The Coming Progressive Plurality
More important, to many of us, than the shift of parties, is the shift of ideologies. Not "how much more Democratic?" is the next Congress, but "How much more liberal and progressive?" Looking at the question this way, it is important to compare the candidates, not just on their likely voting records, but on their likely legislative agendas.
Here, on a scale of –10 to 10 (-10 being reactionary, +10 being liberal) are the net changes in progressive stance in the likely progressive moves for three areas – social, economic and civil rights.
By this measure not only is the next Congress likely to be much more economically progressive, but it is set to move somewhat to the left on social issues as well. After 30 years of flaying social conservative and reactionary views, let's remember the bottom line: women have greater rights, greater equality of pay, there are more rights for people with diabilities, and more states where marriage is open than when Nixon first took the oath of office in 1969, or Reagan in 1981.
People might conflate the two, but there is a big difference between candidates who are solid on Roe v Wade, versus candidates who are solid on ballot access, the Iraq war and campaign finance.
The probable pick ups:
The Big Six
It is important to emphasize that these six races, alone, are going to virtually wipe out the Southern Sweep of 2004 by the Republicans, and then some. More over, other than Casey in Pennsylvania, they are all likely to either start on the left wing of the party, or move there over time. Each of these candidates comes in with very clear views about their state and the constituencies that elected them.
Vermont
This state shows the importance of looking at the internal politics and not the partisan index. Jeffords is a conservative caucusing with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders is a socialist caucusing with the Democrats. Sanders will be more progressive almost down the line from Jeffords, particularly on economic issues. Worker's issues and money issues in particular are going to be a focus of Sanders agenda.
Social +2, Economic +5, Civil +3
Pennsylvania
Casey is going to be a social reactionary, and has said that he will confirm socially reactionary and economically reactionary judges because of this. He is a social reactionary first, and an economic progressive a distant second. Hence he is going to be a disappointment, simply because any economic progressive measures he backs will be either very marginal, or tied to support for hard right religious causes. However, he is up against Rick Santorum, who is even harder right than Casey is on both economic and social issues. Hence, Casey will look good by comparison. But people are going to be looking at this race as a lost chance for a very long time.
Social +1 Economic +1 Civil 0
Ohio
Sherrod Brown is not going to be as progressive as people think he is going to be, but he is still going to move this seat a very large distance to the progressive direction, not just on economic issues, but on civil issues such as ballot access and human rights. While DeWine is allowed to take a walk on a few issues, by and large his record on substance and his legislative record show an almost cipher-like non-existence.
While Brown is not a legislative wonk, it is clear he has a list of items which he is going to move on, even though how will be shaped by pragmatic concerns of political realities. Brown is going to take time to ramp up, and take advantage of the greater staff and freedom of the Senate, but even with this learning curve, and he is a cautious politician by nature. He is also a very self-directed politician, and will keep plugging away on his goals congress after congress. He is likely to become a fixture in Senate politics, and part of the growing great lakes group of Senators who will focus with laser like intensity on the problems of manufacturing and manufacturing workers.
Brown is a politician that flies on instinct, and in the socially tight nit world of the Senate, this is going to exert a power all of its own, bringing out the more progressive instincts in other Senators, and requiring a more activist edge to legislation to get his support.
Social +3, Economic +4, Civil +2
Rhode Island
Lincoln Chaffee is the most liberal member of the Republican Senate caucus, and it was my hope that he would see that the wind was blowing towards left field and change parties. The decision not to is going to cost him his seat in the Senate. But Whitehouse is likely to rapidly become one of the more liberal members of the Senate, something which is often overlooked. This means that the shift here will be noticeable, simply because Whitehouse will have to work to stand out and make a name for himself. Expect small, but decisive, program initiatives from him after his settling in period, and expect him to be a reliable team player on most issues.
Social +1, Economic +4, Civil +1
Maryland
Holding this open seat is going to lead to small, but clear and incremental gains, for progressive issues. Cardin is not known for being a liberal lion in waiting. However, as with many small states, Senators from Maryland hit above their weight by taking deep interest in particular areas. Paul Sarbanes has authored landmark legislation. Expect Cardin to be in the same mold, picking one issue, and working very hard to leave his mark on it.
Social 0, Economic 0, Civil +2
The Toss up Three:
I expect the Democrats to lose two of these three races. However, even one is significant, because in each case a moderate to conservative Democrat is running against one of the hardest reactionaries in the Senate. Burns, Talent and Allen aren't just Republicans, they are among the most extreme of reactionaries in the Senate.
Virginia
For a variety of reasons, I believe that this is the most likely pick up of the three, first because the demographic shifts in Virginia are bringing large numbers of new voters in, voters that want DC to become a real metropolitan area, with all of the amenities that that brings with it, and because Allen has shown himself to be a violent, narrow and vindictive neo-confederate wannabe. Webb, by contrast, while not a spectacular campaigner, is both solidly grounded in policy, and far more intelligent than Allen. Virginians, old and new, have a sense of themselves as being more aristocratic, and more accomplished. Allen, the hack, is going to be the image in the voters minds.
Webb himself presents an interesting paradox: a Reagan Democrat, turned Republican, turned Democrat again, he is going to be better on civil issues than people give him credit for, simply because his running is motivated by the catastrophic breakdown of process that Iraq represents. Since this is a top motivation, it means that his personal social conservatism is going to be tempered by his concern for fact based, and reality based, policy formation.
Webb's vector is to the left, and his base is in working people across Virginia, which means he will find common cause on a variety of bread and butter issues such as budgets, pensions, health care and employment.
