11-13-06, 9:35 p.m.
While watching CNN on Saturday, even the casual watcher could see that the Republicans were spinning their view that many of the new legislators would be 'one termers,' while others credited Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) for engineering their party's victory in the Senate and House races, respectively.
The GOP comments are not surprising, while the emerging conventional wisdom on Schumer and Emanuel appears to be that they selected candidates who were reflective of the social and political views of the districts and states in which they were running for election. Occasionally, DNC National Chairman Howard Dean's '50 state strategy' will get some credit; a strategy that inspired skepticism among many Democrats.
The media pundits are also quick to note that many of the newly elected Democrats hold socially conservative positions, including opposition to Gay rights and to a woman's right to choose. They point to Ned Lamont's defeat in the Connecticut senatorial contest as a loss for 'left-wingers' and 'bloggers' who sought to prevent Joe Lieberman's return to Capitol Hill. Lieberman, who successfully won election as an independent, clearly got the votes of many Republicans on November 7th.
What is less often mentioned is the victory of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) candidates such as Sherrod Brown, incoming US Senator from Ohio and Jim Hall, incoming Congressperson from New York. One must also mention self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders who won a Senate seat after multiple terms representing Vermont in the House of Representatives.
But there's no question that the New Year will see a new breed of more conservative Democrats taking their place alongside more familiar, traditionally left-liberal, lawmakers. Lawmakers with names like Rangel, Conyers and Kennedy. And the elevation of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the first woman to hold the Speaker's chair in the House of Representatives in genuinely historic.
Many of these more conservative Democrats are either part of, or supported by, the so-called 'new Democrats.' There are two primary organizations of 'new Democrats.' The most firmly established is the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), whose principal figure is Al From. By all reports, From became a figure of some prominence and influence during the Clinton administration (Rahm Emanuel served in the Clinton White House as a Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy). There is also the New Democratic Network, led by Simon Rosenberg, who was touted as a candidate for DNC National Chairman before that post went to Gov. Howard Dean.
The DLC seeks to adhere to what it calls the 'Hyde Park Declaration.' This declaration includes the following statement:
'This is the wrong time in history for politics as usual: for empty partisanship; for treating citizens simply as members of contending groups; for divisive appeals based on race, religion, ethnicity, or culture; for efforts to encourage voters to focus on narrow self-interest; and for perpetuating the issues and ideologies of an ever-more-distant past.'
In other words, the DLC believes the time has past for the Democratic party to orient toward its more traditional constituencies of organized labor and persons of color, among others. They appear to believe that the Democratic party cannot get elected, nor govern, unless they do so from the center.
In this sense, the 'new Democrats' closely resemble British Prime Minister Tony Blair's transformation of the Labour Party into 'New Labour.' A close examination of Blair's efforts demonstrates that Blair came to believe that the overt social democratic vision of socialism the Labour Party had espoused for decades represented perpetual defeat at the polls; that the Labour Party was useless unless it could win votes, and that long-time Party figures like Neil Kinnock were relics from the past -- in much the same way that some commentators have referred to established liberals like Rangel and Kennedy as 'dinosaurs.'
The close resemblance between Blair's 'new Labour' initiative and the 'new Democrats' in the US is not an accident insofar as some Clinton lieutenants went to Britain to assist Blair in his electioneering efforts. And, proof being in the pudding, Blair has won three consecutive terms as Prime Minister.
But he has also inspired accusations that he and his supporters are control freaks who, in the early years of their governance, relied extensively on polls to determine their positions. Instead of leaders of substance, 'new Labour' became masters of spin, and Blair (who President Bush has referred to as 'my pal Tony') has mirred the British into the quagmire of Iraq. There is also an active left within the Labour Party, such as the Socialist Campaign Group, that has been irrevocably opposed to 'new Labour' in theory and in practice.
The attraction to the center by both 'new Labour' and the 'new Democrats' is, in my view, a reaction to the damage wrought both domestically and internationally by Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the United States. The extended periods of both Reaganism and Thatcherism created such polarization that a new breed of pragmatists emerged who sought the shelter of centrist politics,and have become entrenched. Fundamentally, the centrist political strategist has become convinced that extremes of right or left are to be avoided at all costs and that an electorate, wary of swings too far in either direction, will inherently find the centrist position more comforting and less alarming.
The ascendancy of the 'new Democrats' has led some of the ultra-left to suggest that the Democratic party is to be cast aside and has been transformed to such a point that it no longer is a voice for progress. But what advocates of this position either miss or choose not to look at is that the Democratic party, for all of its many shortcomings, remains the primary arena of struggle in the electoral sense; that restrictive ballot access laws, media blackouts, and the vast amounts of money necessary to mount even the most credible campaign presently make a nationally-based, third-party campaign an extraordinarily challenged effort.
But such individuals, well-intended though they may be, have much in common with the centrists: They, too, reach within their comfort zone in voting for what 'they want.' I suspect most Americans will be more impressed by the election of self-described socialist Bernie Sanders to the Senate than they would be by a campaign that is kept off the ballot in most jurisdictions and garners a handful of votes.
Such individuals also miss the importance of the need to send the ultra-right reeling. This is what was done on November 7 and its why the left is entitled to celebrate. True, some of the newly elected Democrats do not hold anything resembling progressive or left positions. And if any one of these Democrats puts forward anti-Gay, anti-working class, racist or sexist legislation -- including any attempt to curb a woman's right to choose -- they should be vigorously opposed.
If the GOP had won through on November 7, there would have been at least two more years of unfettered abuse by the Bush administration, aided and abetted by a rubber-stamp legislature. And President Bush and his associates would have surely claimed a mandate for 'staying the course.'
The Democratic victory last Tuesday opens up the prospect for progressives and the left to step up organizing efforts on a whole host of key issues. At the same time, Bush will have much less latitude to use the Executive Order-type mechanism of 'signing statements,' and will probably have to get out his veto pen. The incoming Senate and House of Representatives have a unique opportunity to 'put the brakes' on the ultra-right offensive.
No one is under any illusion that the Bush administration or ultra-right will give up their efforts. They've been knocked down, not out. The mid-term elections showed the majority of those who voted were fed up with the Iraq war, with the culture of corruption, and with the overall abuses of the ultra-right.
The late Mario Savio, a leader of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley, celebrated the FSM's victory by giving a speech and, at its close, said 'Don't go anywhere. We still have a war to stop.' He was, of course, referring to the Vietnam war.
Well, we dealt a blow to the ultra-right. We still have a war to stop. We have to continue to struggle against a bellicose President who has spoken threatening words against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and any regime with which he takes issue (remember when some retailers wouldn't sell 'French' fries?). A number of states have passed measures to increase the minimum wage, recognizing that it is impossible to live while earning slightly more than five dollars an hour. Other states passed hate-oriented anti-Gay measures. And millions of our citizens are without health insurance.
We still have much to do. To paraphrase Joe Hill: 'Celebrate....and keep organizing.'
