I don't know how I missed last month's issue. The cover headline is "Bad-Ass Democrats" and it features profiles on two Democrats who understand what it means to be the opposition party.
Dick Durbin: Bush Fighter
and
Waxman: Democrats' Eliott Ness
I'm just going to do a brief cut and paste. There's a reason John Nichols and David Corn get paid to write for the Nation and I don't. They provide very welcome news.
more in extended entry
The November 2 defeat of minority leader Tom Daschle opened the way for a long-needed reshuffling of the Democratic Party's leadership in the upper chamber. Yet the move of Daschle's lieutenant, Nevadan Harry Reid, into the minority leader position inspired little excitement; Reid is scrappier than Daschle, but his centrist tendencies, particularly on hot-button issues such as reproductive rights and gun control, have always marked him more as a manager than a marauder. The rise of Durbin holds out the prospect of the something extra that Democrats have been missing: an edgy willingness to battle the powers that be, not just in the Senate but in the court of public opinion. "It's not an accident that Durbin is the whip. I don't think he's been elevated to be a mute," adds Axelrod, who has known the Illinois Senator since the late 1970s.
Durbin is not, however, a maverick. Though he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, he sees himself as very much in the mainstream of his party. But he recognizes something that too many party leaders in both houses have had a hard time wrapping their heads around since the 1994 election handed power to the Republicans: The mainstream of his party is not currently the mainstream of Congress. Democrats must therefore stop thinking of themselves as the natural party of government and start operating as an opposition force--picking the right fights, remaining united in their dissents and establishing a record on the most critical issues of the day that is distinct from that of the White House and the House and Senate majorities. "We have to have our own agenda," says Durbin, who has already begun meeting with Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi to shape a clearer Democratic line. Yes, Democrats suffered a serious setback in the 2004 elections--they now hold just forty-four seats in the Senate (Independent Jim Jeffords caucuses with the group to create a 55-45 partisan split). But Durbin does not see his party's diminished position as an excuse for a compromise of ideals; in fact, he says, "we Democrats can't take this sitting down. We have to stand up, look at our own agenda, our own language and figure out how we build this back into a majority party."
While Durbin is very much a member of the inner circle of Senate progressives--after the 2002 elections he formed a loose-knit progressive caucus that included Massachusetts's Ted Kennedy, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, New Jersey's Jon Corzine and several other senators who wanted Democrats to get more aggressive in battling Bush--he is no fan of lonely protest votes. He is determined to hold the Democratic caucus together in order to get the forty votes necessary to stall Bush nominees and policies. Even as he moves to leadership, Durbin plans to maintain a high profile on the Judiciary Committee--and to serve as a bridge between committee Democrats and the full caucus.
What he really wants, Durbin says, is to stop playing defense and to use what he refers to as "the most important forum in America" to define the Democratic Party as a vibrant alternative to the conservative brainlock that has settled over Washington. "This is a critical moment for our party, but it is also a critical moment for our nation. Right now, we have to fight to prevent bad things from happening, but that's not enough," says Durbin. "We need to be blunt about what distinguishes Democrats from Republicans on the issues that matter. You can do that as an opposition party. And if you do it right, you won't be the opposition party for long."
This is the guy we've been looking for. Am I the only one who missed this story? Henry Waxman is next. I'll just hit the highlights.
"Waxman has been important for House Democrats," says Representative Jim McGovern, a liberal from Massachusetts. "With the Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, it's hard to be heard. He's found ways to get our message out." Representative George Miller, the senior Democrat on the Education Committee, notes, "He's developed the model. It's what we would like every ranking member to do--to ask questions, be persistent and not accept silence. He's motivated other Democrats and has even created some discontent within the Democratic caucus because newer members on other committees sometimes don't think the ranking members are aggressive enough." And on the Senate side, Democrats--perhaps encouraged by Waxman's example--have announced they will create their own investigative team and conduct unofficial hearings on alleged Bush Administration wrongdoing.
We can thank John Burton's investigation of Clinton for the size and strength of Waxman's investigative team.
When Republicans booted the Democrats out of the majority in 1994, Waxman lost control of the subcommittee and his investigative staff. But he soon had another. In 1997 he became the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, which, as Waxman notes, has "oversight and investigative jurisdiction over everything." (Technically, the committee is supposed to ascertain that the federal government is functioning well.) At the time, the committee was primarily engaged in anti-Clinton investigations launched by then-chairman Dan Burton. The House leadership, eager to see Burton chasing after the Clintons on the Whitewater and campaign finance scandals, gladly said yes to Burton's request for more staff. Under House rules, Waxman was entitled to a third of the resources for his minority staff. This allowed him to build a team of Democratic investigators.
Working with other Democrats, Waxman notes, has not always been easy. Through the 1980s, he engaged in a now-legendary clash with John Dingell, then the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a protector of the auto industry, over clean-air legislation. Finally, the two hammered out a deal that led to the 1990 Clean Air Act. In 2003 Waxman proposed setting up an independent commission to investigate Bush's use--or abuse--of the intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. But senior Democrats who deal with intelligence issues would not join him.
What's up with that? Let's hope our senior Democrats have learned a lesson or two since then. These are two of the most encouraging articles I've read in quite some time. If our "senior Democrats" will just back off and let Dean, Durbin and Waxman kick a little Republican ass, 2006 will be a brand new ball game.
