Democrats' Common Ground?
I have high regard for Harold Ford, and no doubt that the U.S. Senate would be better were he in it presently. I also think well of many of those whom he mentions in his DLC speech, like Governor O'Malley in Maryland, for instance, who has, without doubt, brought new ideas not only to state government but to rethinking --and recommiting to a safer and more equitable and opportunity-filled urban life for all when he was Mayor of Baltimore.
As someone who doesn't count herself as one of the DLC supporters (to say the least), I have respect for much of their leadership and for the fact that they have tried to imbue the Democratic Party with new ideas to make the Party competitive and majoritarian again. I also do think that there is more agreement than not between the DLCers and those of us who hail from the more progressive, pro-labor (rather than pro-business) side of the Party. I think that there's more consensus on trade today than there was previously, and the DLC has now gone on record in support of union organizing and workers' rights as in the Employee Free Choice Act, a shift for the DLC away from avoiding or even dissing unions, and an important shift in my mind toward figuring out how to marry policy with people.
But, here's where I begin to have trouble. It's in some words in Ford's speech where he calls for a party that is "pro-family, pro-business, pro-America, pro-defense, pro not only trade but smart trade..."
It's not that I'm even against any of these things, though I would frame them differently--and in framing them differently, it's not just the nuance that changes, it's the entire song itself. When you listen to Barack Obama or John Edwards, they are saying some similar things--they are talking about personal responsibility and being able to raise yourself out of poverty, about religious commitment and affirmation, about national security and about values. But their language is more inclusive; it is more populist--and it's more visionary. The problem with the DLC is not simply that they swerve too much toward pro-business and not enough toward pro-worker, it's also that policy wonks don't get themselves elected president. The Democrats need to inspire, not simply teach. No one is going to get elected by saying he or she is more pro-business than the other candidates--at least not in this upcoming election where so much is about trust, about Iraq, and about how too much in the Bush era leaned in the direction of corporate power. No one, at least, who calls themselves a Democrat. So, if we are in common ground mode, let's figure out a way to say it in a way that inspires folks, and brings along those who want to feel that the Democratic Party is speaking on their behalf.
Jo-Ann, thank you.I'll get serious tomorrow. For now, I need some fantasy. The Democratic challenges I'd like to hear:
1. America as a Good Global Citizen, which coincidently, or not, also helps to keep America Safe.
2. Effective Government and Social Justice, which coincidently, or not, Creates Conditions that allow Americans and all Global Citizens to Compete.
3. Effective Government Investment and Concern for the Environment as a Precious Natural Resource, which coincidently, or not, Protects the Environment and Allows For Discovery and Utilization of New Discoveries in a New Energy Environment.
4. Wild Card. Dealer's Choice. I'll take George Clooney and Impeachment of the current President and Vice-Pres.
5. Social Justice and Economic Parity as Family Goals, which coincidently, or not, Strengthens Family Bonds and Reduces Domestic Tensions and Violence
6. Social Justice and Economic Parity as Economic Goals, which coincidently, or not, Reduces Poverty and allows Broad Upward Mobility Across all Quintiles.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein
April 3, 2007 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would the Senate be better with Harold Ford in it? Was it better with Zell Miller in it? Do we really need more Democratic troglodytes who speak out against working people and for their bosses? Do we need more Democratic men who would prefer women remain second-class citizens with the government making decisions for them? Would it be great to have another strong Democratic voice for war on Iraqis and neglect of Americans who could use some help? Is torture a fine thing? Loss of civil rights? The Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment of course, trashed?
I don't see it.
Perhaps Mr. Ford can explain it to me.
I think he has a big job on his hands.
Best, Terry
April 4, 2007 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I know this is a rhetorical gambit, but don't you owe us an explanation for why you have such "high regard" for a man who is for torture, against gay families and wants to see credit card companies prosper at the expense of the poor and the middle class?
Do you also have "high regard" for Lieberman? Zell Miller? The Nelsons? If so, please explain why. And while you're at it, give us a few examples of how this "gambit" has helped us get their support for the things we believe in?
April 4, 2007 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a perfect example of the "reasonable debate" that places the author among the invitees to post in the cafe, and those who are left to post in the comments.
You have to start out by saying how much you admire Harold Ford and the DLC, how smart Mr. Ford is, or how much you wish he had won.
Then you have to address Mr. Ford's points on their own merits, even if they have no merit, or more importantly, if they are mere distraction. Mr. Ford's opening salvo did nothing more and less than say, "Forget the past. Can't we all agree on what I think is important today?"
For those of us looking for Truth and Reconciliation as the best means of obtaining Common Ground, we are dismissed by the likes of Mr. Kilgore in his article as engaging in cathartic purging of unhealthy emotions.
April 4, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have high regard for Harold Ford, and no doubt that the U.S. Senate would be better were he in it presently. "
I would like to second (and third) the comments from JeffC and Matt in NYC.
Ms. Mort, exactly HOW would the US Senate be better with an anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-torture, pro-war democrat who voted for the bankruptcy bill?
Mr. Ford, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, hurt my family with his votes. If you'd like, i can go through my credit card statements and calculate exactly how much money Ford's embrace of the credit card industry has cost me. Then we can calculate the costs of a week's worth of groceries for a three-year old, and the cost of heating a house during winter, and how 22% interest rates that the credit card companies can increase anytime for any reason impact on that.
