Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
October 3, 2007 8:07 AM
These Are Times That Try Progressives' Souls
It is frustrating being part of the progressive movement these days - truly frustrating. And I say that not because I am on book deadline and exhausted, but because of what I have been reporting on for the book (which is due out in Spring of 2008, for those interested). These past few weeks have felt like a big kick in the teeth - with these last few days a gratuitous kick in the groin.
Let's step back and look at the effort to end the war. This week we have seen Democratic Reps. David Obey, Jack Murtha and Jim McGovern propose a bill that would force President Bush to raise taxes if he wants to continue spending money on a war in Iraq - a brilliant political move and commonsense policy. In the face of a recent Roll Call story headlined "GOP Forced to Pivot on Taxes - Polls Say Issue Losing Power," this proposal is stunning only for how modest it is - especially considering that even Sen. Joseph Lieberman has endorsed the concept behind it, as has Republicans like New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones.
Obey has also indicated that as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he will use his position to block any blank check war funding bill from coming to the floor of Congress. It shows a recognition of the Tyranny of the Tiny Minority that I outlined in my last syndicated column - the tyranny that means that Congress will need to stop something, rather than pass something, in order to end the war. And stopping funding, incidentally, is an idea that the latest Washington Post poll shows the public supports.
So, what has been the reaction of the most prominent Democrats and antiwar groups in Washington? Bobbing and weaving.
As soon as the war tax plan was floated, House and Senate Democratic leaders rushed to reporters to denounce it. Meanwhile, antiwar groups in Washington swiftly decided to dump tens of thousands of dollars into a brand new ad campaign not supporting the push to block funds, not applauding the effort to wedge the Republicans into deciding between war and taxes, not demanding Democrats go even further, but instead attacking Rush Limbaugh - a person who certainly made a disgusting and deplorable comment but who has absolutely no power to end the war at all.
The move, of course, was applauded by Washington pundits like Joe Klein who supported the war. To the Washington punditburo, any move that gets media attention and that gets people on screamfests like Hardball (a show that almost no one outside the Beltway watches) is seen as a successful political tactic, regardless of how much of a diversion it is from the goal of actually ending the war, regardless of the fact that most Americans have never even heard of this "controversy" or the Moveon ad "controversy" in the first place. Clearly, the ads are very well-intentioned, but they do nothing to move the ball forward in the effort to end the war, and nothing to keep the focus on ending the war - an issue that polls show the Republicans are losing on. This is precisely why the GOP is publicly laughing at the whole thing - Beltway progressives' tactics are the gift that keeps on giving.
Oh but it gets more obscene. This week, Costa Rica prepares for a national referendum on whether to ratify the lobbyist-written Central American Free Trade Agreement - an agreement whose language will, among other things, force that country to dismantle its universal health care program and raise prices for life-saving medicines. CAFTA, you may recall, is one of the Bush administration's extensions of NAFTA, and - as my syndicated column coming out on Friday will show - the White House is mounting a vicious and withering campaign of fear and intimidation to manipulate the Costa Rican election on behalf of all the corporate donors who wrote CAFTA in the first place.
And what has been the reaction of the progressive movement in Washington? Why, granting a platform to the very U.S. Senator who is leading the charge to extend NAFTA even further.
That's right, the New Democratic Network - trumped up in Matt Bai's silly book as a supposedly important piece of the progressive movement - hosted U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) for a speech on trade. True to form, Baucus in that speech pleased K Street by implicitly attacking rank-and-file congressional Democrats who were elected in 2006 on a promise to reform America's trade policy and who are trying to fulfill their campaign promises by stopping the new package of NAFTAs. Baucus is now leading the fight to give a NAFTA to Colombia - a country whose government actively colludes with paramilitary gangs to execute union organizers. With "allies" like Baucus and the people who promote him, who needs opponents?
Some of my friends may be angry at me for writing all this - but it ain't personal, and more importantly if we progressives don't engage in some self-reflection when our side has so clearly driven into a ditch, then we won't become the movement we need to become to improve this country. I am a progressive before I am a partisan - and I reject Partisan War Syndrome that says we must all just applaud every single tactic and decision, no matter how unproductive to the cause.
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, these truly are times that try progressives' souls - times that, as I said, I will be documenting more fully in my book out in the Spring of 2008. As Beltway progressives pat themselves on the back and think success means getting on Hardball and movement-building means getting one of the most anti-progressive U.S. Senators in America to attack rank-and-file progressive Democrats and undermine organized labor behind logo-emblazoned podiums in D.C., the bloodshed in Iraq continues, and the economic war on the middle class seethes here at home.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Ghettoization & The Difference Between Politics & Policy
- Confused About Tax Promises
- Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals
- Study Shows "Center-Right Nation" Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone on Health Care
- Wash Post Re-Floats Possibility of Lame-Duck NAFTA Expansion
- HHS Chief Daschle Says States Will Play Major Role In Health Care Reform
- Newsweek & The Media's Own Innocent Bystander Fable
- Evidence, Anyone?
- "Team of Rivals" Or Rival Team?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
November 17, 2008 -
November 12, 2008 -
November 6, 2008 -
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
David,
Thanks again for putting things in the right perspective. When I heard that Pelosi threw Obey's tax plan under the bus before the ink was dry on his press release I almost threw up.