Social +2 Economic +4 Civil +3 – chance of victory is roughly 53%
Montana
Everyone who has followed this race, particularly those who watched the rise of Tester as a real deal Montana politician, knew that it was going to be close, nasty and hard fought. Bush has personally campaigned for Burns, and many people in Montana in the resource extraction industries have done well in the current inflationary environment. Tester, by contrast, is going to see a broader picture of Montana. He is going to be a conservative Democrat, but he is running against Burns who is not only reactionary to the core on economic issues – one will find no greater advocate of Borrow and Squander than Burns in the US Senate – but corrupt and an enabler of the Republican Pork Mill that has kept the entire K Street Kongress in business. Tester taking out Burns will create ripples that flow outwards across the entire country, just as DeLay's removal from the house has left the Republican caucus there without the same discipline that it had before.
Tester is the great open chance for progressives. If progressivism can deliver a better economy for Montana, then Tester is the kind of politician whose door is open. Thus he could be sucked to the right, or to the left, depending on who can put ideas and proposals on his desk that will work. He's also not afraid to roll up his sleeves and propose broad projects of public investment - which favors a move in the progressive direction. Of all of the possible incoming class, Tester is the politician who has the chance to be either a huge disappointment for progressives, or a huge positive surprise. It depends on whether the progressive movement can deliver for Tester, because Tester is absolutely fanatically about delivering for Montana.
Social +1 Economic +2 Civil +2 – chance of victory is roughly 48%
Missouri
Claire McGaskill is a politician who is always beating expectations, first upsetting a sitting governor in a primary, and then coming back from defeat against "Baby Blunt" to be the clear choice for Senate. She is running against the paradigmatic Republican hack, in a state whose influence in the Republican Party is on the decline. Rep. Blunt was passed over for Majority leader status, and has clearly had a great deal less pull with his patron Tom DeLay gone. Neither of the Republican senators from Missouri have shown any kind of legislative leadership. The are simply reliable votes for the hard right agenda, and stay in place by the barest of margins. Missouri's two major metro regions – St. Louis and Kansas City, are not quite large enough to push a candidate into office without some kind of accommodation to the more socially conservative interior.
The Missouri Democratic Party, as a contrast to the Missouri Republican Party, is, while not exactly progressive, activist and even liberal in its belief that government can do things. McGaskill is a doer, and likes to rack up lots of small line item accomplishments. This would suggest that she is going to be one of the most vocal members of the Senate should she reach that chamber, again, after the settling in period. She is also likely to author, not whole bills, but numerous committee changes which will change the shape of legislation. She is also a "detail" person who will be likely to catch the kind of poison pill changes that have helped the Republicans push stealth changes, such as the recent closing of the auditor's office for Iraq. She is also going to be a natural member of the heartland bloc of Democratic Senators – bridging the praerie populism of Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, with the industrial progressivism of Brown, Levin and Stabenow. She is also a strongly partisan Democrat who is going to be all over the questions of procedure, since that is one of the key means by which Republicans keep power in Missouri now – tilting the rules.
For all of this she is facing a state where the religious right is very powerful, where the third metro area – Springfield, is only just discovering that being a city means having to do more than pave the roads now and again – and where the national spotlight has not shown as brightly as it has other places.
Social +1 Economic +2 Civil +1 –chance of victory is roughly 40%
Wing and a Prayer
Arizona
If you are a progressive and want to pray for a win someplace, here is the place to do it. Pederson is not going to set the progressive world on fire, but he is going to end up being a good deal like Ned Lamont – a progressive because of pragmatic realities. In a state that is a haven for tourism, retirement and tech – the need to protect Medicare and overhaul the health care system are going to be constantly on his plate. He will be solid on civil issues, and generally libertarian on social issues. Don't expect him to be a promoter of affirmative action, but do expect him to be considerably better than Kyl on immigration and integration.
Social +3 Economic +3 Civil +3 – chance of victory is roughly 25%
Tennessee
I've been repeatedly told by a variety of people that Harold Ford Jr. believes he should be President. He certainly has that look about him. He's repeatedly declared that he is going to be as socially Reactionary as the next Dinocrat, and his position on economic progressivism spans the political spectrum from 800 K Street to 1600 K Street. Corker is going to be less reactionary, and less influential, that Bill Frist. In a sense this race is a progressive pick up just because of that. However, Corker is also a considerably more likeable person than Bill Frist, and will put a more human face on Republican policies than the man who looked as if he stapled cats to the walls for amusement. He will join non-entity Lamar Alexander, who has shrunk in stature since his Presidential run until he is fighting with church mice for scraps of cheese. Corker will probably not accept the same kind of spear carrier role in the Congress, to some extent because if he wins, it will have been under his own power, rather than as a consolation prize to clear the coronation of George II
Social 0, Economic +1, Civil +1 – chance of victory is roughly 30%.
Lost Horizon
Connecticut
In a year with a progressive ground swell, with pick ups from the Republicans, and moves to the left in open seats, there is one race which is going to be a painful lesson in power politics: Lieberman is likely to trounce Lamont, and he has said, pointedly, that he is moving hard to the right after he wins. His voters are now Republican voters, and Lieberman dances with the one that brought him. Thus Lieberman the Democrat who had to keep the Democratic base happy, is about to be come the Connecticut is Lieberman's Senator who will caucus with the Democrats, but hang out with the Republicans. There are even rumors that he will take the first chance to cross the aisle should the Republicans need the seat to maintain control.
Lieberman has been bad on the civil front all along, and is going to start voting his convictions – of which he may get a few from a court of law if his campaign is ever investigated.
Social –4 Economic –3 Civil 0
Summary
Even with the Democrats unlikely to win the Senate, the incoming class of Senators is going to move the caucus to the left, and move the Senate as a whole to the left. On the all important filibuster question – how many votes for stopping radical right judges and lurches to the right from Bush – the answer is that there are three, and possibly four, new filibusterers on tap. This brings the number over 40 on prerogatives of the Senate, and into the high 20's on a number of other issues. There are also several future legislative heavyweights here, and at least three who are going to be very visible as spokesmen for progressive viewpoints.
