The Year When Nothing Happened
For liberals in the US, 2007 seems destined to go down as a year of dashed hopes and frustrations. After six years in the political wilderness, including an infuriating 2005 when we were treated to several essays and at least two books about the doomed state of the Democratic party, the good guys were back in the saddle. It’s hard now to remember the sense of elation that greeted the results. Pickups were widely expected, and a change in control of the House even forecast as somewhat likely, but almost nobody believed Democrats would secure control of both chambers of Congress. And yet, they did! Things were gonna change.
Except, by and large, they didn’t.
The hoped-for dramatic expansion of the child health insurance programme S-Chip? Didn’t happen. Transformation of American energy policy? Didn’t happen. The “carried interest” loophole that lets private equity billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries? Still open. No Child Left Behind? Unchanged, despite the hubbub. Surveillance? Same as ever. And, of course, the war in Iraq continues despite its steady unpopularity.
What went wrong?
Many lash out in anger at the Democratic leadership for fumbling the ball. And it’s true that the leaders, especially senator Harry Reid, have made some mistakes. Mostly, though, the problem isn’t the Democrats - it’s the Republicans. The combination of George Bush’s veto pen and the Republican party’s unprecedented use of the filibuster has made it essentially impossible to pass much of anything that’s worthwhile.
This isn’t the fault of tactical errors on the part of the Democrats. Frustrated liberals are urging Reid to keep the Senate in session and force the Republicans to “really” filibuster rather than just giving up when he can’t muster 60 votes for his bills. Reid tried this once, however, and there was no sign of it working. Nor did threats to do this intimidate Democrats when they were in the minority. The reality is that filibustering works, and there’s nothing the majority can do to stop the minority from using this tool. Back when the GOP was in the majority and upset about filibustering, I predicted Democrats would come to rue the day that they fought hard to keep it in place. If mistakes were made, they were made back then in 2005, not in 2007.
Or perhaps if mistakes were made, they were made in raising expectations too high. When the Democrats unveiled their campaign agenda in 2006, you’ll recall, nobody actually expected them to win. The agenda was supposed to win votes, sure. It was supposed to win seats, even. But winning the House and Senate was considered so unlikely that perhaps nobody really considered the dangers of promising too much.
It’s something worth keeping in mind as we look at the presidential race. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are all running on substantively similar domestic policy platforms, and primarily arguing about who has the best chance of getting things through. Looking back on 2007, one important thing to keep in mind is that tactics and “theories of change” can’t overcome basic math - you either have the votes to pass your bills or you don’t, and with all three candidates promising much, much, much more than the Democratic Congress ever did, there’s real reason to doubt that the votes will be there.
Most of all, though, looking back at the Year When Nothing Happened serves as a reminder of what a risky political strategy the Republicans are employing. Democrats get red in the face describing how much more frequently the opposition has filibustered than has any previous minority. It seems doubtful, however, that earlier minority parties were more circumspect out of deep feelings of generosity. Rather, they most likely feared one of the majority’s most potent powers: as the party in charge, you bring up for a vote only the issues you want to bring up for a vote, which is to say issues you’re pretty sure will cut your way in electoral terms. In blocking action across the board, the GOP is taking the chance that voters will deal them further blows in 2008.
Already, the basic electoral map is working against them - since 2002 was such a good year for Republicans, most of the seats up for grabs are ones they already hold. And despite liberal worries that shoddy press coverage has failed to pin the blame for inaction where it belongs, the only polling on the question I’ve been able to find showed 51% of the public blaming “Bush and Republicans in Congress” for inaction, to just 25% blaming Democrats.
Similarly, GOP confidence that the immigration issue and declining levels of violence in Iraq will see them through seems misplaced. Immigration failed to save House Republicans in 2006 and failed to save Virginia state legislature candidates in 2007. Why should 2008 be any different? Meanwhile, insofar as the “surge” has reduced violence in Iraq without solving the underlying conflicts, violence seems likely to return in 2008. On top of that, the national economy seems distinctly in a funk, with slowing holiday retail sales, declining house prices and continued uncertainty in the credit markets. Objectively, the circumstances point toward Republican conciliation, but instead they’ve gone for maximum obstruction.
But maybe I’m wrong. If the GOP prospers at the next election, 2007 will go down as a crucial year in American political history - the year Mitch McConnell proved that there’s no downside to relentless filibusters of popular legislation. If that’s how it works out, we can expect use of the tactic to escalate dramatically, leading, perhaps, to some kind of crisis. Alternatively, it may turn out to have been a debacle - the year in which a party facing tough political headwinds chose to jump off the cliff with massive obstructionism.
What seems unlikely is that our current impression of it as a year when nothing changed will remain in place. The inaction itself is a big story, albeit one whose ending is as yet uncertain.
Matthew Yglesias is staff writer at the American Prospect and author of an eponymous blog. His writing has also appeared in Foreign Policy, Slate and the New York Times Magazine.
© 2007 The Guardian
This article is, at best superficial and “inside baseball”, if not outright pablum. Inaction? How about further devlolution? The slide downhill accelerated in 2007 and most polls show congress at or about Bush’s poll standing! So the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. Only Kucinich, who introduced the impeachment resolution, Wexler, Conyers, and a few others can at least look at themselves in the mirror. The rest (such as Harmon, Rockefeller, and Pelosi) should move aside for legislators who have some principles.
And as for the three way race among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, I’d put my money on Edwards. He knows something about loss (with his son and his wife’s cancer) and he is taking the fight to the dull Dems. Morevoer, sexism and racism is still alive and well, which bodes ill for the triangulator and Obama. Especially now, after Nader and a few others have gotten behind Edwards on his economic disparity platform and his way of taking the fight to the the also rans.
So let’s get behind Edwards/Kucinich or Edwards/Nader and be honest enough to admit that the USA is still sexist and racist (even if Clinton and Obama wee stronger, more principled, candidates.)
The Dems and the Greens had better drive home the economic disparities, the debt, unemployment, healthcare, job security, social security, and so on. After all, “it’s the economy stupid!”
“What went wrong?”
Nothing. It’s called New Bipartisanship. In public, it’s Good Cop/Bad Cop; in reality, all one big happy family with the same anti-99%-of-Americans agenda.
Happy New Year Karl.
Such talk (which I’ve been listening to all year) always seems to ignore a basic idea: With such an awful group as the current Republicans (in the White House and Congress), the Democrats do not NEED to succeed at pushing progressive legislation to be useful. All they need to do is PREVENT the administration and their cronies from pushing bad legislation, and they’ll have acheived a mighty goal.
As a for-instance, on Iraq: Instead of trying to push legislation to “change the course” of the war, or even to bring the soldiers home, all the Democrats need to do is have the guts to do the obvious: Cut off all funding for the war, and then openly DARE the Republicans to make a political point by leaving the soldiers in place without support. Yes, this is using the soldiers as political paws… but when haven’t they been? Why not do it in a way that gets them home, and ends the pointless bloodshed?
Rodso64…EXCELLENT POINT ABOUT THE POWER OF THE PURSE….and its a lesson that the democrats have yet to absorb since the Reagan years…..That lesson is that the right wing in this country got what they want by approaching politics as a combat sport, while the democrats worry about procedure, political etiquette, and selective bipartisanship. In short, the democrats still play politics by the old rules in the face of the republicans “take no prisoner” tactics. Its hard for democrats to play that way, but some are starting to get it. John Edwards recent comment about not letting the insurance industry or big pharma at the table while discussing healthcare reform is what is needed in Washington. Bipartisanship serves only to convince millions of Americans that “both parties are part of the same country club who don’t give a rat’s ass about the American people”. What people really want is to see a clear distinction between the parties. Its time that the Democrats as a party play some big league hardball.
Pelosi was the first & biggest disappointment by declaring impeachment “off the table”. This was a dereliction of duty, an abrogation of constitutional responsibility and power. By that one action, she effectively immunized Bush, Cheney et. al. from all their crimes in office, both before 2006 and until the end of their terms in Jan. 2009. She is worthless as Speaker and a congresswoman and I hope the voters in her San Francisco district send her permanently packing. Could you imagine Kucinich as Speaker?
As for the Senate, Reid and the rest of the Dems needed to find their cojones and make the Repugs pull real filibusters, then bust them at their own game by making it clear the dirty tactics he claims they are using. Send him home with Pelosi.
