UPDATED: JUN 20, 2007

“DOING THE LIEBERMAN JIG” 

"Dems Blink" blared the front page headline on Newsday, the Long Island, New York, daily, for May 23. Since that time, the Democratic Left has been furious with, not the person and party that started and are running the endless War on Iraq, Bush and the Republicans, but with ---- the Democrats! David Sirota, Cindy Sheehan, Debra (World Can't Wait) Sweet, the Daily Kos, etc. have been thundering on the Left about "betrayal," about "weak-kneed hypocrites," and worse. "You were elected to bring the war to an end, and now you are just letting it go on and on. That means," they say, "you can't trust the Democrats and we will have to do something about them." In my view, wrong analysis and a very dangerous implied remedy.

First we must consider the term "The Democrats" in the context of Congress. Reflecting the Party nationally, there is a broad-based coalition ranging from the Center-Right "Blue Dogs" to the Progressive Caucus, which has anything but a common ideology. There was no national slate of Democrats from which 232 representatives and 51 senators were elected, all pledged to support a common platform and program. We do not have a parliamentary system with parliamentary discipline.   

The Democrats do not have even a faint replica of the Rove Enforcement Machine, which uses the management of campaign contributions, access to out-and-out bribes (a dwindling option, as the worst offenders are getting caught), precious "earmarks" courtesy of the Rove-run party leadership, vigorous political arm-twisting ("you don't want to have a well-funded primary opponent, do you?"), and, highly likely, a not-so-little black book of the J. Edgar Hoover variety, right there in the upper right-hand corner of Rove's desk.  That this, for the most part, is not the way the Democrats do things is a fact for which we can be very thankful, in my view.  

The Democratic leadership can go just far in herding this group of cats, but no further. In the Senate, the leadership simply did not have the votes to win another "in-your-face" bill to send to Bush. They might not have had them in the House either, but since they knew they wouldn't get such a bill past the Senate, the House leadership likely figured "why try"? At least Nancy Pelosi herself was able to cast a symbolic "no" vote to the "no-requirements on you" final bill.  The leadership certainly does not have the votes in either House to simply sit on their hands and send up no War Appropriation bill at all, that is "defunding the war." In fact, that would be truly irresponsible, much less politically suicidal. For with no funds for the military, the troops could not even be withdrawn.  

Yes, we have a democracy. And yes, we have a tri-partite form of government, not, as noted above, a parliamentary system. And yes, our party is not a unitary, march-in-lock-step package like the old European Communist and Fascist parties, and, for the most part, the current Congressional Republican Party. This battle, at this time, was simply unwinnable, given who makes up the Democratic majority in both houses. There is a Democratic breadth-of-view on what needs to be done in Iraq to bring the war to an end. Most Democrats agree with that end. But they do disagree amongst themselves on how to go about achieving that end.

Then there is the “Joe Lieberman Jig.” He is one Democrat who thinks the war is just a great idea. And he is in the unique position of having that one vote that can turn the Senate over to the Republicans, something he has been talking about openly from time-to-time. Could Reid have pushed for another round of "we-send-you-a-bill-and-you-veto-it" like Pelosi wanted to do? He sure could have. With the same result. I would bet a good chunk of money that Lieberman walked into Reid's office shortly after the first vote and said words to the effect of "Harry, OK, you've had your fun. Now get on with it, that is unless you want to find yourself as Minority Leader again. My buddies at the White House have been kind enough to let you have one go at them. They are not about to give you another."  And so, Harry, and Nancy, had to dance the Lieberman Jig. 

In its light, the Democratic Left has to take a deep breath here and remember two things: who the real enemy is and how easily can one of the most gung-ho supporters of the war, who is now even talking about attacking Iran (with what, one wonders), put the Senate back in Republican hands. Wouldn't that be fun, my fellow lefties? Inhofe back at Environment, Specter back at Judiciary, McConnell as Majority Leader, and so on down the line. Yum. What a gas. The Congressional Democrats ain't perfect, but, please, consider the alternative.

