was that of the current year writ large.
Adams' era, of course, wasn't entirely barren in results -- it saw the passage of measures such as the Civil Service Reform and Sherman Antitrust Acts, however crippled they were in effectiveness -- but in general those 25 years were principally known for politicians defending their turf, getting themselves reelected and pretty much ignoring the nation's needs in the process. The "center" held, as vast segments of the Gilded-Age Republic went down the tubes.
Yet in time, and after ignoring the vast socioeconomic problems created by industrial capitalism and impersonal markets, the Democratic Party was pushed out of its stupor and to the left by Populism. Politicians of both major parties were then shaken and rattled by the various strains of Populism's ideological progeny, the Progressive movement. The center no longer held, and politics and politicians shifted to new, Republic-saving instruments such as the New Nationalism, the New Freedom and eventually the New Deal.
The point, however, is that the Old Guard of both parties had to be poked and prodded and rudely shoved from outside political forces. The former had been too comfortable for too long with the status quo. Only the predatory threat of a conscientious third party supplanting the electoral dominance of one or both of the major parties rattled the traditional pols into action.
Now that was historic. And one wonders if the time has not yet come again, roughly a century later, for some serious third-party rattling.
Given the epic problems our Republic faces today, Ms. Pelosi's recitation of "historic" Congressional accomplishments -- such as boosts in the minimum wage and fuel-efficiency standards -- seems designed to not only insult, but mock.
The Washington Post yesterday tidily portrayed those elephants in the room that are laughing back at Ms. Pelosi: "Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit."
Omitted from that particular retort was that, above all, this Congress has done nothing to check President Bush's powers -- that singular dereliction of Constitutional duty that poses the greatest threat to the Republic's future stability.
I understand and almost accept that it's tough, if not damn near impossible, for a politically diverse body of 535 to end one executive's war. And fiscal discipline has rarely been a hallmark of politicians with money to spend. But there is no excuse for this Democratic Congress to have sat on its indifferent ass for a year, watching with thumbs twirling the most egregious, presidential nullification of Constitutional checks and balances ever so menacingly thrown into the citizenry's face. No excuse. None.
Mr. Bush's own recitation of untouchable powers he has taken unto himself would cause the Founders to say, Yep, we expected executive coups like this -- you just can't trust the bastards, especially if their name is George -- and that's why we armed Congress with Constitutional weapons to fight back and balance the books of power. Hence the Founders would also be nonplussed, put out and exceedingly pissed off that this Democratic Congress has, simply, done no such thing.
Instead, Democrats -- just as most politicians did throughout the last quarter of the 19th century -- have concentrated on defending their turf and getting themselves reelected. Meanwhile, they've ignored the nation's principal need of an executive takedown and major attitude readjustment.
If ever a time were ripe for imposing a little Constitutional reality on a faithless and metastasizing presidency, this is it. And it's beginning to look like our era will require the strong-arming of a Populist-Progressive-like third party movement to shake the nominal progressives into action.
Count me in!
Posted by: Catfish | December 21, 2007 at 09:29 AM
The Liberal 3rd Party movement could not reach a consensus on the safe states issue, the Green Party was to be the 3rd Party, it would not yield on safe states and you cant have a new movement that eats itself over such a thing. When the Greens voted to have safe states, Naders followers should have worked within that framework, because they built it. What new movement is going to succeed if you eat yourself over the 1st strategic decision where you dont get the consensus you want.
Posted by: OH | December 21, 2007 at 11:29 AM
We either need a new party, or the threat of a new party, to give the Dems a kick in the pants.
I think the time is NOW for people to let the Dem leadership that we want Populist Progressive candidates or we won't vote Dem.
Posted by: epppie | December 21, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Althought I completely agree with your indictment of the democratic inability to thwart even the most trivial of the Bush admin's power grabs, I must remind you of the effect that the third party Nader campaign had on election 2000.
What's more, I live in Texas. In the last gubernatorial race here, the Republican incumbent (Perry) had a god-awful approval rating. But opposing him were a Democrat and two other left-leaning third party opponents. Perry won with about 35% of the vote. The majority actually voted for progressive or semi-progressive candidates.
Long story short - split the liberal vote and you hand the election to the Republicans.
Posted by: Nikolai Tesla | December 21, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Q: Why do the Democrats continue to allow these outrages to occur?
A: Because the rubes continue to vote for them.
The Green Party is the third-largest party in the US, and the only one that doesn't accept corporate money.
The only way to start taking our country back from the corporations is to vote Green.
Posted by: Alan8 | December 21, 2007 at 01:05 PM
A wise man oce said that the two parties never accomplished anything. It was the radicals who sacrificed (sometimes with their lives)in order for the society to move in the right direction. With the Fascists in control, when is the last time you heard anyone even remotely to the Left, much less a true radical, to balance out the wingnuts of the right? Who is the opposite of Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter? Nobody that will ever get face time on your boob tube, I'll guarantee you that. There is no Left in this country and until there is a decent person like Kucinich is considered the lunatic fringe instead of dead center where almost everybody actually is. The Democrats are center-right and the Repugs are hard right, period. Fair and Balanced, my ass.
Posted by: Hotrod54235 | December 21, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Great, timely post, Mr. Carpenter. I'm reminded of the story of Louisiana "boss" Huey Long. Until "the Kingfish's" populist, tax-the-rich for schools, roads, and hospitals" agenda started kicking in, Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a big fan of such "liberal" policies supporting unions, public health care for the needy, or (heavens forbid) Social Security. FDR only adopted those programs reluctantly, over a period of years, largely to stave off the very popular support for populists such as Huey Long, who was assassintated before he could break into national politics.
Sean Penn plays the role well in the movie remake of The Kingfish, when, campaigning for governor, he harangues his audience of "hicks" out in rural Louisiana: "They want to Ruin You!" talking about the Louisiana Democratic Party machine (that today is both the Democratic and Republican Party machines).
Hell, it is SIMPLY AMAZING how the whore "major media" plays the New Orleans residents protesting the demolition of 400 units of public housing as "violent protesters" - when the "Citizens being ripped off by billion-dollar taxpayer funded contracts to Bush crony contractors" is a so much more compelling story. Wouldn't it be nice if we could put EVERY media whore involved in this abusrdity - every reporter, every editor, every producer, every on-air talking head - in one of those formaldehyde filled FEMA trailers BushCo. is trying to stick disaster residents in.
http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/07/are_fema_traile.html
We Democratic/liberal/progressive votes and activists need to start putting together A LIST of the atrocities and in-your-face corruptions of BushCo, the cowering Democrats, and their big-media accomplices, who try to make ANY citizen demands for justice or fairness look like criminal conduct. (Speaking of which, didn't the Bush-Cheney supporters gather outside of Vice President Gore's VP mansion during the recount, protesting 24.7, and didn't Tom DeLay's election thugs descend on Miami/Dade county vote reounts, to threaten a riot to stop the recount, the so-called "Brooks Brothers riot"?)
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushdec1.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html
At the very least, it is time to DEMAND that our Democrat "leaders" FIGHT for us, the way Republicans fight for right-wing religous, big-biz, and war policies.
Posted by: verifi | December 21, 2007 at 02:27 PM
I agree with the posters above who pointed out that 3rd party movements split the liberal/progressive votes so that the Greedy Old Perverts win again. It's the leadership of the Democrats we need to target. Then they will "get religion". I'm sick and tired of the sycophantic, co-dependent, enabling, so-called "Democratic" leadership. Nancy and "Sluggo" Reid must go. Period. End of story.
Posted by: NCBlueneck | December 21, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Although I still blame Nader (and to a much larger extent utter corruption) for the 2000 election, I cannot see voting for any democrat besides Dennis Kucinich in 2008. And given that both the dem leadership and corporate media are doing everything in their power to eliminate this option, I will either not be voting for a president or voting for a third party (and would certainly consider Ron Paul if Kucinich agreed to be his running mate). I, for one, can no longer stomach the betrayal of the dems. After I vote for Kucinich in the primary, I am reregistering as an Independent.