It is also going to be a more protectionist Senate than the one which is in place, or the one that was in place in 1992. Protectionism is on the rise, simply because the number of people losing, or standing still, in the current economy is growing. Protectionism isn't really a progressive position – neither the late 19th century progressives, nor the 20th century liberals were protectionist. Instead, they were free traders, because they represented people who wanted larger markets for what they made.
However, a protectionist lurch is inevitable, simply because "Free Trade" hasn't been particularly much of either. It hasn't been Free, and it hasn't helped the export side of the trade ledger. A policy which balloons the trade deficit as much as our present trade policy is not a good idea, regardless of what economic theory is being misappropriated to provide excuses for it. CAFTA was certainly the last straw, in that it is not Free, not about Trade and barely an Agreement. Unlike NAFTA, which while loathed by many has been a net plus for the US, CAFTA shows that the Republicans can do for Free Trade in Central America what they did for expanding Democracy in Iraq.
Since the Senate is a body that is run by consensus, expect this new class to be supportive of the kind of procedural warfare which is practiced by Reid, Conrad, Dorgan, Schumer and Boxer. It will be velvet gloved – Brown, Whitehouse, Cardin and Casey are not rock the boat types – but it will be clenched with iron teeth. If you like gridlock, then you are going to love the next Senate.
And this is necessary, there is an emotional rejection of the reactionary trend, as embodied by what will be the most progressive Senate class since 1992, and a shift in ideological balance as large as 1986. However, it is not yet backed with a coherent stance on how to solve the problems we face, and it has not yet had a chance to make its case to the American people. Many issues that this crop of Senators are going to push have been buried by the press, both because of the MEGO factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and because of the increasingly reactionary bias of the old line media.
While the DLC/Conservative Democrat/Clinton wing of the Party has been very busy in trying to pack the house, this crop of Senators is going to look more like Chuck Schumer than Hillary Clinton. They are going to play hard ball, they are going to drill at their issues, and, as importantly, each and everyone of them is very ambitious and will be looking for a way to hold their space on stage.
This Senate is very likely to kill dead any chance for Social Security privatization, it is very likely to kill dead the burn Medicare to the ground plans that have floated around right wing think tanks. It will dramatically reduce the access of the Club for Growth and people such as Grover Norquist. The Republicans being replaced are, in two cases, more moderate, but in the rest the endangered Senators have been reliable back bench votes for the entire Bush agenda, and reliable rubber stamps for the Hastert-DeLay house.
Thus while many people speculate on whether this election will produce a Democratic Majority, still an open question, it is already on the road to producing a progressive plurality which will have the votes to take on the reactionary wing of the Senate on key issues, and force "government from the center" on budget and tax issues. This alone will change the environment in Washington, and in the country at large, most particularly since it will deprive the Republicans of one of their key weapons – quid pro quo graft.
2006's senate class is going to be the base of any future moves in the progressive direction - it is a class that has to work, or the country will toss aside the idea that progressivism can solve problems, in search of some other idea. Either these Senators become one term wonders, or long time anchors. From recent experience the difference will be measured in the politicians in question being clean, being clear and being active. The Democrats have had several abortive waves of change at the state level, corruption has sucked down or slowed down careers such as McGreevey's and Blagojevich's. Ineffectiveness destroyed Gray Davis. Lack of clarity and focus have dented Granholm and Baldacci.
If the 2006 Senate class is going to be a going concern, then it is going to have to learn hard lessons from 1992's failure to ignite a progressive majority, and from the mixed records of Democratic state executives. Don't pre-compromise, don't mumble, and don't have pockets that get heavier as you walk through a room. This may mean that early going will lead to more difficulties than the "go along to get along" ethos, and it will certainly mean hiring the best legislative people available, and sticking to very specific issues and points early on. But the small drip of water will wear away the rocks left behind by reactionaries, and convince people that progressives get things done.
The model to look at is Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan - be on top of people's concerns, be ready with specific actions, and follow through agressively to make sure that the problem gets solved, and not just swept under the carpet.
In all there is going to be a net shift of four votes in the progressive direction, with Casey being a ticklish case. There could be as many as seven if the wind blows the right direction. The bottom line is that in this election, unlike in 2004, progressives are pushing the conservatives and reactionaries into retreat. There are, in essence, three wings to the Congress, the reactionaries, the conservatives and the progressives. For some time dialog has been conservatives and reactionaries deciding how reactionary to be. The Republicans, by obliterating their own moderate wing, and by flipping southern conservative Democrats into Reactionary southern Republicans, have had a powerful run in power. But they have also created an opening - progressives can achieve large gains with each seat flipped, and by removing older, more conservative, Democrats, create an atmosphere where the center of leadership gravity will swing in the progressive direction.
It looks increasingly like the Democratic Party is moving in the Clinton, DLC, direction and largely rejecting or at least marginalizing the more leftward non-officeholders.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 6, 2006 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't look that way from the candidates who are set to win in the Senate. In every Democratic open seat, the successor is as progressive, if not more so, than the previous office holder. Yes Lieberman is going to move to the right, but even the conservative Democrats that are leading in the Senate - Webb, Tester, McGaskill aren't strongly associated with the "DLC" - which is a brand more than an organization.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 6, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I generally agree while disputing much of the math.
Want some gnashing of teeth around here? Think of John McCain as a liberal that has betrayed his roots. It was no accident at all that he and Feingold tried to do something about campaign finance with less than efficacious results. But despite their vast differences they were both reformers. That is the mark of a liberal - not hewing to some current catechism.
Clinton, rather than Bush, defined conservatism. Bush is clearly a reactionary.
Both Tester and Webb are more liberal in some respects than the avowed liberal Sherrod Brown. What liberal did not thrill to Tester's response to Burns on the Patriot Act? What liberal loved Brown's vote to approve torture?