Pathetic article. In fact, as pointed out, it was not inaction, they further enabled neo-con policies of war and fascism and the continued weakening of our economy.
The only explanation is that America has become globalized and is pursuing policies that will lead to the loss of our sovereignty as we become part of a One World Government.
The private global banking cartel controls our currency and economy, and if you remember Rothschilds comments 150 years ago, “give me control of a nations currency and I care not who makes the laws”, it is clear who has the power.
These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300 stockholders:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-3
Our multinational corporations and international bankers may be American based and carry US passports, yet they consider themsleves global citizens, and pay little tax on profits earned outside the US.
The Dems and Republicans both serve their corporarate/banking masters. If the masters represent foreign interests, so does our government. Our government has been hijacked by those serving European, Israeli and Chinese interests. Those doing so are guilty of treason.
Ronald Reagan: ” I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones that run an elitist government. They want a government by a handful of people because they don’t believe people themselves can run their lives..
What does the future hold?
Z.Brzezinski :”..the American people will be introduced to 2 new priciples in their economic life:
1. A new monetary system replacing the American dollar and
2. A reduced standard of living in order to achieve it
James Warburg: “we shall have world government whether you like it or not, if not by consent, by conquest”
Henry Kissinger: “Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. forces entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful.”
quote:
(snip)…the good guys were back in the saddle. It’s hard now to remember the sense of elation that greeted the results.
/quote
What sense of elation? The Democrats are beholden to the same corporate interests as the Republicans. What would lead one to think that they–the Democrats–would be any more likely to bite the hand that feeds them?
And while I’m on the subject, what would lead one to expect anything different in the next round of elections? Many of my Democratic friends seem to think that once Bush is out of office all well be well and wee rainbow-pooping cherub kitties will descend in a cloud of manna, dispensing universal health care to all. I am skeptical–the Democratic party happens to have hind teat at the moment, but both parties are sucking on the same sow.
quote:
Many lash out in anger at the Democratic leadership for fumbling the ball. And it’s true that the leaders, especially senator Harry Reid, have made some mistakes. Mostly, though, the problem isn’t the Democrats - it’s the Republicans.
/quote
I take your point, but I disagree on the larger issue. The problem is not the politicians in general; they’re a lost cause. The problem is US. We’re the ones sitting on our backsides (or engaging in meaningless, anemic, feel-good, state-approved “protests”) while these swine run our country into the ground. The small-government types are right about one thing at least: the tendency of those in power is to consolidate and expand their power–always and forever. It’s clear to me that we cannot look to the government to solve our problems–we have to do that ourselves.
this is a valuable “discussion”. I am often taken by the intelligence of the posts here. PLEASE keep talking. Let’s continue to be respectful of the diversity of posters. Keep it above the belt.
Personally - and really not even directly addressing the concerns of Mr. Yglesias’ article - I hate to say it but I predict a Republican President Elect for 2008 in Amnerika. And I’m usually right about such things. Sorry. Surprise me PLEASE.
The only way that the two party system in the U.S. matters is theoretical. I mean to say as those who’ve pointed out the similarities of both “parties” in USA politics: We’re all being dragged down, and we’ll always be, by the Klingons.
No worries mate
Seems that turning the Democrats into a bunch of whipped pups was quite an accomplishment to put the finishing touch on this year.
This article is about as wrong headed as you can get. There were numerous actions the Democrats could have taken. They simply caved in to Bush on the attorney general when he could have been stopped, and give Bush a defeat. What did they get? A nomination by Bush of the AG’s assistant who is taking the same position as the AG on torture. An announcement of a filibuster is not a filibuster; you do make the deniers make their case, and you pound Bush for all the ills he has caused in the process. And you impeach him. Yes, Impeach. That is a process the Republicans know well, and it works. You do not give him a new Patriot act, and in fact, you give him what is needed and let him veto it and then you do it again, and again, and again, and then you impeach him. The Republicans are not the reason for the Democrats demise; it is within the party of timidity where you find the answer, and anything said to the contrary is simply silly, and it is beyond me why it would even be reproduced on this website. Kuchinich has the answers and if the Democrats do not listen to him, how can you blame teh Republicans?
Rodso64: Cut off all funding for the war, and then openly DARE the Republicans to make a political point by leaving the soldiers in place without support.
To defund the war is to institute a non-violent policy, a new “american way”, which requires great leadership that the Demoks can’t pull off. They would have to face down the hoards of capitalists, imperialists, and zionists in raging public debate, exposing all the ugly back room deals, contracts and connections which the Demoks themselves are highly complicit in. Huge numbers of high crimes would be exposed and would have to be prosecuted. The whole establishment shithouse would go up in flames and they would all be out on the streets. All of the Demoks and Repuks understand that in order to keep the economy under capitalist control they have to keep the oil flowing and the wars raging because to end the wars and to cut off the oil means the economic and political power flows BACK to the people where it belongs, leaving the capitalists with nothing - what they deserve.
“What went wrong?
Many lash out in anger at the Democratic leadership for fumbling the ball. And it’s true that the leaders, especially senator Harry Reid, have made some mistakes. Mostly, though, the problem isn’t the Democrats - it’s the Republicans. The combination of George Bush’s veto pen and the Republican party’s unprecedented use of the filibuster has made it essentially impossible to pass much of anything that’s worthwhile.”
The Democrats have had the power to impeach Bush and Cheney they have just refused to use it. It only takes a simple majority vote in the Hous to impeach, the Senate cannot filibuster it, and Bush cannot veto it.
The Democrats have had the power to end the war in Iraq, they have just refused to use it. They can refuse to let any spending bill out of committee, which they have the power to do. No funding, no war. The Senate cannot filibuster a bill that isn’t there and neither can Bush veto it.
The Democratic apologists need to quit making excuses for them.
Nuff said
Lobo Gris
The House Dems should have initiated impeachment against Alberto Gonzales in 2007, and now in 2008, they should be initiating proceedings against Jose Rodriguez for destroying the CIA interrogation tapes.
Senate Republicans can filibuster all they want; the damage will already have been done by the House proceedings.
Mr. Yglesias’ puff piece is wrong starting from its very title. More people are dead in Iraq. More reactionaries have been appointed to the judiciary. More people have lost their homes. The massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich continues apace. To frame it as “nothing happen(ing)” is dishonest.
My hope for Mr. Yglesias is that his prose will evolve beyond “back in the saddle” and “fumble the ball” so that the quality of his analysis might follow.
Glad to hear a report about how the democrats fucked over america again.
I expect it from republicans. But, democrats keep telling us things are going to be different, then they roll over and do nothing.
As an american liberal (lefty) I will NEVER vote for a democrat for congress or president. I’ve been stabbed in the back so many times, I look like a display at a knife store.
DAMN RIGHT ! And it’s time to PUNISH the Democrats by not voting or better yet voting 3rd party. Hey, the GOP may win but SO FUCKING WHAT ?!?!?!? We wasted hours in November 2006 voting to give the Democrats one more FUCKING chance to change things for the better but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!! The party turned out to be nothing more but a DYSFUNCTIONAL SET OF DUMB DOGS !!!!! Kinda reminds me of “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” whereby the entire Collier County poured all their money and savings for Ray Finkle only to see him GAG at the final Superbowl moment !
shorelines are getting dangerous
big news
watch for the big wave
reverse haiku
This article is the sort of BS that really turns people off to the Democratic Party. The fact is that the Democrats have sufficient votes to end to war–they just need to stop funding it. Further, they positively aided Bush’s war against the Constitution. It wasn’t simply a matter of the Democrats not having enough votes. They have enough votes to end the funding for the war. They voted to allow illegal phone tapping, to allow basic rights that have existed for centuries to be crushed. The Yglesias article is a symptom of what’s wrong with the Democrats. He and they ought to be ashamed.
I’m catching up on recent CD articles, and I’m gratified to find here that I am generally in agreement with the previous commenters, from Gadfly Philosopher’s “This article is, at best superficial and ‘inside baseball’, if not outright pablum.” to Outside the Loop’s “This article is the sort of BS that really turns people off to the Democratic Party.”
I’m surprised that none of the resident Democratic moderate lesser-evilists bothered to comment what a breath of fresh air Yglesias is, and how his pragmatic, process and strategy-centered view is so sensible and realistic compared to all of the Dem-bashers, etc.