Harold Ford has a record to defend. You can write about what a nice guy he is until your fingers fall off, but there is the matter of his record, which is one of attacks on working people, bad ideas like iraq, and support for torture and the repeal of habeas corpus. That's Ford's legacy, and I'm just supposed to say "let bygones be bygones"? Please: maybe when Ford gives me some of my money back. I'm not going to forget my kid saying "daddy I'm cold" anytime soon.
April 4, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
JeffC,
Undoubtedly Mr. Ford did not receive a grand welcome but imagine if it had been George Bush that had come to ask to talk to this group in order to find common ground. Would it have gone off well you think?
It is fine with me if anyone wants to address this or any other group but why should people be asked to express agreement with views diametrically opposed to their own? All that is reasonable to ask, I think, is to give a listen and be reasonably civil.
JMO.
Let me say something nice that I have before about Mr. Ford. He would have enhanced the scenery in the Senate. You want more? :-)
Best, Terry
April 4, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then you have to address Mr. Ford's points on their own merits, even if they have no merit, or more importantly, if they are mere distraction. Mr. Ford's opening salvo did nothing more and less than say, "Forget the past. Can't we all agree on what I think is important today?"
actually, it was worse than telling us to forget the past -- Ford told us that we were delusional, based on how we perceived the DLC in the past.
Its unsurprising that someone like Ford would address progressives in that manner. What is unfortunate is that, while well over 100 commenters expressed their displeasure at being insulted by Ford in this fashion, not one of the TPMCafe "front-pagers" has chosen to address Ford's slur, instead pretending that it wasn't even there.
April 4, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the Senate would be better off with Ford in it. I do not need a pro-Iraq war, anti-gay, anti-choice Christianist (Andrew Sullivan's great word for those who use Christianity as a wedge issue) on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Nor do we need two Dems (Lieberman) who we have to cater to in order to keep them with the Dems.
No thanks.
April 4, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who voted for Ford last election I would like to say that his embrace of the DLC disappoints me just like many of the votes he cast in Congress did. Was he a better choice than Corker? Of course! But that is damning with faint praise from where I stand.
I could make a similar comparison with the GOP and the DLC and end up saying the smae thing, damning with faint praise. The problem with DLC "triangulation" is that Dems end up comparing themselves with the likes of Gingrich and Delay instead of Gandhi and thus damn themselves to weak comparisons and setting very low bars to defining success.
To grant the benefit of a doubt, perhaps growing up within the Ford family political machine has too heavily influenced his world views?
April 4, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't need to go any farther than Mr. Ford's (and many of the DLC'ers) misguided notion that the beliefs of organized religions belong in the our country's political discourse. It gives hateful and intolerent people like Rev. Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al the illusion of "bi-partisan credibility". These are the people who bash gays, unions, are hostile towards environmental protection, want wars of aggression to be waged, are for torture, etc., etc., etc...
And until the DLC types say, that while religion is a perfectly good thing to practice in your place of worship it has no place in our government, they will only be republican wannabes as far as I am concerned.
April 4, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are there no issues that should put a politician beyond the pale no matter what their party affiliation? A politician who votes to support torture and the elimination of habeas corpus either because he believes this is good policy or for political expediency is still to be held in high regard.
Sorry, my morals are not quite that flexible. I do not believe that anyone who sanctions torturing another human deserves any respect at all. Also, any organization that believes that someone who supports torture and dismantling one of the cornerstones of western jurist prudence is the person who can best represent them is one that I will never support.
April 4, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I do have to wonder what people that far to the right are doing on the left side of the isle, but it would be better to have one of them instead of a toe-the-line loyalist to the Republican leadership.
I'd rather placate Lieberman on SB-123 and Ford on SB-456 and maybe even both on SB-789 than write off another vote entirely for 6 years. That's how the Senate would be better.
But Lieberman still sucks and Lamont should have won.
April 4, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of other Republicans to defeat who can be replaced with better Democrats the Ford or Lieberman. Start with phony Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
April 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right and don't forget Ford did all that and he still LOST! It's hard to think of anything much more worthless than pandering to all the worst aspects of the Republicans and still losing!
April 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's a hell of a bold and courageous stance. I can't believe that Ford is actually taking on the Anti-Family, Anti-Business, Anti-Defense, Anti-Trade and Stupid-Trade, Anti-America lobby.
What's next. You figure he's going to bitch slap the NRA?
April 4, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pro-defense" is one of those things Democrats used to say about themselves when they felt they had to apologize for being Democrats, back in the Reagan/DLC era. There's an implied "but" in it -- "sure, I'm a Democrat, but I'm pro-defense". The political landscape has shifted rather significantly in the past 2 years, let alone the last 6, and one would think it would be time for Democrats to stop having to ritualistically proclaim themselves pro-defense. (And perhaps for Republicans to start having to ritualistically proclaim themselves "compassionate" or "pro-working people", or even "non-militaristic".)
April 5, 2007 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I was reading your post, and before I got to the end, it occurred to me he didn't say "Pro Gun"
April 5, 2007 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink