Democrats and the impotence of power
The one thing that I respect about Republicans -- at it happens to be the only thing I respect about them -- is that they are not afraid to use power. In fact, Republicans are so confident in their ability to use power, they tend to abuse it without a second thought (think Dick Cheney, the "unitary executive", and the shredding of the Constitution over the last eight years.)
Democrats are exactly the opposite. They are either too shamefaced or too fearful of wielding governmental power, to ever really be effective. In fact, they seem to be always looking for permission to use even the authority given to them overwhelmingly (think 2006 and the impeachment of George W. Bush ... oh that's right, there was none.) And the permission they seek is usually from Republicans, and it is usually denied, without the GOP ever having to vocalize the denial (think threatened, but never, ever carried out, filibusters.) What Democrats seem most concerned with, is gaining and holding power, and doing so generally by not using it, which is why they were afraid to impeach George W. Bush and company, and remain terrified of indicting former Bush administration officials, for fear of offending enough voters to lose them their precious gavels, drivers and corner offices.
The Democrats' strange relationship to power is usually a source of annoyance for me, as a member of the party. Right now? It's downright dangerous to the country, which is shedding jobs like a spring spaniel.
By letting Susan Collins of all people, who owes her seat to her ability to hide behind Olympia Snowe at election time and pretend they're both Democrats, to dictate the terms of the economic stimulus plan, and to threaten to walk out if the Cruelle de Ville cuts to programs for all of those horrible old people, poor people and children that she and "Democrat" Ben Nelson foisted on the bill are reintroduced, is the height of idiocy. And the fact that Harry Reid doesn't simply call for an up or down vote and dare Susan, Olympia, Arlen "Blue State" Specter, or one of the eternally wrong and historically lethal southern conservatives to vote against it and then face their voters, or to go ahead and filibuster the bill -- but to do it the old fashioned way, cots and all, proves his weakness and fecklessness (which we knew already, after watching him bow and scrape for Joe Lieberman.) And unfortunately, the seeming obsession with bi-partisanship coming out of the White House, before President Obama finally had enough and started calling a stimulus a stimulus last week, gave Republicans far too much room to run. So now they're running, stomping and peeing and crapping all over what should have been a straightforward, large, potent stimulus bill. As Paul Krugman laments today:
If Democrats were Republicans, they would have announced from the well of the Senate that for every Republican Senator who refuses to back the bill, half of the money intended for their state would be cut out of the final bill, meaning that, for instance, Refuseniks John McCain and John Kyl's Arizona would get nothing.
I mean, where are the infamous head cracking techniques of Rahm Emanuel? I half expected him to be busting windows out of people's cars! What happened to the muscle Joe Biden was gonna employ on the Senate? Where is the vigor that (well, sometimes) marked the campaign's push-back against Republican slime?
I will watch President Obama's live news conference and speech tonight with great anticipation. What I'm looking for, in short, Mr. President? Is more FDR and less "can't we all just get along," because we can't. Republicans believe, fundamentally, in doing nothing, and letting the working stiffs go to hell. That's what you might call their "philosophy." You have the majority of the American people on your side, and the majority is hurting. If you and the Democrats can't deliver, then the "do nothing" Hooverites win. They, after all, believe that there is no emergency, since massive layoffs create cheap labor, and that tanking the economy is just another way to create wealth for those with lots of reserve capitol to spend on deeply discounted, "toxic" (for now) assets. Message: they are not on side, nor are they on ours. So for once, let's give 'em hell.
Democrats are exactly the opposite. They are either too shamefaced or too fearful of wielding governmental power, to ever really be effective. In fact, they seem to be always looking for permission to use even the authority given to them overwhelmingly (think 2006 and the impeachment of George W. Bush ... oh that's right, there was none.) And the permission they seek is usually from Republicans, and it is usually denied, without the GOP ever having to vocalize the denial (think threatened, but never, ever carried out, filibusters.) What Democrats seem most concerned with, is gaining and holding power, and doing so generally by not using it, which is why they were afraid to impeach George W. Bush and company, and remain terrified of indicting former Bush administration officials, for fear of offending enough voters to lose them their precious gavels, drivers and corner offices.
The Democrats' strange relationship to power is usually a source of annoyance for me, as a member of the party. Right now? It's downright dangerous to the country, which is shedding jobs like a spring spaniel.
By letting Susan Collins of all people, who owes her seat to her ability to hide behind Olympia Snowe at election time and pretend they're both Democrats, to dictate the terms of the economic stimulus plan, and to threaten to walk out if the Cruelle de Ville cuts to programs for all of those horrible old people, poor people and children that she and "Democrat" Ben Nelson foisted on the bill are reintroduced, is the height of idiocy. And the fact that Harry Reid doesn't simply call for an up or down vote and dare Susan, Olympia, Arlen "Blue State" Specter, or one of the eternally wrong and historically lethal southern conservatives to vote against it and then face their voters, or to go ahead and filibuster the bill -- but to do it the old fashioned way, cots and all, proves his weakness and fecklessness (which we knew already, after watching him bow and scrape for Joe Lieberman.) And unfortunately, the seeming obsession with bi-partisanship coming out of the White House, before President Obama finally had enough and started calling a stimulus a stimulus last week, gave Republicans far too much room to run. So now they're running, stomping and peeing and crapping all over what should have been a straightforward, large, potent stimulus bill. As Paul Krugman laments today:
Even if the original Obama plan -- around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts -- had been enacted, it wouldn't have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
If Democrats were Republicans, they would have announced from the well of the Senate that for every Republican Senator who refuses to back the bill, half of the money intended for their state would be cut out of the final bill, meaning that, for instance, Refuseniks John McCain and John Kyl's Arizona would get nothing.
I mean, where are the infamous head cracking techniques of Rahm Emanuel? I half expected him to be busting windows out of people's cars! What happened to the muscle Joe Biden was gonna employ on the Senate? Where is the vigor that (well, sometimes) marked the campaign's push-back against Republican slime?
I will watch President Obama's live news conference and speech tonight with great anticipation. What I'm looking for, in short, Mr. President? Is more FDR and less "can't we all just get along," because we can't. Republicans believe, fundamentally, in doing nothing, and letting the working stiffs go to hell. That's what you might call their "philosophy." You have the majority of the American people on your side, and the majority is hurting. If you and the Democrats can't deliver, then the "do nothing" Hooverites win. They, after all, believe that there is no emergency, since massive layoffs create cheap labor, and that tanking the economy is just another way to create wealth for those with lots of reserve capitol to spend on deeply discounted, "toxic" (for now) assets. Message: they are not on side, nor are they on ours. So for once, let's give 'em hell.
Advertisement
Joy-Ann
Great post.
The Democrats have been given a chance to save America and the world. They got that chance because the Republicants have screwed up so badly it couldn't be swept under the rug any more. But this magic moment won't last long. The Democrats better learn to play hardball quick. Filibuster?
Damn right! Let the Republicants stand there and tell America exactly how much they don't care about american jobs. They have earned the hatred of the amrican people. Now give them the chance to put the lid on their coffin. Gimme some more of that good old GOP BS.
February 9, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Republican was comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter tonight on Hardball ostensibly to compare economic packages but I doubt that's the motive. Americans like strong Presidents. That sure can be a problem. Both Nixon and Bush got 2 terms. Carter got 1. There's less risk to Obama in coming off tough than there is in coming off weak.
February 9, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter got one term because of Ted Kennedy. He could have just as easily have captured the same votes as Reagan did if the democrats hadn't pulled a Roman Senate on him during the primaries.
February 10, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well analyzed.
At the same time I think Obama has "presence" that is powerful. He has the power of presence. And I believe he can use it. He knows how to refrain from using it. But I believe he would and will use it. In the service of good.
I dearly love the man. I am nearly old enough to be his mother. But I am pleased to cede power to him. And I trust and hope he will use it wisely.
Lovely blog!
February 10, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly right on all of this. The bottom line is that there is a reason that it's so easy for the meoconfederate crackers to characterize Democrats in DC as calculating, dishonest, and weak: because they are. People like Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden or Barack Obama for that matter are not the kind who bang anyone's heads together on legislation or even cajole them. The last decent congressional legislative leader for the Democrats was Jim Wright and his influence was limited because the Democratic preference for powdered wigs, tea at 4, and giggling like little girls had already begun. Obama is not terrible, but he certainly is more comfortable with accomodation as opposed to projecting and using strength and political power in the legislative arena.
You cannot be a strong leader of a progressive party when you don't have the courage of your alleged convictions and are ultimately beholden to and controlled by the same interests that control the more conservative, reactionary party. Most of the time Democrats just try and dress up rotten, right wing proposals with a slightly less harsh and inhuman edge.
February 10, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems are moving. Women have some civil rights in the work place. We officially recognize Geneva Accords. We are part of the world again.
The Missies from Maine did not DICTATE. Lieberman, whom the Prez did not throw under the bus, worked with Specter and the Missies and a couple more conservative Dems and got the first big legislation passed. That is a big deal.
It would be nice if things worked in the Senate as easy as the House, but that is not the way things are.
Good things have happened in three weeks and better things shall come.
The reps look like a minority party with no theme except NO.
We will look back at these times as the good times.
Do not be disheartened.
February 10, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
These days will be the "good times"? God, I hope not. I hope we look at these days as the period in which mindless obstructionism started to die its very deserved death. When the media started to get outside of Washington DC and realize they've been behaving like junior high mean girls in the way they "cover" politics. When sanity began to make a comeback. In other words, I hope these days aren't the good days. Because if they are, the future looks pretty grim.