Posted by: Jeff Mays | December 21, 2007 at 03:06 PM
It is precisely the liberal fear of "splitting the vote" that keeps putting faux-Democrats like Reid and Pelosi in office. They assist the Republicans in marginalizing people like Kucinich and actually getting people to believe that honest voices like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are loonies. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Posted by: Dana Hatch | December 21, 2007 at 03:10 PM
As a life long Democrat I'm ready to say to hell with all of them... I will never ever consider voting for a republican. BUT I'm reaching the point of giving up on the Democrats too... I’m just so frustrated!! Having worked for the press during the Watergate era I had hoped the press would step up and again do the job the founding fathers intended them to do… Let the public know when their government is doing wrong… But it became apparent the press has been bought and sold us out… Then in 2006, beyond vote suppression and third world election shenanigans, the Democrats came to power…. I thought now it’s time the ”peoples work” to get done… BUT nope, the spineless Democrats just cave and cave and cave…. If Bush says he’ll veto a spending bill then let him veto it! Then turn it around and say “Mr. President it’s your fault the troops don’t have any funds!!! AND STICK BY IT!!! Pathetic bunch of weenies!!
Posted by: Fed up | December 21, 2007 at 04:47 PM
During Campaign Season 2006, John Conyers was holding impeachment hearings and the Democratic [sic] Party promised to end Duhbya's Folly in Iraq.
Now that they have control of the agenda and more than enough votes to defeat any spending bill in the House and filibuster to oblivion in the Senate, Democrats on the Hill have not only failed to oppose the Bush League, they've appropriated funds to extend and escalate Duhbbya's Folly twice in one year.
2007 truly will be historic: It'll be recorded as the year of the least opposition from an opposition party holding a majority.
So maybe voting Green does defeat Democrats. If this is what Democrats do while in power, I fail to see why that's a bad thing. What's the use of supporting an opposition [sic] party which doesn't actually oppose?
As for me, I won't be bamboozled again. I took the pledge and encourage you to do the same:
"I will vote based on results and results only. Not party loyalty, not perceived "electability", not lesser-of-two-evils, not charisma or anything else. Just results. Come 2008, if American troops are still in harms way overseas, or if Cheney & Duhbbya have not been impeached, no Democrat -- at any level -- will get my vote. Do your job or you're fired."
Posted by: A. Nonny Mouse | December 21, 2007 at 06:40 PM
The moment is right now to apply this leverage. These candidates and primary voters in general have to be made aware that there is a sizable voting bloc who won't be with them in November if we end up with a status quo nominee. That means we have to be clear about what we want to happen- single payer health care, a non-imperialist foreign policy, a total return to constitutional law. None of these issues should be compromised before we're even at the bargaining table, which is the standard practice of the current Democratic Party.
Posted by: red fuzzy hat | December 21, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Nikolai Tesla (@4) very unfortunately has it absolutely correct.
Work to overthrow complicit Democrats in the Primaries and get physically to meetings etc and work at every level to promote a progressive agenda, including preventing election fraud, but in the general election any Democrat to the left of Lieberman, will always be better than the Gang Of Pirates.
Florida's Bill Nelson often votes with Lieberman, and is certainly as bad as comes on many issues, but he stood with Chris Dodd on the FISA bill, and that alone will forgive a lot in my lites.
If instead of complaining, Chris Dodd got a huge bump of support for president, just for standing up for America like some sort of actual leader, backbones might again become a fad.
Posted by: Freedem | December 22, 2007 at 09:36 PM
There are no "elephants in the room." They've been crowded out by the "traitors in the room," both Republican and DINO alike.
You know who they are. They talk big talk and feign concern for WE THE PEOPLE, but they continue to vote for the interests of "they the few," namely the members of the corporate oligarchy.
Worse yet, they continue to vote for bills that are clearly unconstitutional, so the phrase "traitors in the room" is indeed accurate.
With few exceptions, the vast majority of our elected representatives in Congress need to be replaced immediately. We cannot afford to wait until the next election.
Every one of their unconstitutional laws needs to be rescinded. Every one of their unconstitutional court decisions needs to be overturned.
WE THE PEOPLE don't need their permission. WE can march on Washington, D.C., assemble peaceably for as along as it takes for us to force out all the traitors and for us to end all of their unconstitutional laws.
Those are our rights under the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE are the true sovereignty of the United States. Our representatives just work for us and can be fired any time and for any reason WE choose.
If the unconstitutional bill S.1959 passes in the Senate and is signed into law, for posting this comment, I could be arrested, tortured and murdered by the federal government in one of the newly built Halliburton concentration camps, without a trial.
It's 1930's Germany all over again folks. Before it's too late, wake up and smell the Adolph Cheney!
Posted by: Kevin Schmdt, Ojai CA | December 23, 2007 at 09:44 AM