Why Some Democrats Are More Scared Of Bush Than Their Base

By now, I'm sure most people have seen this:
Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break -- the second recess since the financing fight began -- and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.
This isn't just a reporter putting words in Democratic mouths. As Matt showed earlier today, several specific Democrats are actually scared of Bush on this. Now, if you think it seems more than a little inane to be scared of a guy whose approval rating just hit an all-time low today, especially when it comes to a war which just reached its all-time low in terms of support today, and when, on Tuesday, centrist beltway firm GQR released a report showing that Republicans were being significantly damaged by the Iraq War debate, then you are probably right. I mean, given all of that, there is an outside chance you are right. Maybe.

But there is something else going on here besides a bizarre fear of continuing to oppose the least popular president in thirty years on the least popular war in fifty-five years, and a fear of prolonging a debate that was causing Democrats to win over voters in frontline House districts. Keep in mind that while a demoralized progressive activist base has negative repercussions for Democratic electoral fortunes in general elections, in terms of intra-party power struggles, a demoralized, progressive, grassroots activist base actually strengthens the position of neoliberals, LieberDems, and the DLC-nexus within the Democratic Party power structure. If progressive grassroots activists are too demoralized to make small donations, the party becomes more reliant on large donors. If we are too demoralized to run for party office or challenge sitting Democrats in primaries, the establishment Democratic power structure are never held accountable for running ineffective campaigns or selling out the base. If we don't use the strength of the progressive movement in the 2008 presidential primaries, then the influence the DLC-nexus, neoliberals, and LieberDems have in determining the direction of the Democratic Party increases. And on and on. In other words, there are those who benefit internally from a demoralized, inactive, progressive grassroots base, even if the party as a whole is damaged. We all saw this from 1994-2002, when the Democratic Party was regularly defeated in general elections on a scale not seen since the 1920s, and while the DLC-nexus simultaneously solidified a unprecedented level of control over the Democratic Party establishment.

For example, the idea that Hillary Clinton would be facing any serious challenge to the Democratic nomination without the expansion and maturation of the contemporary progressive movement and open left in the last four years is preposterous. That isn't to say that she has no support within the new movement, but just to state the obvious: she has less support within the movement than do other candidates, and far less support within the movement relative to the rest of the Democratic rank and file. Further, that isn't to imply that the only support candidates like Obama and Edwards have comes from the progressive movement, but once against to state the obvious: each candidate is greatly buoyed by the support he is receiving from the movement. Yet further, I do not mean to imply that there is an active "demoralize the grassroots base" strategy being undertaken by the Clinton campaign. I just wish to point out that one of the reasons some Democrats might be less scared of the activist base than they are of Bush is because a demoralized grassroots base actually has positive, intra-party side effects for some Democrats. See Lieberman, Joe for more information on that subject.

Maybe a better way to understand the situation is to state that some Democrats are more afraid of Bush than they are of a demoralized, progressive, grassroots base. After all, there are probably some Democrats who wish, for example, that the progressive blogosphere never came into existence, because then no one in the base would be calling them out on a regular basis. We are a direct threat to the long-accrued power of many members of the Democratic establishment, but only when we are active and energized. Given this, why should any of our favorite punching bags be afraid of doing something that would demoralize us? In fact, there are probably many who are eager to demoralize us. This is worth remembering whenever Democrats do something--secret trade deals, Iraq funding capitulation, lobbying reform collapses--that gives you the urge to thrown in the towel on intra-party activism. A demoralized grassroots base removes one of the main checks against Democrats who run amuck. Personally, after a short period of dejection, I now feel that the ways some Democrats have screwed up in the last couple weeks-- secret trade deals, Iraq funding capitulation, lobbying reform collapses--is a useful splash of cold water to remind me of how much work is left to be done in our intra-party struggles. I hope, as time goes on, more and more of us feel the same way. We will only lose over the long-term if we give up because of the short-term.

Mapping the (Youth) Progressive Politics/Social Justice Divide

Cross posted at Future Majority

Update: Adrienne MAREE Brown, whose name I've been mispelling all over town, sent me an email about this blog post and asked that I post a clarifcation explaining her thought process behind this graph/matrix. Here's what she had to say:

"This map is meant to show the scope of what I consider the 'intermediary' realm of organizing - formal non-profits more than grassroots organizers (we get the two communities VERY confused here in the US, leading to confused identity, shame, competition and delusions of grandeur...rarely leading to significant lasting social change, which we all deeply want). It was drawn to show where I see The Ruckus Society in relation to a lot of other groups which are providing tools and support to organizers, but also to show that this full range of organizations exist in the same realm...in that realm folks are elbowing over resources and fighting to make the same words sound exciting and new.

I've written a lot on reform vs. revolution, I always come to a both/and conclusion. My dream would be that this full range of folks were working with each other more respectfully and strategically within the quadrant to support the small fragment of the puzzle we cover, stretching to make sure there are no gaps in meeting the needs of a movement for change. But that starts with acknowledging where we are. I would love for this to be a growing tool that could be handed to frontline organizers so that they could self evaluate and then see which intermediary non-profits they should turn to for support and resources. Feedback welcome!" --Adrienne

Progressive  Youth Movement Matrix

This is not scientific.  Don't be fooled by my stylish graphics.

Update: In response to some criticism below, I changed the title of this piece to reflect that I am talking about the progressive youth movement here, not the entire movement.

There's more...

On Checks And Balances In The Progressive Movement

On more than one occasion at MyDD, I have been burned by accepting, at face-value, news articles that put words in the mouths of prominent Democrats. For example, one time I unfortunately accepted a reporter's claim that Al Gore had made a "Shermanesque" statement on his future Presidential plans at face value, when no quote was given and when he had done no such thing. Another time I berated Barack Obama for a bit of triangulation that a reporter had attributed to Obama, but which Obama did not actually say. These and similar experiences have increased my already high skepticism of media reports on Democrats. The general principle I try to follow is that unless there is an actual quote backing up what a given reporter claims, don't believe it for a second. Now, that principle seems obvious enough, but considering how frequently reporters have put words in Democratic mouths over the past few years, and also how tempting it is to latch onto any bit of information to back up your personal suspicions, lapses will almost inevitably occur even among the most media-skeptical progressives. Among other reasons, that is why it is good to have commenters who keep you on your toes.

More in the extended entry.

There's more...

Are Progressives Getting ANYTHING from the Democrats?

By Glenn Hurowitz
Originally published at The Huffington Post, May 22, 2007.

It's almost six months since Democrats took Congress, and it's time to ask: are progressives getting ANYTHING from the Democrats?

It's pretty clear what we progressives want: an end to the Iraq war, a boost in the minimum wage, freedom to organize unions, and a living planet. To be sure, Democrats, especially in the House, have made some moves to deliver those items. They've passed some bills and resolutions - but here's the thing: almost none of them have become law.

There's more...

CA Dem Party: Please Give Back the Chevron Donation

I am fairly surprised that more has not been made in the blogosphere of the unwelcome news that Chevron is doing everything it can to buy off the California Democratic Party and some of its top legislators.  Outside of this small item in The Oil Drum, pretty much nobody has said a word about the fact that the CDP accepted a $50,000 check from a company that is attempting to artificially depress capacity and manipulate the energy market in a way that is shockingly similar to how Enron made themselves a fortune during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.  You can read the details here.

As a delegate to this party, I feel personally tainted by this donation.  I feel like there is a concerted effort to buy my silence.  It will not work, and I want to outline why I am respectfully asking this party, of which I am a member and to which I pay dues, to return the money.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads