An assessment of the political landscape following the Midterm Elections, which analyzes the opportunities and the best course of actions for the new Democratic Majorities…An Article by Dave, who forgot to provide us with his last name. However, we have an address to a Weblog that is published by Dave at the following URI:

URI: http://le-enfant-terrible.blogspot.com/

On November 7th I voted.

Many may see this statement as surprising–either because they assumed anyone with left-of-center politics will naturally be very excited about the elections or because they know me and assumed that I wouldn’t. In general I don’t put much faith in voting. It is essentially a chance every several years to legitimize the broader set of relations within society. To the extent it allows us to actually choose among leaders it is often a choice of imperialisms, a choice of capitalisms etc.

This year I felt differently. This election was widely viewed as a referendum on the Iraq war and the aggressive nationalism of the Bush administration. The stunning rebuke to the Republican party is an important tool for re-orienting the political climate, for establishing that the country as a whole is unhappy with the Iraq war and government corruption. It has heightened the sense of cost that politicians feel in supporting the Iraq war (Ned Lamont’s primary victory was also absolutely crucial in this) and in forcing elites towards consideration of an exit strategy sooner rather than later. As opposition to the Vietnam war created the “Vietnam Syndrome” and a reluctance to commit American military forces worldwide, we can only hope that we are creating an “Iraq Syndrome” that will help prevent future pre-emptive wars and aggressive militarism. By giving Democrats subpoena powers we put in motion a process that will surely reveal facts about the preparation/execution of the war that will further increase popular outrage. I also felt that splitting the power of government between parties would help curb a range of excesses that have resulted in vastly increased government surveillance power. Finally, the proposition in my state would have banned not only marriage (which I think should be a purely religious affair, untouched by government) but also any form of legal arrangement that was similar to marriage such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

We should be careful, however, in hailing the new balance of power. In terms of the Democratic agenda there are some issues. During the election the Democrats were careful to avoid a specific platform, but since the election they have been promoting their “Six in ‘06″–six goals to accomplish after coming into power. The items are:

-increase the minimum wage
-negotiate for lower prescription drug prices
-restore 12.5 billion dollars in cuts for higher education
-use $15 billion in oil subsidies and use it for “energy independence”
-reinstitute “Pay-Go” rules (any new tax cut or spending must be offset elsewhere)
-vote on the 9/11 Commission recommendations

Now, some of these I have no issue with. Increasing the minimum wage is good (although it will likely not be by very much and they will probably still fail to index it to inflation so it automatically increases with the cost of living). Negotiating for lower drug prices is good, but its main effect is to just decrease the cost of existing healthcare programs (will those savings be used to cover the tens of millions without insurance? or increase the quality of healthcare?). $12.5 billion to help people with college costs is good (but is nothing within an over $2 trillion federal budget, and will these funds actually help break class barriers to college, or will it only help defray the cost to the upper-middle class?). Ending tax cuts for oil companies is good (but “energy independence” has been picked up as a catch-all phrase including tax breaks to oil companies for domestic drilling and investment in technologies that are already economically viable on their own). The Pay-Go rules are perhaps the biggest issue but they come too late to stop the massive GOP tax giveaways and commit the Democrats to fiscal straitjacket in the future. The one I have the least concern about is the 9/11 recommendations implementation. I have not seen the full list, and there may be objectionable changes, but instituting measures that don’t compromise civil liberties and that actually reduce terrorism (i.e. not racial profiling, not massive data mining) is a good thing.

You will likely notice that nowhere is there anything about Iraq. The Democrats would prefer to have this off the table at the moment. Iraq makes for a good election issue, but they are now stuck between advocating some form of withdrawal (which they are unwilling to do) and advocating some other strategy to control the country for America’s benefit (which means they have to tone down the rhetoric and agree with many statements the right is making). Some Democrats are willing to actively engage, but their plans often revolve around maximizing US leverage in Iraq. The event that may alter this political hesitancy and incoherence is the release of the James Baker III/Iraq Study Group report. The report will give massive political cover for politicians to support a bipartisan re-alignment of American foreign policy along Realist lines (crack down on Shia regional power, shift back towards American backing of dictatorships to enhance regional stability).

We should remember that the left need not be simply a Democratic interest group, it can be a powerful social force. Conservatives may now be for the moment wedded to the GOP, but they grew powerful as a social movement in the 1950s & 1960s through local campaigns, awareness raising and building a mass base around people’s grievances. The height of the American labor movement’s power was in the 1930s & 1940s as it waged a relentless struggle to increase wages and expand social programs. The New Social Movements that coalesced in the 1960s & 1970s achieved the most social change when they were vibrant, active movements that challenged existing social relations. The Civil Rights and Black Power movements completely upended the existing power structure of the country by mobilizing African Americans to collectively and directly challenge racist institutions, racist practices and unequal systems of wealth.

Sometimes social change requires legislation. Occasionally you need to play the inside game of electoral strategies and lobbyists to achieve a particular objective. Too many people on the left, however, are at risk of being caught up in the game of the big non-profits and politicians whose business it is to talk a good game. We should remember that between Nixon and Clinton, Nixon was by far the more liberal president. When the Democrats finally captured the presidency the result was NAFTA, GATT, welfare “reform” and more. Earlier in his term, when Clinton attempted to lift the ban on gays in the military and expand health coverage both failed because the conservative movement had achieved so much in terms of reworking the political landscape and the terms of debate. The Democrats will say to the left: “Settle down, we’re doing what we can while staying in office.” The reality is that this is true; that’s why the left cannot make its agenda putting Democrats in office.

Tags: congress, democracy, Democrats, Elections, left, legislation, National, politics, war
Categories: Commentary, National, Democracy, Politics, Legislation, Congress
No Comments »