Take the high road
I feel lighter today. The Democrats routed house Republicans. Now it has been confirmed that Webb won in Virginia, which gives them control of the Senate, too. It's a fantastic opportunity to lead.
Democrats are assuming power in the wake of a spate of scandals that almost all stem from unrestrained hubris. It will be tough to wash that bitter taste out of our mouths.
Of all the hopes I have for this House and Senate, first among them is this: We must utterly destroy the the legacy of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert. Democrats can do this by taking the high road. It will be very tempting to interpret the election as an opportunity for payback. Let us hope they have enough sense to resist. We need ethics reform, an inclusive dialog, and an end to bought-and-paid-for, lobbyist written laws far more than we need to punish the already vanquished. We need to open up the committees, get rid of earmarks, start allowing everybody to start reading the legislation before it is voted on. In short - we need to lead a return to transparent government.
Democrats are assuming power at the head of a table called Iraq that is laid with rotten fare. There are no good choices there. Yet we must make choices. Staying the course (whatever that as ever supposed to mean) is not a viable option. In fact, the "course" that was architected and led by Donald Rumsfeld is now formally bankrupt. A week after he pledged his undying love and affection, the President summarliy kicked Rummy off his pedestal. That's quite amazing considering that Bush's vote of confidence a week before the election probably gave the Democrats the Senate.
It is time for the adults to take the reins of our war effort. The opportunity, and the risk, is to begin hold the executive branch and the hogs at the trough of war accountable for the decisions that have brought us to this place. Many will say we should fight for impeachment. I am interested in accountability. I am more interested in building a bipartisan, strategically sound plan for stabilizing Iraq. It may not be possible. But I do not believe a culture of leadership that values the critical thinking of our best military minds can emerge while one side investigates the other. If any President deserves to be impeached it's Bush. But the fate of the troops stuck in Iraq trump it. Take the high road on Impeachment. On the other hand, we need to get a strong grip on how the US is funding and staffing the war. There is corruption to root out. War profiteers, embezzlers, and sponsors in the US Congress and the Executive Branch found to be complicit should be prosecuted and jailed.
If we do that, Democrats will serve a grateful nation well. We will surprise the minority party with good manners and, in a bonus for us all, lay the groundwork for productive, effective leadership that will take us into 2008.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 1:20 AM |
| 
8 Comments:
Well put, Chris,
I've been impressed by the tone from both Pelosi and Bush. Let's have some bipartisanship - investigate wrongdoings, yes - but overall let's move the country forward in a responsible and accountable manner.
I agree that a politics of revenge would be really stupid (since we don't have the numbers anyway). But wasn't this horrifying and costly war rubber-stamped by the very same polite bipartisanship you're advocating? The Democrats should learn by now that bipartisanship is for fools. They can save American lives in Iraq in a very partisan way: cut funding, demand quick troop withdrawal. Let Bush take the blame for the failed Iraqi state.
Good manners should have included a polite postponement of a Pelosi-Bush White House luncheon, until the Democrats began consolidating power and driving forward their agenda (affordable health care, minimum wage reform, progressive taxation... common themes among most liberal Democrats).
Reject bipartisanship --- that's just a code-word for tedious conservatism anyway. Let the Democrats put some socially defensible legislation forward, and if Bush vetoes it, then that's more proof that he truly wants posterity to view him as a mentally-challenged Manichean dry drunk. Which he is.
I don't think the war was rubber-stamped by polite bipartisanship. I think the atmoshphere in which it was possible to rubber stamp the monstrosity was created by an ideology-infused bureaucracy that squeezed out good information and squashed real debate. If funding is cut for the war and troops are withdrawn quickly, it will be because finally, finally, the professionals will be running the show. And by professionals, I mean the military leaders and intelligence analysts who don't have an ideological bone to pick.
I disagree on rejecting lunch. The picture of Pelosi in the Oval Office with Bush making polite noises as another hammer blow on the spike through the heart of the legacy of Delay. The door to the Whitehouse was locked and now it is not. Better to walk through it quickly.
Bipartisanship is not a code word for tedious conservatism. It's the way lasting change gets done. Instead of introducing bills that are destined for failure, let's put forward a LOT of socially defensible legislation that Republicans can support.
Why not take the opportunity to make a positive difference instead of a negative statement? It would only give the GOP a massive stick to beat us up with in 2008.
I agree that Pelosi rejecting lunch would have been a poor decision -- it would have come off as catty and immature, adjectives we don't need to be associated with the country's first woman Speaker (if things go according to plan).
But, I am having a little trouble with this ideal of bipartisanship and passing "socially defensible legislation." Quite frankly, there is a lot of legislation that Congress desperately needs to pass (health care reform, real welfare reform, improved access to reproductive health services for all women, increased minimum wage - just to name a few) that are not going to receive Republican support. Does that mean that Democrats should just abandon these issues, seeing as how they have no chance of getting presidential approval?
In recent years when Democrats have sought bipartisan compromises, sure lasting change has resulted -- but only at the expense of worthwhile change, such as welfare reform of 1996. I'd be scared to see the legislation that would result from Senator Clinton's reaching across the aisle to emphasize decreasing the number of abortions at the expense of emphasizing women's autonomy and right to make a choice. And let's not forget the bipartisan effort that resulted in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Even if little to no socially defensible legislation gets passed in the next two sessions, all of the behind-the-scenes work that needs to happen to get much needed laws ready to pass can happen. Then the final products can lie in wait for a more willing President to sign. Optimistic? Maybe. But I'd rather have legislative stagnation than compromises that are backwards thinking masked as peaceful forward progress.
Perhaps I should clarify a little. I do not think we need to abandon long term vision. I just think there is plenty of low-hanging fruit to pick that will build muscle and hone technique. Pelosi has already identified some great moves. Raise the minimum wage. Begin implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Fix the prescription drug program. Lower tuition costs and cut interest rates on college loans. Do you oppose that?
There is no way we are going to reform health care in this country in the next two years. There is no way we are going to immediately withdraw from Iraq. In fact, if we choose the confrontational course on that issue it will only serve to prolong our suffering there. We need to make a decision. A decision can only be made by agreeing to action. Some of the people who need to agree to action represent opposing viewpoints. Therefore, we have to seek compromise if we want something to happen.
Our strength and stature will grow through our ability to build consensus. We simply won't get anywhere if we leap out of the gate with our most radical proposals.
I'm with Chris 100%. I've never been a big fan of putting forth legislation that has no chance of passing just to make a point or draw a political distinction. Let's get down to the business of helping people. We don't have enough of a majority to do anything without bipartisan support.
We want universal health care -- but maybe we can agree on health care for children? At least the min. wage and college tuition are common ground and Republicans would be idiotic to oppose those measures.
Chris and Chuck, your points are well-taken, but I'm still having trouble coming up with any "bipartisan" legislation that's done any good for the country. In a liberal kinda way. Campaign finance reform is all I could come up with, just considering the past 20 years or so (which is, coincidentally, the same time span that showed growing influence of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, a group that has nearly obliterated any distinctions between Republicans and Democrats).
I'm with Kevin Drum on this. Republicans lost because they pursued unpopular policies:
"In George Bush's first term, Republicans passed tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, campaign finance reform, Sarbanes-Oxley, a Medicare prescription drug plan, went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, and appointed a bunch of conservative judges. Liberals may not have liked all of this stuff, but all of it polled pretty well. They were popular policies.
In Bush's second term, Republicans pursued Social Security privatization, made a spectacle over Terri Schiavo, and fiddled while New Orleans drowned. In addition, they passed a bankruptcy bill and an energy bill that didn't win them any points with rank-and-file voters, fought over immigration legislation, refused to expand stem cell funding, and wouldn't even allow a vote on widely supported measures like a minimum wage increase. This did not exactly reflect the popular will."
Democrats have some issues that we can strike with right away that are broadly popular (not to mention good policy!): minimum wage increase, port security, lobbying reform, environmental protections...
I hope the Democratic Congress sends popular bill after popular bill up to the President. He'll have to sign or veto it. And if he vetos these popular policies, we'll have great material to campaign on in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home