As I write here however, I am cautiously optimistic that a Democrat may finally start using "the perogative of the Chair" to accomplish something.
By the way, looking forward to the book.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Maxie's latest actions are no shock. He's been a K-street Republi-lite for years.
It would be more newsworthy if he opposed the "free" trade agreements.
The hypocrisy of his stance really shows up in the fact that in his "Max News" emails sound like he is apparently single-handedly supporting SCHIP.
And all the while he is pushing "free" trade agreements that will destroy a universal healthcare program in Costa Rica.
Now they're saying rubber-stamp Republican Denny Rheberg will run against him.
Maybe I'll write in Jag. Border collies are honest hardworking critters.
Don't forget the SCHIP bill, which came up at the exact same time as the Iraq War funding bill. Ignoring the whole hypocrisy of the Democratic support of the war bill, the Democrats knew that Bush would veto SCHIP, while signing the war bill.
So, why didn't the Democrats attach SCHIP to the war bill? That was the way to get SCHIP passed. It's like the Democrats only wanted to put token effort into passing SCHIP - they did not want to see it actually become law.
Excellent post, David! You've cut to the quick, and said what needs to be said, but which is NOT being said by and about us progressives. Very timely and important post.
We're hearing ye, David, and we're sharing!
The group-think of the DC-NYC axis inhibits the emergence of truly interesting, day-to-day-reality-based, and practical analysis and action.
This post charges that it is in the interests of the group-thinkers -- wherever they fall on the political economic spectrum -- to perpetuate these lackluster, artificial, and dysfunctional parameters of discourse.
Hang in there David, et.al. At least we can laugh.
Hi Dave,
I’m the "Where's the Beef Guy " who has done some Vid posting for you. We can always count on you again and again to lay it out as it truly is. I am finding it hard to even consider myself to be a member of the Democratic Party. I remind myself almost daily the importance of being on the inside to promote change.
I have discussed the situation with Chad Shue and many others here in Washington State and we meet with the centrist mentality that I consider to be the follower element of the current leadership. These folks buy the DCCC and DLC line of the day.
Ignore the facts and falling into the trap of the corporate whores who are either to dumb or lack the courage to organize the party around the issues of what’s going to benefit the public.
Candidates like Hillary Clinton are not going to help where we need it the most. They are just the left arm of the corporate oligarchy, which rules the nation now.
I am writing an Op-ed to explain the depth of the control of the Democratic Leadership and how, in my experienced opinion, it is manipulating the democratic herd down the shabby road failure as if we were a slew of mindless automatons.
Keep up the good fight and know that many in the Pacific Northwest are proud to have you on our side.
Ozymandias_k "www.mainstreampolitics.com" and proud contributor to "The Left Shue"
David,
The pushback against Limbaugh is not about ending the war: it's about ending Limbaugh. While not quite as important as ending the war, it's still a noble goal, and one well worth pursuing.
Couldn't agree more? These are trying times from Left and Right and bunches of silliness, like all the Gore Mania, if you don't mind my saying, letting Hillary get such a steamroll that it is sickening, just heart sickening, when Edwards stands for so many of the Progressive principles we care most about!!!! Yikes, who to get mad at, Left or right!!??!!
Obey is right on!!
Karita
Karita, don't look now but it looks like the media as was demonstrated in today's article in the Washington Post is giving Bill and Hillary a big boost making it look like they're fully ahead of Guliani just by MISusing NY. The truth is, even if Hillary were to win over Guliani in NY come the general election, Guliani would still CRUSH her in a landslide. One would expect the Democrats to have learned invaluable lessons from the failures of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry not to mention the fact that unlike her husband, there is no "Ross Perot" to save her bacon !
Guliani crush Hillary in a landslide?
I don't think so!
Guliani will have every fireman in the state voting against him, and many other emergency responders too. He stepped on the Brotherhood, and they're pissed.
I had a volunteer fireman in Kansas fill me in on Guliani, and his actions on 9-11, a couple of years ago, before he was ever mentioned as a presidential candidate.
Firemen and their families, cops and ther families, EMTs and their families. That's a large chunk of voters there, and they are feeling he sold them out.
Progressives aren't even on the public radar so I wouldn't fret about timing. How about getting a candidate to publicly state he is a progressive?
Butte, how many red states do you really think will vote for Hillary over Guliani? The most she'll get if she's even lucky what with the way the media and the GOP will cash in on her weakness to reach out to the base will be limited to any of OH, NV, NM, FL, and maybe IA, MO (highly unlikely now that the DLC wing is using Kaine's victory to court exurban voters and drop the rural ones these days the way I see it). Most of the deep south, save FL, including TX is already staunch GOP and they'll happily shoot themselves out voting Guliani over Hillary. And the red midwest? I can't say I know Montana or for that matter enough of the red heartland when it comes to picking between evils such as these but what do you think the chances of Hillary beating Guliani in states such as MT, CO are? Kansas is an interesting state thanks to Thomas Frank shedding light on the whole mess by illustrating his home state but despite Democratic gains there, I'm still not sure about Hillary winning over Guliani in that state especially since it usually goes GOP and strong too since 1964 except for maybe 1992 but then there was Perot taking votes from both parties away.
Join the Discussion