Hillary Clinton, who as you might imagine is not my favorite Democratic candidate, actually said in the June 3 Democratic Presidential debate that Democrats should spend their time attacking Bush, not each other. I totally agree with her. All of the candidates would be well-served by saying, over and over again: "Primary voters, pick me. I will run best against the Republicans and whichever Bush clone they nominate, for the following reasons." Jonathan Edwards made some good debating points against Clinton and Barack Obama. However, if the Democrats are going to win the Presidency, they must learn the lesson Kerry never did: at the same time that we run on our programs and policies, we must simultaneously a) reveal what the real Bush/Republican agenda is (for they never tell us), and b) then run strongly against it.  This is especially true as the Republican candidates are starting to compete with each on how far away they can seem to be getting from Bush (without really getting away from him at all).

This lesson applies equally well to the Democratic Congressional Leadership, who in fact have shown major signs of getting it, in their rhetoric at least. It is not the Democrats who are condemning additional hundreds of U.S. mercenaries, thousands of U.S. troops, and ten of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths. It is Bush. It is Bush who demanded the money to do so, not the Democrats. It is Bush who leads and insists upon a failed Iraq policy. It is Bush who is now talking openly about Permanent War with a 50-year occupation, not Democrats.  But it is also the Democrats who, as noted above, are just one vote of an egomaniac away from losing the Senate and all the Committee power that goes with it. The Democratic Left needs to recognize all of this, now.

And so, what do Democrats, those inside and outside of Congress and the ranks of potential candidates, need to do now? First, we all have to stop screaming at the Congressional Democrats. Rove, et al, must be in hysterics up their sleeves. Not only are they getting the war money, but they are helping to split the Democrats from at least some of their supporters, thus increasing Republican chances of getting back in 2008. And what else does screaming do? It provides a further major distraction from the central issue: whose policy runs the show? It's BushCheney's. This is the key fact we have to keep focused on. Believe me folks, this War is not going to end until Bush and the Republicans are out of the White House. It is very sad, but very true. For this reason the country simply cannot afford to have another Republican in the White House on Jan. 20, 2009.

Bob Fertik of Democrats.com has the right political strategy. Our side must contest the Presidential and Congressional primaries vigorously. For 2008, we obviously must have a totally progressive Democratic Presidential candidate, not one who watches the polls and trims the sails according to what consultants say their focus groups tell them. We must obviously try to elect as many truly progressive Democrats as we can to the next Congress.  But once the primaries are over, we must unite around the Democratic choices, and then use our influence to help move their policy and political strategies in our direction.  We must not pull a reverse Lieberman. Even worse, we must not pull a Nader (as apparently Cynthia McKinney is considering). Remember, without Nader's 90,000 votes in Florida, there never would have been a battle over the vote, there never would have been the Sweeney-Bolton driven violence in the Dade Country recount (which would have given the state to Gore) as it was about to begin, there never would have been the Supreme Court’s Presidential Selection.

In the run-up to the Nazi takeover of the German government on January 30, 1933, the second and third most powerful political parties were the Socialists (SPD) and the Communists (KPD). Together, they had more seats in the Reichstag than the Nazis (who did have the single largest contingent), although even together they did not have a majority. The Nazis had made it very clear that if they ever took power, as a first order of business they were going to wipe out both the SPD and the KPD. So did these two unite to fight the Nazis? Oh no! The SPD fought the KPD as a tool of the Soviet Union, and the KPD, unfortunately playing that role very well, took its cue from Stalin and attacked the SPD as "Social Fascists" with much more venom than that which they used against the Nazis. And we all know what happened. My friends on the Democratic Left, this is a lesson we all must learn, and learn well, before it is too late and we all see each other in the camps. 

_______ 

This column is based in part on Commentaries of mine that appeared on BuzzFlash on 5/30/07  (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/064) and 6/05/07 (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/065)

________________