[This ground has been covered with one reader already, but it seemed appropriate to address in its own entry. To the degree it's "been covered," you can move along. Mike McConnell is given an extended footnote. A telling example of the anti-freedom mentality of this administration and its enablers.]
There is a debate ongoing about the state of the Democrats in Congress. The overall sentiment of one side appears to be that "Blue Dog" Democrats have the balance of power, limiting what they can do. So, when someone is pissed off when "x" happens (e.g., the FISA change), the response is basically "well, yeah, it stinks, but c'est la vie." This is sometimes said in a realistic sounding voice by people quite honest in their overall disdain of the situation, supportive of a new path such as voting for more progressive politicians.
In 2006, I noted here that a progressive activist was running again -- this time after he announced retirement -- for Hyde's seat. You know, the conservative behind the Hyde Amendment against governmental funding of abortions and the Clinton Impeachment. And, I was a bit tiffed that the party was not supporting her, instead backing an Iraqi War vet that seemed more likely to win the conservative leaning district. A newbie without the progressive chops and new to the district, so open to carpetbagger accusations. She lost. Kerry lost too. I have this idea that people kinda didn't think he would win, but the loss would be close, so easier to spin.
I'm a bit suspicious therefore when people say we should support progressives in the next election as the best way to address the power of the Blue Dogs. Oh? Watch many support the more conservative leaning candidates, taking the careful approach [even some at The Nation seems to think the Lamont campaign was a risky undertaking], since that is the best way to win. How after all did these conservative leaning sorts get in the first place? Apparently, they come from conservative leaning areas. Take Dianne Feinstein. Gov. Arnold suggests the sizable Republican leaning sorts in the state that want their conservative tendencies tempered in some fashion. Thus, it is unlikely the state will have two liberal senators of the Boxer mold.
So, how will we replace them? For one thing, we can find better candidates that are popular for various reasons, so still appeal to more conservative leaning areas. The fact Democrats actually are elected in "red" states underlines that progressives can win in those areas. On various issues, voters in those states are sympathetic to the party. Certain distasteful "blue dogs" get support from these same voters, but they are not the only ones the voters would choose. This has been shown to be true in New York. We used to have a disreputable sort known as Sen. Pothole (R), logical since New York has both a conservative and Johnny on the make side. But, eventually Chuck Schumer came in. Not a prize in some respects, but a better alternative.
There is an idea, however, that the voters as a whole support such candidates and what they now promote. This is the DLC sentiment. The fact that Clinton -- who was popular as much for his skills and personality as his policies (or more so) -- was the last two term Democratic President since Wilson [Truman/LB had 1+, FDR had 3+] helps a lot. But, even Clinton sounded pretty liberal in many ways. Given the power of the President is often symbolic, this matters a lot. Hillary Clinton also suggests the opportunities here -- as with El Jefe, she had name recognition on her side. This is a pretty typical strength and can be used to get in popular people whose views might not necessarily be supported in other cases.
[When one points to Clinton, some also note that he is sui generis. I find this hard to take. The guy is far from god. The inability of the party to find a credible presidential candidate too many times arised from various reasons, the fact Clinton is the only good choice around not really one of them. He also underlines the crybaby "they were mean to us" stance of Gore and Kerry voters only takes us so far. Yeah, a lot of crooked stuff went there, but kids are treated badly in many cases as well. This is unfair and makes school a living hell for some of them. But, in the real world, you have to deal with such things. You can whine about your pitching staff or fight with what you have. Note how the Yanks did not win the Series since 2000.]
Anyway, I do not think the "Blue Dogs left us no choice" argument covers various things for which people like I am pissed at Democrats. Take the "impeachment is off the table" business. What does "table" mean anyway? It means the matter was reasonable in some fashion, something we can discuss. It symbolically -- quite important in politics -- means that the President et. al. doesn't have a sinecure only open to "bad boy" noises from Dems. It means RESPECT for many who give life blood to the party. Thus, we can have various investigations and so forth with a hint of more to come. It might not come, but the base and others would not be pushed to cry "fake" or the like because of artificial restraints.
[As to having a vote now, well, that would not happen anyway since you need a process. Some might argue the net result is really the same, but politics does not really work that way. Government is often about process, especially for the sides that ultimately lose in the end. The same shows up in courts of law. Do those likely to be convicted not deserve a full set of rights, since hey, what's the point? When they do not get them, do they not deserve to be very annoyed? Anyway, and this applies to Gonzo in particular, the process takes time. Taking things off the table, especially as the administration looks more and more bad, helps to run off the clock. Enabling the wrong side yet again.]
But, that is too much to ask, since it might open the party up to some criticism. From whom? People who deserve our scorn mostly. Blue Dogs did not force this move. Thus, Sen. Boxer noted that sure impeachment can be on the table. It's like the Republican Party platform measure that says abortion should be criminalized. Not going to happen, but it gives the party a lot of passionate supporters. The fact the end itself is not going to happen -- even Dubya admits as much -- any time soon does not lead them to say it is "off the table" even as a matter of discussion. They aren't that absurd.
The path on the occupation is similiarly not somehow compelled by the lack of power by the sane caucus on the issue. When a pretty sane sort like Sen. Carl Levin (voted against AUMF in 10/02) joins with Sen. Warner and says that in some ways the surge is doing good, is it compelled by Blue Dogs? The net result is to enable Bush and supply aid and comfort (I use the allusion with some care) to that side. Since Blue Dogs + Republicans control Congress on this issue, this cover will not result in some sort of reasonable compromise position.
[The cover to such enabling is that what they really mean is that the forces do some good, even if as an overall strategy it is questionable. Of course, the other side ignores the qualifiers and context. Heroin is somewhat helpful to an addict, but it is probably better if they quit totally. Our imperialistic path is comparable. As always, Glenn Greenwald -- the source of the Levin remark -- covers this ground well in various posts this week.]
After all, we are told that it won't happen ... we need "67 votes" for that. Well, fine, so why act like we need not, as if some "compromise" measure -- that gives away too much -- will be beneficial? Put aside that the message being sent -- the Bush policy is sorta working -- is dubious at best. Hillary Clinton is often taking this half/half stance btw. The overall sentiment seems to be that we are going to lose, so the best we can do is spin things sorta our way.
This in turn requires basically accepting things many simply do not agree are acceptable principles. Michael Vick might not think he's guilty, but pleas that way since he has no choice. But, Dems do not really have such an either/or choice in many cases. They appear not to want to trust the people. To tell them the truth: the bad guys are winning in certain areas, we don't have the votes yet, but we can try to do the best we can. We will do our best in this regard.
Instead, they try to b.s. us that things are better than they are. And/or that they cannot do any more than they are doing. As suggested above, this simply is not true. This puts aside those who argue that some more pressure can be put on Blue Dogs in various cases, at least to the degree their position is shown to be wrong (disagreement among friends, let's say), sometimes even pushing enough to win a few more things. The problem in particular are acts that help them. Adds insult to injury. You know like Sen. Boxer saying Lieberman is a great guy during his campaign vs. Lamont.
The fact what she matters suggests the connected whole nature of the process, including when dealing with voting in better Democrats. Atrios, for instance, lists various Dems to support. Hint: not only those in the individual districts and states provide said support. All politics might be local, but there is still some "party" in the Democratic Party, even today. When the party as a whole send a message to those who care ... many of whom do the yeoman work in supporting candidates and the like ... that they are fine with promoting a meme that neo-Republicanism is reasonable, they might just ask "what's the point?" The party has true libs in Congress now. To what end if the leadership leans Blue Dog push comes to shove?
And, surely given modern districting and the like, it is not likely that Congress will have some supermajority of true blue progressives any time soon. So, how the conservative Democrats are handled now matters, since they always will be among us. In some fashion, such swing voters should be there. The tail should not, however, wag the dog. This is the ultimate problem, or a core one. It is not that the caucus is unable to do things for which the votes are not there ... again, like strong Bush critics that actually did win in 2006, a better attempt will lead to some victories. Try more.
But, please do not send the message that you actually support the Blue Dog position. Their actions, including the putative future head of the party (Hillary Clinton), however, do just that. By enabling the Bushies and their enablers, in different ways, including when it simply is not "forced" to do so.*
---
* Thom Hartmann (Air America) noted that some voted for the eavesdropping [insert word here] law out of fear of possible attacks. A b.s. reason, even if -- which is silly -- you trusted the administration on the evidence. As I referenced last time, the Justice Department refuse to admit now that legislative authorization of the new powers are actually necessary. Likewise, oversight protections would not interfere with that either. A strong slamdown for even suggesting this is credible is required to warrant any respect for the party as a whole.
Meanwhile, Mike McConnell's discussion of the recent FISA amendments is rather telling (see various blog links), including how it helped bring to light his conflicts of interest, the idea FISA was some gentlemen's agreement with Congress (a sort of optional law), the many lawyers he used to compose what law professors still wonder about (see Balkanization for how it is needlessly confusing) and how merely discussing it will lead to loss of American lives.
He hates freedom. We have rights in this country, including self-government not because they are always cost-free. Sometimes, it might be easier to break into a home or not have to deal with beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely, this sometimes leads to serious harms, including enabling violence. But, the net end is deemed to be beneficial. Why is this so hard to understand? Like one person was not annoyed at torture, but the fact it was leaked.
What sort of society would we be in if it never did? The sort some claim to like, except when their hobbyhorse is involved.