The new Congress will be more liberal for certain. How could it not be?
Best, Terry
November 6, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is still nuts though.
November 6, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging by the last election, and the fact there are even more hackable machines than there were, I would imagine the outcome is already known, even to a greater extent than 2004.
I hate to say it, but letting the democrats win may be the plan, as "they" also know the timing of the economic collapse that is coming, and are planning on using them as scapegoats, hoping to kill the party for 2008.
What is all this anyway about a more liberal congress? Does anyone think they will revive our constitutional rights? Does anyone think they will take away power from the federal reserve? or the oil companies? Can they relieve NPR from their Neocon keepers? Will they keep the internet free? I doubt it. This country is finished. If the general populace cannot define fascism, how will they know how to stop it?
They cannot and will not.
November 6, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain sold out. He stood up to the beatings as a prisoner of war and sold out for power pointlessly. The rightwingers still despise him more than the left does. Pity.
What could possibly be more symbolic than McCain campaigning with Roskam and talking glowingly of the hospital where Duckworth recovered from losing her both her legs to slammed by Roskam for cutting and running?
What happened to you, John? Proud of yourself now?
Best, Terry
November 6, 2006 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those dinosaurs who came of political age in the age of JFK, and have largely been marginalized by the hard leftward charge of my party in the decades after. Just to annoy wunderkind who've managed to lose a bunch of elections over the past few cycles, I like to say that I'm a Kennedy Democrat. I'm a radical centrist. And, I find your litmus test of "progressive-ism", Stirling, more than a little offensive.
What you say about "a progressive because of pragmatic realities" when speaking of Lamont is a case in point. What's wrong with being pragmatic? Unless by that you mean "centrist".
I'm both. But in a discussion where the extremes have all of these litmus tests for being one of the gang, left or right, my reaction after all these years is a simple "bite me." If my state made registering as an Independent without losing my voting franchise I would do it, at least until the Democratic Party starts acting like a grownup.
I'll speak of Casey, since I live in Pennsylvania, home of Little Ricky, one of the nation's premier street-corner, loop-de-loop wingnuts in the Senate. He's toast, mainly because his brand of extremism is just really, really annoying. Even Republicans around here can't stand his preachiness and rigidity, even if they tend to sympathize with him on the social issues. Women voters here, especially, are very turned off. That's a lot of why he's trailing so badly. There will be no tears shed for Ricky after tomorrow. But hang on... let's hope Bush doesn't appoint him to the Defense Department when Rumsfeld is finally burned at the stake. He'll get some plum job though, count on it.
But Casey is against abortion, so he's a 'reactionary'. Hmmmm. By that definition, so are you. Reacting that way to someone who's position is at least an honest one, and not ideological. It's his personal belief, and like it or not, most Americans are fundamentally discomfited by the idea of willy-nilly terminations of pregnancies for just about any damned reason. We've allowed the party to be hijacked by that those on the hard left on this one key issue for waaaaaay too long.
I've lived for the last 30 years listening to the abortion/anti-abortion industry perpetuating the argument for their own selfish reasons. I'm sick of the whole thing. And I happen to think that it's going to be the pragmatists who finally, at long, long last, lead us to a national concensus on what to do about this chronic constipating issue in our public discourse. There will probably have to be some limitations on abortion-as-birth-control, as long as there are protections against excessive intrusions into the relationship between a woman and her doctor and family. Some things ought to remain private, even if we don't all agree on the outcome. And guess what, Stirling, it's pragmatic -- and correct, as it happens -- to realize that you can't solve any problem unless you get the majority of the country behind you.
Edit to add: One thought to leave with.... What do we think the Roves and other authoritarians in the government will do if they lose big tomorrow? Go home and reflect on their sins?
Hah. They're only going to redouble their efforts. If we ain't ready, they're going to come back with even worse than we've seen until now.
November 6, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, today's Democratic Party makes LBJ as VP look like a complete conservative, and today's economic policy makes John Kenneth Galbraith look like Milton Friedman. And lord, what a reactionary Adlai Stevenson looks like compared to the people who Clinton chose to send to the UN. And Stewart Udall and his work on the Great Society would be ridiculed as hopeless, nowhere near liberal enough. And what lefty thing did Orville Freeman do? Found the DFL in Minnesota and start the food stamp program - a conservative like that could never go far in today's extremist Democratic Party.
And don't get me started on that knuckle dragging social reactionary Arthur J Goldberg who authored that oh so centrist compromising decision Griswold v Connecticut. And his position on the death penalty, absolutely out of step with Governors like Clinton.
Oh and let's not forget another Kennedy Cabinet member Abraham A. Ribicoff, who George McGovern asked to be his vice-president.
Yep, those guys are miles to the right of Harold Ford, Harry Reid, Rahm Immanuel, Evan Bayh and Bob Casey.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 6, 2006 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Mr. Radical Centrist, my parents took me to see JFK speak when I was nine.
But it's the arrogance of folks like you that will have me casting my vote against the Democrat on my Senate ballot tomorrow.
You have no entitlement to any vote. You have to win each one, even ones on the left.
For many of us who came of age before women had any reproductive rights, the kind of contempt you show towards women in crisis is plenty enough reason to vote third party tommorrow if I didn't already have war and health care on the list.
November 6, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you are irony impaired, I am telling you bluntly that your assertions about where the Democratic Party is now versus the time of JFK are completely off of base, as an examination of who was in the cabinet, the congress and the governor's mansions of the time will show. The only place the Democratic party has moved leftward substantially in that time is in the South, because the reactionaries left the party over segregation.
The fall of the Democratic Party wasn't about "extremism", but a failure of governing imagination, a failure to deal with the challenges of inflation and energy crisis, of the ending of one phase of economic development and the start of another. This is also why the current conservative era in the Democratic Party is ending - because its icons generally don't have the governing imagination. Instead, they have ended up bending over backwards for reactionaries on health care, Iraq, tax cuts, Medicare part D, budget deficits, civil rights, social programs and public investment.