February 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed reading your analysis of the weaknesses shown by the democratic party but from my perspective you've omitted the most pertinent. A centre right(in European terms)party like the Democrats can never make fundamental changes to U.S economic policies. They may be able to make cosmetic change but this economic problem requires something greater than a change of management it requires a wholesale change in ideology, something you will not find in a centre right liberal party. From my perspective, that is why the democrats will always seem weaker than an ideologically driven republican party. You will never be strong while playing at the table of a republican, quasi-fascist, capitalist agenda.
February 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been my complaint as well. The change we are looking for is not represented by the two Maine babes and Specter. If they want to join the rest of that horrible crowd and filibuster a reasonable, important, and well supported piece of legislation such as the House version of H.R. 1, let them do it and they do it at their intense political peril.
February 10, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud the spirit of this blog, and agree with a number of its statements. I feel compelled to point out what I believe are some questionable premises.
(1) Investigating, indicting and convicting Bush Administration officials would be a very long, very difficult, and very high-profile job. Put another way, there are more important things to do at this very moment (like, say, starting the process of reversing Bushco policies). I know this isn't what people here want to hear, but it's true. The guy has been in office for less than three weeks, and has not closed the door on such prosecutions. It's a bit early to say the administration's "terrified" on this topic.
(2) The problem in the Senate was NOT a filibuster. The stimulus package needed 60 votes to get the Senate to suspend its budget rules. Take all seated Democrats, plus Sanders and LIEberman, and you get 58. Extra votes *had* to come from somewhere. Republicans didn't need to filibuster to kill the bill - they just needed to hold the party line. Which is why Snowe, Collins and Specter were so critical. If this were just a "simple majority" issue, I'd be in total agreement with the blog on this topic.
(3) I am not exactly a major fan of Harry Reid. However, he was one of the first to go after LIEberman publicly following that vile RNC speech. He softened his tone considerably, but only AFTER Obama came out and basically saved LIEberman's ass. Reid, Durbin, et al. changed their tune quickly after that. It's not that I oppose giving Traitor Joe the heave-ho - but the President-elect didn't want to. And I understand his reasoning, even if it goes against my understanding of what to do in such a case. (It is worth noting that Joey has been VERY well behaved since the election. I'll wager that his committee chairmanship is on a very short, very unpublicized leash.)
It should be noted that Obama is, at heart, a pragmatist. Throughout his career, he's been willing to accept legislative compromises in the name of making steady progress toward a larger goal.
This situation did not get FUBAR'ed in a few weeks' time. It won't get un-FUBAR'ed in that span, either. The stimulus bill passed by the Senate do represent progress, though I tend to agree with Krugman that it should have been larger and more aggressively sold from the beginning.
What I would certainly fault the Obama team for is not holding yesterday's press conference one week ago. The Presidency is the greatest bully pulpit on Earth. Perhaps the lesson Obama can take from Reagan is in the use of that pulpit. He will still have to fight the wingers every step of the way - but, as he continues to press his case in a reasoned, logical way to the people, I think that will marginalize Republicans more than any floor fight ever could.
February 10, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that the Democrats have risen to power differently than the Republicans. And they will likely wield their power differently too.
Rising to power--for Democrats, It has been a bottom-up process. Grass roots--it has required that voters become engaged--in all 50 states--it has required that they not only involve and engage Americans, but also, the international community.
The Republicans rose to power much differently--for them, the fewer people involved, the better. They tried to maintain power by keeping Americans less informed. For Republicans, the mantra has always been; the fewer voters involved in the process, the better. (just look at their voter suppression tactics)
But the Republicans continue to fail.
As a result, the Democrats are still building their governing majority. Even now, after the election. They were successful in 2006, they were successful in 2008, and they are continuing to gather power and strength across the country as more Republican governors join them in their support for the stimulus package.
Sure, the Republicans are louder. But clearly, they're not smarter.
Oh, you'll hear them, loud and clear. But it's DC Republicans vs the rest of America now.
They sound as bellicose as when they were the majority, but don't confuse that with power. They have become the ultimate defeatocrats.
If there is anything I've learned about Obama's management and leadership style--it is to be patient.
During the campaign, Republicans would slam him and I wanted him to throw a good hard punch. He didn't.
He won.
As any Republican knows, but won't admit, it's easier to destroy an economy than it is to save one.
The devastating incompetence of the Bush years continues to unfold, and it will for decades.
The question is, who can best manage that reality?
I'm going with the Democrats. All the faces may not be the same in a year or two years or three. Maybe Reid or Pelosi or some cabinet picks will be changed.
When you build a great team, it's a dynamic process.
Let them make mistakes. They'll learn.
February 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink