Democrats: What Does it Mean to be an OPPOSITION Party?

[Totally Committed]

Caving On CAFTA
Paul Waldman

Earlier this week, potential 2008 presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack trooped to Ohio to join in the Democratic Leadership Council’s “National Conversation.” Back in Washington, the DLC joined a shrinking group on the left side of the aisle advocating for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. As the bill approached its vote in the House, even the “New Democrat Coalition” of centrist House Democrats came out against it. (My Note: Use of "Democrat", not "Democratic")

The DLC has been doctrinaire on free trade from the organization’s inception, so it would have been a shock if it didn’t support CAFTA. And the further enhancements of corporate power over nations, states and localities written into the fine print don’t seem to bother the DLC much either, though even its advocates admit it won’t have much of an effect on the U.S. economy one way or another. But in the end, only 15 House Democrats heeded the DLC’s call to hand George W. Bush the first important legislative victory of his second term. Though 27 Republicans voted against it, CAFTA passed by a vote of 217-215.

>snip<

The first step to becoming an effective opposition is comprehending the meaning of your own powerlessness. Powerlessness can be both a constraint and a liberation; as Republicans have found out over the last few years, banging on the doors of power is easy but governing is hard. Too often, the Clinton alumni who populate the DLC seem to have forgotten that they no longer control the executive branch. When you don’t have the ability to actually do anything, the only field you can play on is what you are able to say and what people come to believe about you. In that context, your goal isn’t to come up with the most effective solutions to knotty problems, it’s to make clear who you are. The question with a piece of legislation like CAFTA isn’t whether the bill is on balance better than it might have been. The question is: What does your support or opposition say about you?

If Democrats took the DLC’s advice, the message much of the public would pick up about the party is that once again they are siding weakly with the Republicans’ corporatist agenda, signing on to another trade agreement that will hasten the decline of American manufacturing. Is that an accurate portrayal of the agreement’s effects? Perhaps, perhaps not, but that doesn’t much matter.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050728/caving_on_cafta.php

[Totally Committed]

1. I feel this is a conversation

we should be having in the wake of the CAFTA Vote/DLC disagreements here. It is the one and true issue at the root of both concerns.

What this article says is that in this time of "powerlessness" against the Republicans, Democrats have a great opportunity to define themselves as the true party of opposition. We could be using this time, and the votes we cast during this time to illustrate to the public who we are as people and as a Party.

Instead, we are voting with the Party in power and acting like the Party in power in the hope of winning elections by being like they are, instead of being exactly who we are.

I am kicking this once. If you truly do not want to have this dialogue with each other, then you don't. But, this isn't just about CAFTA, or about the DLC. It's also about why the DSM, Rove/Plame, The Iraq War, and so many other subjects keep disappearing from the national radar. It's not just a complicit media. It's too few elected Democrats with the guts to cause a real fuss about them.

So, :kick:

[ibegurpard]

2. I'll kick it for you

I agree

[bloom]

3. This is THE conversation IMO

What is going on when the Democrats vote for these things that make no sense to our understanding of Democrats. When Democrats have no need to vote for things that will improve the lives of 90% of their constituents.

There are the "culture war" issues. And the Republicans making it out to be that "liberals" are so terrible. When really - on the corporate questions, the war questions, the Patriot Act civil liberty questions - there is little difference in the politicians. (And the DLC is against the anti-war, liberal "fringe" as well as the GOP).

It has been interesting that Barbara Boxer and a couple others make some waves. If nobody made any waves - it would really look bad - wouldn't it? Democrats across the country might give up entirely. Democrats and Republicans alike would stop contributing. There would be no reason for all the ads. There would be no reason for much of the TV news and talk shows and even the Daily Show.

And if it didn't look like there was any opposition - what would people think?

It was encouraging to hear Robert Reich this morning (on UCTV) and think - how at least with the Democrats - there were some good people in there.

If we want to be appeasers - get the best that we can get while the politicians continue to represent the corporations - then we could probably improve the situation somewhat. Improve money to the poor - a little. Improve money for education - a little. Meanwhile - the multinationals will do what they do. The wars to protect the corporations will go on. We might lose our rights to dissent - to have trials. But maybe we'll reduce the homeless population by 10%? Maybe we'll hold on to our right to choose. :shrug: (That is the DLC way "the Third Way" IMO).

We need people who will represent the people.

See also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1965103&mesg_id=1965103

[CWebster]

4. This is why the debate is so relevant

and the calls for unity--that number just as much as the debate threads, should be ignored. The conflict is not occurring in a void and calls for unity are just an attempt to brush it all under the carpet.

[Totally Committed]

5. I totally agree.

This is a conversations that Democrats of all "stripes" should be having now. Before we go out and vote and work for 2006, we need to know who and what we are and expect to be as a Party on 2008.

Voter fraud aside, this is our biggest biggest stumbling-block. As a Party, if we hope to win, we need to lead, and you cannot lead if we are doing what the other guys tell us to, just so we can get re-elected. We cannot be cow-towing to corporate interests for our financing. And, if we are to nominate and elect a winner, we need to know who best represents what we are as people and as a Party.

Now is the time to discuss this, fight about this, get this out in the open, and make some real decisions.