JFK believed in public investment, active government and an American that reached out to abroad. He believed in raising the fortunes of all Americans, and in expanding, not contracting, the boundaries of liberty. His cabinet was filled with activists, many of whom continued on in the Democratic Party under LBJ and beyond, and we owe many of them debts of gratitude in the present for the decades of hard labor that they put in. Since we cannot repay the dead, it is our job to leave the world freer and fairer than we found it.
There isn't any doing business with George Bush, or with most of the rest of the Republican Party. "Sensible" restrictions on others rights aren't acceptable. Nor are "sensible" sacrifices of the promises we have made to the people who worked all of their lives and deserve, because they have earned, their pensions, medical care and Social Security. Casey would burn all of that to the ground to get an anti-abortion justice on the court. It is that that makes him a reactionary, that his support for a near total ban on abortion comes before everything else. I said in the post, and I am repeating it here, because you are too busy bellowing and lying to listen to it the first time.
American government isn't always moderate, but it is almost always from the center. The Democratic Party of long ago was both progressive, and centrist. The failures of the post-LBJ party were not because of "extremism" - what extremist thing did Carter do? What extremist thing did Mondale or Dukakis advocate? None. Not one thing.
You wanted a fight, but you came armed only with half baked half truths and bitterness to blame demonstrations of 40 years ago for failures that occured, not in the streets of Chicago, but in the suits of K Street and in the offices of office holders.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 6, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing about the Kennedys, every one of them, they weren't terrified of being associated with the poor. They'd never have applauded themselves for the pathetic achievement of ending welfare without ending the whole point of it --- poverty. And if the sanctimonious "centrists" joining the sanctimonious wingnuts want to go to war against poor, pregnant, young women they might at least bring back the war on poverty.
November 6, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a very hard time with any PA Claim to being "Kennedyish" who does not recognize that PA once had a Kennedy Senator, his name was Harris Wofford, and he was not sustained in office. Wofford was John Kennedy's assistant on Civil Rights, and he was one of the key aids in setting up the Peace Corps -- he went on to head the Peace Corps in Africa. Wofford was one of the key authors of the decision that John Kennedy should call Coretta while Martin was in that Georgia Jail from the campaign trail, and he helped write the piece of literature passed out the Sunday before the 1960 election detailing that phone call. It was critical in Illinois in 1960. Believe me, you cannot get a more "Kennedyish" Senator than that. Why didn't PA Democrats keep him? Why did you fall for Santorum?
I guess I should point out I am old enough to have both worked on Jack Kennedy's campaign, and to vote for him, and I would remind that in 1960 you had to be 21 to vote.
The process that built a progressive core in the Senate in the 60's really began with the election of 1958. The underlying issue for everything was Race. Progressives, both Democrats and Republicans began, in a bi-partisian way, to take apart the structures of racial discrimination and segregation in the 1950's with, for instance, the reform of Social Security in 1956, making domestic workers and agricultural workers eligible for Social Security, something that FDR had to compromise on in 1935. When we elected nine more or less progressive Senators in 1958, the prospects for 1960 improved -- and then once we had a noisy and demanding mass movement, 1964 and 1965 became possible. You have to keep a long term sensibility about all this -- We have to consider how the results of 2006 help us set up 2008 and beyond.
November 6, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why I look out at the 2 billion poor in the world and realize just how much we have left undone on the Democratic agenda which dates back to nineteen fourty one, when FDR envisioned four freedoms, for everyone, every where in the world. One of these was freedom from want.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 6, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Well, Mr. Radical Centrist, my parents took me to see JFK speak when I was nine.
Oh yes, Kennedy talked and talked and talked-- and that was about it. And yep, he didn't mind being seen with the poor, but that was just for photo ops. The whole War on Poverty was nothing but a big Potemkin program, not unlikle Bush's Faith Based Initiative, until LBJ used his brass knuckles to actually get some substantive things done.
Meanwhile in foreign policy, Kennedy yactually ran to right on Nixon in 1960, using tactics that would make Karl Rove smile (that bogus, and known to be bogus, missile gap), then governed to the right also: Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, various Castro murder schemes, and the bullheaded bellicosity that very nearly got the country incinerated in the Missile Crisis-- in some ways in fact he resembles the current Poor Little Rich Boy in the White House, though thankfully there were more adults around in those days to put him back on his short leash.
And where do you think Kennedy was on the abortion question?
Good grief.
And anyone who wants to help Rick Santorum back into the Senate out of childish one-issue spite, is a big, big part of the problem. So what if Casey isn't God's gift to liberals? Compared to that gang of vile neo-feudalists running the country, he's a sweetheart.
November 6, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He would be a frightening president had he been elected in 2000 even before we knew he had sold out, now it would be even worse. I shudder to think of launching nukes or something in response to 9/11.
There was article a while back in some magazine I'm not sure if it was the Nation or TNR or Prospect but SOMEWHERE about why McCain appeals to some liberals so much and it made some sort of sense.
November 6, 2006 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain and Feingold pushed campaign finance reform for the same reason, and it was not altruism. They both saw campaign finance reform as a way to open campaigns to more radical candidates from the Right and the Left, the kind of candidates who can get signatures on ballots but not money in their warchest. That does not make John McCain a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. It just makes him more shrewd than Tom Delay.
November 6, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, paDem, how do you think John Kennedy's mistresses practiced birth control? They certainly were not on "the pill", and I just can't imagine the leader of the Free World rolling on a rubber.
You have this fantacy that the Republicans are going to shift back to the center after losing. What, some of them are going to flip-flop on abortion and gay marriage? No, no, no, the religious fruit cakes are going to take control of the party. And then it will be time for "independents" like you to "grow up".
