Sometimes when I think about this, it becomes a lot easier for me to understand what I sense is something of generation gap withint he Demcoratic Party post-2002. I am pretty young, thirty-one, and when it comes to political activism I am even younger than that. In my experience, Demcorats pretty much lost repeatedly. In the experience of those older than myself, Democrats pretty much governed. Older members of the party see us as a governing party, while younger members such as myself view us as an opposition party.
As someone who is pretty firmly in the "just oppose" camp, I fail to see the point of Demcoratic policy alternatives at this time. What is the point of developing policy alternatives that will never even have a chance of leaving Congressional committee? What is the point of developing policy alternatives that will reify hysterical Republican claims about a Social Security crisis, a litigation crisis, or all of the other invented crisises that Republicans create as a pretense of uber-conservative reform? Further, what is the point of developing policy alternatives that will do little else except serve as an excuse of Republicans to serve up slightly altered versions of their "reforms" (remember, Republicans don't pass pieces of legilsation, they pass reforms) as reasonable compromises? Still further, what is the point of developing policy alternatives when there is very little chance of Demcorats regaining power of the House, the Seante and the Presidency before 2008? It is going to be nearly impossible for Demcorats to gain control of the Senate in the 2006 elections, and our prospects in the House are not much better. Right now, our job is not to develop policy, because there is really no chance that we will go on to govern, thus making that policy of any use.
And there are even more problems with offering policy alternatives right now. First, while Demoratic unity is higher than at pretty much any time over the past several decades, it still noticeably lags behind borg-like Republican loyalty in Congress. Opposing offers a simplier and broader means of developing party unity than proposing ever would, as Republicans are now discovering. And that does not even enter into our crisis in national political discourse where policy plays pretty much no role. As Hunter recently wrote at Daily Kos:
We're all clear on that, right?
It's not about the facts of the argument, when there is no place where the facts can be debated. It's not about reasoned discourse -- there aren't any channels interested in showing that right now. It's not about deciding who has the better proposals, on a given issue: there's simply no forum to present them to. Every time I hear a liberal talking about how we need to be more "policy driven", therefore, I get a bit confused. Isn't that missing every lesson of contemporary politics? I'd love for our national discourse to be policy driven. But that hasn't happened, and the Republicans have made it a major strategy to make sure it doesn't happen anytime soon.
Some of what's in play here is unity of purpose. With little else to agree on, Democrats have agreed to be united. They may not be able to agree on how to solve the problems at hand, but they can readily agree to be against the GOP's proposed solutions.
And so they have become the "no" party: No to private accounts. No to the intervention in the Schiavo case. No to the energy bill. No to changing the Senate rules on filibustering judges. No to changing the rules to protect Tom DeLay. And, maybe most notably, no to John Bolton as United Nations ambassador.
The lack of an affirmative agenda has been noted by many, and assessed as a flawed and fatal strategy. DeLay, for example, has blamed his troubles not just on Democrats but on Democrats devoid of ideas and without an agenda. He and his supporters discern a vast left-wing conspiracy funded by blue-state dollars out to get him and the GOP in general, and to them the reason is clear: "... because House Democrats have no ideas, no agenda, and no solutions," DeLay spokesman Dan Allen told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Maria Recio.
Democrats, who in the past may have had too many ideas, would disagree, of course, but in fact they've finally come to grips with their "inner no," and it has freed them from the pretense that they actually have a hand in governing the country. They have become the opposition party, and they are opposing -- and leaving the proposing to -- the other side. They propose, we oppose, you decide.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
