More Georgia (and other stuff) on my mind
Of course there was that other big primary in Georgia yesterday. I must admit, that I was fairly apathetic on the outcome of that one. To be quite honest, I had never heard of Cynthia McKinney prior to her major foot-in-mouth insertions earlier this year. I have no idea what her political stances on any issues are. It just seemed that she probably had become more of a liability to the party; so, in the long run, it was probably better that she was gone. I do respect her for one thing, however — no matter how kooky the things floating around in it were, she was not afraid to speak her mind and take the heat for her beliefs. That’s an unfortunate rarity in national politics these days.
That leads me to something I heard from the campaign of the victor, Denise Majette, which bothered me. Now, again, I had never heard of Majette before about a week ago, and I don’t know much about her stance on any issues. What I heard in an interview with a campaign spokesman, however, led me to believe that she too could become a liability to the party, but for a different reason. Majette’s spokesperson, to paraphrase, said that the candidate was victorious because she ran as a consensus builder and someone who wouldn’t rock the boat. That’s not good.
I know I am going against some things I have said on this site before, but I have come to believe that he Democratic Party doesn’t need any more consensus builders. Increasingly, the muddled message I have heard from Democrats in Washington is not too different from that of the Republicans. It’s just packaged differently. Take the Bush tax cut for example. Sure folks like Daschle have whined about it, and said it was a bad, bad thing; but with few exceptions, no one has seriously called for its repeal. Look at the USA Patriot act. Democrats, on occasion, complain now about civil rights issues and evil Ashcroft, but that bill passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote. Next we have corporate reform. Democrats moaned about Harvey Pitt and said he had to go, but he was confirmed nearly unanimously. And the corporate reform legislation? Well now that the hoopla is past, I’m not sure what, if anything that bill accomplished. I’m not sure I even want to touch on the possible war with Iraq. With the exception of Joe Biden, I don’t think the party has any real position on Iraq. It kind of scared me that while watching Hardball a week ago, I realized that Terry Jeffries (Terry “I hate Clinton” Freaking Jeffries, people) was far more thoughtful in addressing the topic than the Democrat he was supposed to be debating.
Another thing I have noticed is that no Democrat has held onto an issue for more than 3 or 4 news cycles. The longest, I can remember was Bush’s Harken troubles and that only lasted 3 weeks or so. Looking back, the only damage done to the President’s job-approval ratings has been self-inflicted. It seems like the Democrats latch onto an issue for a day or two, but when the criticism gets too hot, they skitter away.
The worst part of it is that we are on the cusp of an election season and the opposition party doesn’t seem to be opposing anything. There are no unifying Democratic issues on the table. The candidates of both parties in my state, Texas, are pretty much running the same campaign (Patriots Against Insurance Companies) with occasional pauses to sling mud at each other. This is the first election season since I first started following politics at the ripe old age of 16, that I really find myself apathetic, and that’s bad. This is an important election for Democrats.
I don’t know who’s to blame for this. It’s easy, I suppose, to point the finger at the media. The last 18-19 months have really seemed to be the “I love Georgie” show. Criticism from the mainstream has been fleeting at best. The benefit of the doubt has been given to the President at every turn.
I think, however, that blaming the media is a cop out.
I blame the consensus builders and boat stabilizers. Sure people complain and point out injustices, but that’s where it ends. I can think of few Democrats that believe in something strongly enough to really “buck the trend” and fight for that belief. There are no radicals. There are precious few new ideas. Challenging the status quo has become a political liability. New ways of thinking about things are the quickest route to the ever-dreaded fringe. It’s all about “bi-partisanship”, “building consensus”, and “staying the course”. We are all the worse for it.
I just finished reading McCullough’s biography of John Adams. The main theme I took away from that book was that this nation was born out of strong beliefs, risk taking, and, yes, a good measure of luck. There was compromise for sure, but there was very little consensus on anything other than the basic principles of the revolution. It was all about partisanship (sometimes down to a party of one) and it was all about risk. Who out there now among Democratic office-holders and office-seekers is willing to risk everything (including corporate campaign contributions) for their beliefs? Who has any beliefs to begin with?
The Democrats need boat-rockers. We need people who believe in something (election reform, education, anything!) strongly enough to fight for it and tell us why we should fight for it too. We need radicals. We need people to create new arguments and not engage in this back-and-forth of co-opting the other side’s memes (Who’s the education party now? Who’s the party of fiscal responsibility?). We need people who realize the fringe is not always a bad place to be. We don’t need any more consensus builders.
Maybe I’m too cynical, or maybe I’m way too idealistic. Maybe things are too quiet because Congress is out of session. It just seems to me that the Democrats have become (gasp) the Republican Lite Party: “All the Status Quo With less Religious Conservatism than Regular Republicans — Now With Sparkling Drop of Whining”. Somebody tell me I’m wrong and tell me why. Tell me there’s a Democrat out there worth supporting for reasons other than he/she is not a Republican, but do it quick. I don’t want to have to go Green.
Funny, just the other day on my own blog I posted this:
Just once…
Wouldn’t it be great to see, when Karl Rove or Ari Fleischer accuse the Democrats of playing “partisan politics”, if somewhere, some brave Democrat would rise up and say, “Yer damn right we’re playing partisan politics! Wadda ya gonna do about it?”
Comment by TC MITS | 8/21/2002
Rob, two things: one, you’re too idealistic (not cynical) - and that’s OKAY. Two, I wish I could tell you you’re wrong, but you’re not - there are so few differences between Dems and Repubs, that I can’t figure out what causes voters to choose between the two. I don’t belong to any political party (another thumbs up for California is that the state elections commission keeps finding new and interesting ways to keep Undeclared voters in the mix as much as possible), and I can’t identify why anyone else would - the two major parties are the same. That’s why they’re the major parties - it’s that Status Quo Centrism I’m always rambling on about. I’m sorry to hear you’re frustrated, though.
Comment by Devra | 8/21/2002
I wouldn’t call it frustration. I still believe there are vast philosophical differences between the parties. Those differences are especially evident at the local and state levels. To me, it still “means something” to be a Democrat. The problem of “status quo centrism” (I like that term) is worst at the national level. It’s not the party itself, it’s the timorous national candidates and campaign managers (see Donna Brazille); and special interest entrenched national office incumbents, not to mention the corruption borne from corporate money. If ever there was a way to arrive at publicly funded elections, my guess is that a majority of this problem would vanish, and idealistic and radical people would be able to afford to run for office. That’s where the problem comes in, however. How can control of the political and election process be wrested back from these parasites? As long as corporations and well-funded special interests control the purse strings, publicly funded elections will remain a dream. That’s where my frustration lies.
Comment by Rob Humenik | 8/22/2002