November 6, 2006 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we owe the Vietnam War to JFK more than any other president.
It's personal with me, Stirling. A rabid JFK fan did more damage to me than a Viet Cong bomb did when I was explaining to him that the nomination of Kennedy would get us in a war that we would surely lose. I went to Vietnam as a private when most Americans didn't know there was a Vietnam. JFK was the fan of Joe McCarthy who avoided the vote on censure, the man who campaigned against the missile gap, whose debates with Nixon revolved around the defense of Quemoy and Matsu.
Like all conservatives, JFK preferred big defense to welfare, going to the moon rather than going to the inner cities.
The myth and the man were quite different. JFK offered empty rhetoric and bad medicine. By comparison, the ugly bigot psycho Nixon was the liberal. Odd how things work sometimes.
Best, Terry
November 6, 2006 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its impressive how Newberry avoids any contagion with actual facts in his analysis. Casey is projected to be a mere 5% more progressive than Santorum on economic issues. Based on what - his position on abortion? Certainly not any of his actual positions on the issues. Is there any reason to believe that Casey will not be more progressive than Santorum on the minimum wage, health care and the estate tax to name three non-trivial economic issues? Lieberman is going to vote 25% more conversative on cultural issues? On which issues? Abortion? Stem cells? What's the theory behind this - is Newberry aware that Orthodox Judaism and evangelical Christianity have different views on the sanctity of blastocysts? Does he even care? There was an interesting piece to be written here - but it would have actually cross-referenced voting records, policy positions and other "facts" as opposed to throwing out random numbers from the gut and taking potshots at easy targets.
But since we're limiting this to a diascussion of the gut, the simple fact is that any Democratic victory in this election (except for Lieberman's) puts the more progressive candidate in office. The only path to Democratic power is a coalition between progressives and centrists, economic liberals and cultural liberals. Surely it is better for progressives to part of the ruling coaltion than left out in the wilderness of a GOP & conservative dominated politics? It would be nice if progressives could hold off on the puritanism until after the Democrats come back until power - which even if everything goes perfectly tomorrow, can't happen until 2008.
November 6, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ironic part about this election is that many of the Democrats who will suddenly find themselves in Washington as part of the next Congress will find out just how difficult it is to actually practice what they preach.
Most Democrats readily admit that an immediate, or near-term, U.S. pullout in Iraq is an impossibility. The result, of course, is that NOTHING progressive will come of the Iraq issue.
For one, the margins in either house, even if the Dems win both, will be slim enough where "Stay the Course" will ultimately prevail.
Second, even if some drastic law were to be passed by a new Democratic Congress regarding a U.S. drawdown in Iraq, Bush would veto it and there would be no chance at a Congressional override.
The result will be status quo in Iraq for at least another two years, give or take Bush's interpretation of the James Baker led Iraq study.
The Democrats best chance at changing 'things' is with the budget. Even on that front, though, they will be fighting Bush tooth and nail. Bush, after all, has been touting his slimmed deficit, low jobless rate, and sky-high stockmarket numbers.
In the end, people will be very dissapointed by the result of this election. Unless the Democrats can take back the White House in 2008, the current political environment will likely persist indefinitely.
November 6, 2006 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Minnesota? Amy Klobuchar is a new face to the Senate as well, but left off your list. This is one case where, while the effectiveness of the incoming legislator may very well go up, the progressiveness may not, at least not on all three fronts.
November 6, 2006 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction for the surprise of tomorrow night:
Chafee keeps his seat.
RI voters just chicken out, that's all.
Can I have ketchup with that crow?
November 6, 2006 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am predicting Casey to end up being more economically conservative based on his own actions and priorities. Casey has repeatedly made it clear that his social conservatism comes first. This is going to hobble him on a variety of economic progressive fronts. He's going to be better than Santorum, because Santorum is more reactionary than many Southern Republicans.
It is a net gain, just not as much of a net gain as could have been achieved.
Politicians often change in office, Cassey could get to Washington and find out that his narrow personal beliefs shouldn't dictate the direction of the country, but if he couldn't find that out in PA, which is an entire country in that it has both large urban centers, rural areas, small cities and remote settlements - then it is very likely he is never going to learn it.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 7, 2006 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again it is obvious you haven't been paying attention.
There have been four areas of the war that have caused controversy:
1. The reasons for the war.
2. The strategy of the war.
3. The corruption and incompetence in the conduct of the war.
4. The use of the war in the domestic political arena.
The pressure for "withdrawal" is a talking point which summarizes the opposition of the country to all 4 of these points, and the complete disgust many people have with at least two or more of them. Even if the big demand - withdrawal - is not attained in the next two years, and few think it will be - there will be dramatic changes in how the war is going to be conducted. Rumsfeld, for example, is not going to face a fawning fan club when he goes to the hill, and there will be investigations, backed with sub peona power, into corruption on contracting. The auditors office, at least, will be back in business next year.
Life looks very different for an executive who has to keep an opposition congress happy, particularly when the opposition controls the parlaimentary house, rather than the deliberative Senate.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 7, 2006 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
One good thing a Mccain victory in 2000 would have achieved: it would have a nail in the coffin of the religious Right which was bitterly opposed to him back then and which was also ready to fold its tents until George Bush reenergized them.
In terms of foreign policy a McCain presidency would have landed us exactly where we are today with perhaps just some minor differences (we might actually captured bin Laden; and we would not be having the sickening debate over torture since McCain would not have taken us there to begin with)
November 7, 2006 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you underestimate how truely stupid Republicans are. There is going to be a bloodbath in that party. The coalition of religeous zealots, supply-side sociopaths, neocons and super patriots is a psychotic soup that has no center. The only trait they have in common is that each camp believes it, and it alone, is annointed by god almighty to save mankind. Each faction in that party sees the other factions as no more than dupes to be used. They are going to need to blame some one else in their party for this mess. They lost the civilized arts years ago, the only tools they have left to work with are hammers and tongs, and they'll use them on each other with sadistic glee. We are going to have SO much fun goading those freaks into slitting each others throats.
November 7, 2006 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't able to vote; I was 12. But JFK was the beginning of my political awakening.
I was living in Ohio in 1960. Being a Democrat then in rural Ohio was about as popular as it is now, and about as popular as being one here in Alabama/Central Pa.
If JFK's positions were analyzed today, according to today's litmus tests, he'd come up as pretty conservative. Very anti-communist, fiscally conservative, and very reluctant to get into the civil rights fight. I know that. But aside from the civil rights position, which I deplore, I find that I'm more aligned with a fiscally conservative, national defense (not offense, I hasten to add, but legitimate national defense against real enemies) and socially progressive issues. That sort of mix isn't real popular in the Democratic party, at least in the last couple of decade.
November 7, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also am wondering why no mention of soon to be elected Amy Klobuchar, the non-Hilary for all us women voters who have jobs in which we have to produce some kind of results. There is a huge difference between holding down a position in a law firm where you were hired as a favor to your hubby the Gov., and putting malefactors in jail.
With ladies like Klobuchar and Gabrielle Giffords from AZ, women with records of solid accomplishment and interesting and varied life experiences AS WELL AS academic she-always-does-her-homework type credentials, about to enter Congress those of us who might like to see a woman president no longer have to settle for Hilary. Sorry, Mr. Newberry, I know you are a fan, but from where I am standing, Mrs. Clinton's one and only major accomplishment so far, other than being a good Mom, is getting elected to the Senate from NY. I am glad that NY voters like her, but that in itself doesn't qualify her to be president. I lost all interest in Mrs. Clinton during the flap over her not paying the ghostwriter for It Takes a Village. A Wellesley grad can't write her own book? What else does she pay other people to do for her?
I would suggest that Mrs.Clinton would be well advised to capitalize on her popularity with NY voters by remaining in the Senate where she will certainly someday be a very powerfull committee chairman, if not Majority or Minority Leader, at which time, presidents will have to sue for her favor.
November 7, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were you there, then? Otherwise, how do you know whether he used a rubber or not? Oh, and you proved my point. Thanks.
JFK was no paragon of personal virtue, and I would imagine that any unwanted pregnancies were handled the same way all of them were for rich men. If you mistake my admiration for the political JFK for somehow glossing over the many failings of the man, they you can't read very well.
I have no such fantasy about the Republican Right shifting to the center. But let's be precise. Which so-called Republicans are we discussing? The traditional fiscal conservatives, or the closet authoritarians and theocrats who've taken over that party? If the former, then yes, they will move to the center. But the other bunch? I'd be surprised if they didn't set up secret camps in Afghanistan and plot the overthrow of the government here.
November 7, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Who said that? Not me. I despise Santorum. I said that Casey is anti-abortion, but that he's still better than Ricky.
The venom of many of the comments here, combined with poor reading comprehension, is exactly the kind of blind ideology that has been so disappointing. Do you folks actually think this sort of thing is going to convince the majority of Americans that Democrats can govern? I don't think it is.
We need to think beyond today. What if we win? Then what?
November 7, 2006 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be more accurate to say that I'm "irony fatigued." Too many puffed up, self-important clever people with too many conceits about how being ironic is somehow cool. Not that I'm saying that of you, but since you made the comment, I thought I ought to try to disabuse you of assuming you know who I am or what I think.
Yeah, and they were the ones who also blundered into a broader land war in Asia. And the "War on Poverty", among other failed activist causes. Bright guys can screw up, too, you know.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but some evidence I've seen is that history in Vietnam would have taken a different course had Kennedy lived. But we've been saddled with LBJ's handling of the war ever since, and it's still going on today (as the boomers running or just bloviating, a la the recent tete a tete between Bush and Kerry shows.)
Like it or not, though, Dems will go the way of the Whigs if they forget to take care of the center, and meet those traditional Republicans there. Otherwise, we face a very bleak and, I believe, totalitarian future.
November 7, 2006 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
More than LBJ? Nixon?
November 7, 2006 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
We at least agree on the point that we've not done a very good job of dealing with the underlying causes of poverty, any more than we're doing a good idea of addressing the underlying causes of terrorism. Sort of ironic (sorry, Sterling) that they're the same things: poverty, hopelessness.
I am sorry I introduce the whole JFK thing, as it seems that has hit a nerve. I merely wanted to try to explain that the party has got to come to terms with the left-center conflict, and that it is not such a bad thing to look to the near past to see what pragmatism looks like again. It isn't necessarily an evil, but it all depends on the leadership.
November 7, 2006 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you're for absolute reproductive rights, but you're voting for... who?
The only people I have contempt for, frankly, are absolutists like you. It's presumptuous of you to accuse me of having contempt for women in crisis, as though you have the remotest idea what I think.
While abortion makes me queasy, which I believe it should any thinking, ethical person, as should the death penalty, I think the black and white arguments on this issue are a trap. There are serious issues of personal freedom involved, but those are not the only legitimate concerns on this issue.
November 7, 2006 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first 13 years of my life were spent with Mr. Roosevelt as my president. I saw a country transition from bread lines, daily groups of hungry people at my mother's door, horrendous photographs of families across the country living in abject poverty to a country where there was almost overnight a sense of hope. There were CCC camps, WPA projects and eventually no more bread lines...all of which gave people hope which probably did more than anything else to lift us out of our national malaise.
Mr. Roosevelt was a progressive. It seems to me that there has yet to be another in the White House. Had Mr. Kennedy lived longer - in office less than two years - he may have become one. I always thought Mr. Wellstone, had he been president, could have risen to that standard.
We can only hope that another is on the horizon because at the moment there is none.
November 7, 2006 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I often like your commentary Stirling, but this is totally off-base. When did Casey make clear that his priority was social conservatism? The man is running as a Democrat, and he knows full well that that implies tacit support for choice. Harry Reid opposes abortion, but everyone knows that if he puts together a Democratic majority it means strengthening of abortion rights not weakening. If abortion was a driver for him or for Casey they'd be wingnuts. Just like if choice was a driving issue for Chafee he'd be a Dem, NARAL's blinders notwithstanding.
As I read him, Casey's social outlook is mostly shaped by the fact that he's a strong and rather traditional Catholic. His credible personal opposition to abortion, which he will continue to articulate, is about making peace with the "T", an awfully important election and reelection consideration for a statewide race. But even that doesn't put him in the conservative box you're making for him. I'd wager a decent amount of money that Casey ends up making public education an important issue - hardly a social or economic conservative tenet. My bet is that Casey will vote non-wingnut Catholic - moderate to right on abortion and sex ed, center left on social justice and war, and solid left on economic equity.
I also have to confess the comment struck me and apparently others as a bit dismissive of Casey, and that raises my fears of out-of-state progressives demanding fealty to the liberal line and personality type. When I met Penacchio he seemed like a great guy, but way too East Coast-wonky to ever run well in the T or Western PA. Casey definitely lacks dynamism, and he's obviously a machine pol, but his manner is much more generally accessible.
November 7, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the Klobuchar who believes universal health care is "unrealistic" and is to the right of the Independent on Iraq and social values issues?
She did not get my vote today. The other Democrats did.
November 7, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not one issue. The party is moving to right on a whole range of issues. Most centrists are probably to the right of Nixon by now. Reproductive rights hits a hot button with me because the people who most need to exercise their rights are often vulnerable and unable to speak for themselves or tell their stories. Establishment politicians will no longer speak up for them. So the only people who do speak out are the admittedly strident voices at NARAL etc.
November 7, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here's where I think this discussion starts to get productive. Progressives need to acknowledge past failures, particularly in using government to solve social problems, and we aren't that good at it. It's disappointment to acknowledge, but WIC-based "War on Poverty" welfare has downsides that basically outweight its upsides. First of all, welfare creates a culture of poverty and a lot of associated violence. I would venture to say (rather tentatively) that the African-Ameican community has had its men kidnapped by cash welfare; cash welfare essentially legitimizes chronic unemployment, and coupled with continuing discrimination (particularly harsh against African-American men) you have the breeding grounds a mentality not entirely unlike Palestinian suicide bombers. Call me overly general or racist if you like, but people who are willing to kill each other over minor beefs or tennis shoes are cooped up and nihilist, and the humane thing to do is reform their situation. Since this country values accomplishment very highly, I say people need to work and are ennobled by it.
Second, cash welfare is hugely polarizing - nothing irritates the somewhat-above-poor more than the poor getting something - anything - for free. Add that bad feeling to the suspicion born of race difference and you've got a toxic stew: hence the defection of the white working class from the party that truly has its interests at heart.
None of this is to say that the War on Poverty shouldn't have been tried (Vietnam, on the other hand...). It was a noble experiment in the fine humane tradition of liberalism and well worth the effort and financial and even the political cost. And it was not without its successes - it wiped out destitution at the expense of public willingness to trust active government. So it's time to recognize that it is a deeply problematic model, and try new ones. Among those that come to mind, I favor a true negative income tax (basically an EITC that makes a real difference in the standard of living), coupled with quality, low cost services like healthcare and education.
I know, this kind of evangelism sounds eerily like the DLC's "Different Kind of Democrat". And I do often like the DLC's policy ideas, but I really resent the holier-than-thou Third Way bullshit.
Overall I just never quite get the sense that progressives are ready to let go of some of these past experiments and philosophical bases. All Democrats from JFK to Kucinich want a strong and active government. But we disagree about where and when that means intruding into business, how that translates into strong foreign policy, and particularly how best to sell that vision to the country at large. I just don't see how we can start to resolves these disputes until we acknowledge some mistakes.
November 7, 2006 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. There are basically three parties in America. The reactionaries. The conservatives. The progressives. Over the last 30 years the reactionaries have grown quite strong, both in absolute numbers and in their control of the messages produced by the American Media. So for the Democratic Party to control the agenda, the conservatives and progressives have to form an alliance of mutual support for the common good.
One of the reasons you are getting bitter comments is that you are suggesting that the solution to the conservative-progressive alliance is for progressives to stop making demands and go along to get along. This idea has been debated quite thoroughly in the blogosphere since 2000 and the informed concensus is that this formula (conservatives lead progressives follow) is a losing formula. It is a losing formula because it allows the reactionary controlled media to close a triangle of failure on all Democrats as weak and unprincipled. In short if conservative Democrats allow progressives to be demonized by the reactionaries, then both conservative democrats and progressives fail. Only by showing strength in the face of reactionay criticism of progressives can the conservative-progressive alliance win at the balot box and the court of public opinion.
Peter Daou has written the post on this subject. The broken triangle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-broken-triangle-pr_b_13691.html?view=print
Please read the Daou article. It is very important for Democratic Party strategy in the next two years. Please print it and read it.
I would submit to you that the reason the mid term elections races were not won with higher margins for democrats in each race is because the reactionary republicans managed to close the triangle on all democrats over Kerry and the NJ marriage benefit decision. By showing weakness in the face of anti-liberal criticism, conservative democrats allowed independent votes to pass over to reactionaries.
Stirling. Please show some patience with your critics. You are in the persuasion business. Why not use it as a teachable moment? If it is a real troll you will know soon enough. Maybe you don't intend to but the impression you leave in the comments is that you shoot first and ask questions later. More compassion. Most people have been conditioned by 30 years of reactionary pro republican ideas. Hate the message not the messanger.
November 8, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink