Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHas There Been Too Much Bipartisanship or Too Little?
Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.
Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.
Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.
Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions. The Bush administration committed war crimes, broke long-standing surveillance laws, politicized prosecutions, and explicitly claimed the right to break our laws, yet Congress did nothing about any of that except to authorize most of it, and investigated virtually none of it. With regard to many of those transgressions, key Democratic leaders were briefed at the time they were implemented and quietly acquiesced, did nothing to stop any of it. Both parties are in virtually unanimous agreement that our highest political leaders should be exempt from accountability under the rule of law even for the grave crimes that have been committed.
As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get?
Over the last eight years, one can locate a couple of exceptions to this lockstep cooperation in the domestic policy realm, where Democrats managed to deny Bush's wishes -- the failure of Bush's Social Security privitization scheme and some isolated disputes over the magnitude of tax cuts. And there have been some Democratic initiatives -- SCHIPs funding and mandating more home-time for troops -- which were vetoed or filibustered. But one is very hard pressed to find any meaningful examples beyond those isolated cases. Indeed, the bulk of Bush's most substantial defeats -- immigration reform, Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal -- came as a result of opposition from the Right, not from Democrats.
Bipartisanship -- cooperation and agreement among the two parties -- is the standard operating practice of Washington, and it has been for many years. It's certainly been vastly more common than the "partisan gridlock" that conventional Beltway wisdom spouters relentlessly complain is plaguing our political process. There has been far more harmony and agreement among the two parties, particularly their leaders, than there has been acrimony and discord. I'm asking this literally: how would it have even been possible to have substantially more bipartisanship over the last eight years than we actually had?
Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?
That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.
UPDATE: Here is another intensely shared attribute by both parties: contempt for, and an insatiable desire to demonize, the so-called "Left." It's always a close competition among the two parties' leaderships to see which can do that more enthusiastically.
59 Comments so far
Show AllGlenn Greenwald pretty much hits the nail on the head about bipartisanship. But he could take it back to as far as 70 years ago when Franklin D Roosevelt was trying to get congress to modify the 'Neutrality Act" which tied his hands in defending this country and other peaceful countries against the Rome/Berlin Axis, and the voting to pass this legislation was along partisan lines with GOP opposing big time. But Bipartisanship helped, if it didn't completely do it, to get this country into the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, with Democrats deathly afraid of appearing "soft on communism." Later such bipartisanship would lead to the first Persian Gulf War, the second one, and the Iraq War, with Democrats being afraid of being portrayed as "soft on" the "new Hitlers," as Norman Solomon points out in his book entitled War Made Easy.
The US mainstream media has been complicit in this from way back calling time and again for bipartisanship selectively, especially with Democratic presidents when it seemed that they might pursue real Democratic policies, read liberal to progressive ones.
AD
I've made an error apparently on Norman Solomon's book that I referred in the context of the comment I made about the use of "new Hitlers" label used to justify the Second Persian Gulf War, as that more to do with W screaming about the Taliban, but the other references to the use of that label are accurate.
The move to modify the 'Neutrality Act" took place at least directly in 1937 and 1939, and both times the GOP voted along party lines to prevent the then Democratic administration in office from modifying this legislation which had tied the hands of the president in protecting the USA and other peaceful countries at the time from the aggression of the Axis. The mainstream US media didn't seem to be near as enthusiastic for bipartisanship for that Democratic president when this country most needed it back then.
AD
.
..
The notion "bipartisanship" is an odd, disfunctional, uniquely USAn one. I don't think the word even exists in other democracies. In more functional parliamentary democracies, the whole reason for electing a political party to a majority position is to give that party free reign in setting policy. If they don't produce results, the populace will elect another party the next election.
Sometimes a party will hold the most seats, but can't get a 50% plus majority - such as the current case in Canada. Even in that case nobody calls for "bipartisanship". Rather, they wait for the introduction a bill that will test the "confidence" of the other parties in the minority ruling party's ability to break legislative deadlock with a passable bill. If the bill fails, a "no confidence" is declared and federal elections must be held held in two months (or some short time period - can any Canadians/Ozzies/Brits/Jamaicans, etc. explain?)
So in other words, rather than "bipartisanship", parliamentary systems emphasize expeditiously "throwing the bums out" and allowing another party the chance to seize a majority and contol. I like such a system better.
---USAn---
Upon further review, maybe leaving Lieberman in his Homeland Security Chairmanship was an adroit move by Barack Obama. Inside the beltway analysis has it that Harry Reid was going to bust Joe big time. Barack telephoned Lieberman for a chat, and then called Harry Reid and urged him to relent. Everybody then made kissy face on TV.
As a direct consequence, Joe Lieberman now owes his political life to Barack Obama. The new President can call many, many chits in from the Senator from Connecticut as a result. If I were a mouse in the corner, I'll bet the corner stone of the deal was that Lieberman promises to swallow hard and run staunch interference for Obama within the AIPAC/Likud community whenever the need arises. This could be a blessing in disguise.
Bill from Saginaw
Bring America Back !!!! For sure, Mr Greenwald, let us Progs affirm and agree with your bipartisanship analysis, inasmuch as:
**1. Allowing Lieberman to continue as Chairman of the Homeland Security Department is almost as bad, and tantamount to appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State !! After all she voted FOR the War, sold out to FOX TV and Murdoch and was romanced around NYC as the darling of NewsCorp, admitted she never even read the intelligence estimate, adamantly says Obama should not be answering the 3am phonecall at the Whitehouse; had a nice lunch with her all time favorite "right wing conspirators"--what's a green dress among Bill's friends anyway; constantly currys favor of AIPAC--right wing radical PAC that controls US Mideast policy.. Yep all just peachy qualities of a Sec of State !
**2. Bipartisanship does NOT mean giving a Republican a power position or appointment to Cabinet, Dept or High Council==it means just working amicably on projects and legislation--, give out some honorary ambassadorships, some advisory board slots, committee assignments. In a fairly recent movie, Rebecca DeMornay proves why you should "never give a power position to another woman in your own house"..like a Nanny, or a Secretary of State, for examples. Truly then you are 'sleeping with the ememy' ! NO to Chuck Hagel, NO to Colin Powell, NO to Robert Gates, NO to Joe the Plumber Lieberman, NO to Hillary Clinton !!!!
**3. And, former Senator Obama has exhibited the grave tendency to cave-in on crucial and vital issues his FISA Vote,, war funding votes, drilling baby drilling off the Atlantic Coast; the Bailouts and golden parachutes. And, if he follows Clinton's appointment of a Republican to Secretary of Defense, he will have displayed political naivete extraordinaire !!!
***4. Pres-elect Obama desperately needs a quick Staffer with a good dictionary to display and define for Him the words "CHANGE" and "BIPARTISANSHIP" !!! Maybe Rahm Emanuel has a good Israeli Thesaurus ?
It is absolutely irrefutable that we as a country have arrived at this juncture, as the author of this article has articulated, exactly because of bipartisanship. You don't get a renewal of the Patriot Act w/o it; you don't get loosening of the FISA rules w/o it; you don't get a financial bailout for corporate crooks (boondoggle?) w/o it; etc, etc.
Bipartisanship simply means more of the same.
Can you say "Chump Change?" I knew you could...
There is one thing I think most of the posts on CD miss. That is that most Americans think like "Americans". Those of us on CD, for better or worse, believe in, and think in a way far different than most of America. We believe liberty cannot be discarded for "safety". We understand that to make America better there must be a Social aspect to our policies, not a corporate one.
We all can see that the "Left" is far too weak and disorganized. One of the main reasons we are so few is that most of America does not think like us. One can argue what is right and wrong and what needs to be done and not be done all day, but if those we argue with think differently than us, they will never understand our logic. They see right, where we see wrong.
We can blame our political parties and their leaders all we want, but the truth is, in a country where Bush had a 25% approval rating a month ago and McCain got 48% of the vote, it is We The People at fault. As hard as we on the left fight for "Justice" and "Fairness" and for what we see as "Right", those on the right fight harder for their own "Fairness" and what they see as "Right". This country must stop looking outwards and begin to look inwards.
Not until Americans begin to see that properity comes from Happiness for all, and not from Profits, we will be stuck in this mindset as a Country. Not until people invest in a company because it will better the lives of Americans instead of because they will high return, will anything change. When banks loan money to better the economy and better peoples lives, not to exploit the people, our country will progress.
But as I have, and someday you all will come to see: This Will Never Happen.
America has begun down a road that will lead to it's ultimate demise. Capitalism and Globalization have devoured our country's true money-making industries in an effort to make more money. And when the only thing creating a Country's power is their Military, that country is only feared and despised. And we all know what man does to things they fear and despise, destroy it in anyway possible.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
"It is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."
--Economist Branko Horvat
RepublicanTroll: I don't know. I think you're half right. In a country with a corrupt, corporate-owned media, and corrupt, corporate-controlled elections, I don't know why we should trust the polls they report, e.g., that Bush has a 25% approval rating, or McCain got 48% of the vote. In this context, to blame We The People is to blame the victim. People of all races and classes ARE victimized by a corporate controlled media that silences progressive voices, dumbs down the populace, ignores major news stories, and lies about other major stories (like stolen elections). Call me a conspiracy theorist but that's how I see it.
On the other hand, progressives do have to get beyond seeing themselves as victims; otherwise, by the Law of Attraction that is all we will ever be. Nevertheless, responsibility begins with opening one's eyes to the real situation, not being in denial. So we cannot overcome our victimization by pretending that there is not some reality to it. The corporate media are at least as culpable, and probably more, than "our" political parties and so called "leaders," for the mess this country is in. Until corporate control of media becomes our Number One issue, the country will continue its rightward drift, and no, it will NOT reflect the "will of the people."
Yah, on NPR they were discussing the Lieberman swindle and all agreed that the only people who thought it was wrong to reward Lieberman were "angry bloggers" and this term was used in such a disparaging way that it made me suck my breath in.
NPR, sucking up as well, and not standing up really for legitimate public sentiment.
I think that calling constituents that leaves the fact that we are seen as the peasantry and feared as such, very wide open for our discernment.
I think that in the not too distant future us "angry bloggers" will become a powerful political movement.
Leea:Hi. I don't listen to NPR (so I don't get angry at their silliness puff-news). "Angry bloggers" are already political activists. DailyKos has a huge number of Dem bloggers who are activists and some readers. That's just one site. One of the most interesting things was Obama campaign use of the internet.
I don't think any one group has all the answers. Nor do I think the rest of the country is that stupid.
Thomas More: Hello. I can't imagine JK Galbraith saying that. I don't think people are stupid either. Have you been teased much as in "More or Less"? Sometimes when I'm reading quotes, I have the urge to make some up. But I have not, as yet.
Nanoo
Indeed, when Nader has said there wasn't much difference between the dems and repubs, he was right on. I'm glad I voted for Nader. I'm disappointed too that so many so called progressives voted for Obama. I think the situation is that we are so small in number. I would love to see the Unites States broken into smaller countries where a true democracy could exist.
Student loan default, maybe I'm finally there. Only been trying since July of 05 when I wrote Albert Lord, CEO of Sallie M.
There is an old saying, "If you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything"/ What then is the purpose of a political party--to practice Rodney King diplomacy and "all just get a long"?
Joe Lieberman goes to the Republican Convention and supports John McCain and his consequence is to maintain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee?
Hillary Clinton and her white-trash husband smeared the current president elect during the primary season and also expressed greater support for McCain than Obama and she gets to be the Secretary of State?
The new Attorney General signed off on the Mark Rich pardon on th laat day of the Clinton administration?
Lincoln finally nominated Edwin Stanton (an implacable political foe) as Secretary of War because Lincoln believed that Stanton was the best qualified person for the job. This is starting to look like a pattern of real incompetence on the part of Obama and his "transition team"--forget the politics of the nominees. What's next Robert Gates remains at the Defense Department? If so on what basis?
Poet
Add me to the list of people approving of your correct description of Bill Clinton as "white trash". I think 'political correctness' is one of great weaknesses and most inexplicable follies of the liberal.
Signed, Dumb Polack
Yup, every move Obama is making smacks of his inability to see the justice in the people voting for him and the injustice of him turning and then voting against them.
Obama is turning out as I suspected he would and it's not by chance or lack of chance.
He is just revealing who he is now.
Revelations folks.
The test is if we can get past our own brainwashing to know right from wrong, and stand up for right because otherwise we are standing wrong and everything that follows is already written in stone.
Poet:how could you mess up with "white-trash"? What part of the country are you in? I'm surprised. Disappointed,too since you do so many good comments.
Sorry to disappoint and I withdraw the term just because it offended you. I guess I have lived in the heart of NSCAR Nation too long (North Florida).
Let's just say that Bill was (is) a cloaet Neocon who (along with his wife)needs to come out of the closet and go join the Republican party and be done with it.
Poet
Poet:Hi. Glad I refound this, almost by accident. The comment had a "southern" flavor to it. I've never heard that term "white trash" used by, for example, New Yorkers. Thanks for dropping it. North Florida must be a hard place to live, politically. I'd like to be done with Mr. Bill Clinton.
You're right, though, Poet!
But I don't understand the surprise, here. Obama ran on "bringing Americans together to solve problems"; he kept saying he'd appoint Republicans to various positions and that he'd "reach across the aisle to get things done." Many, MANY of us didn't vote for him in the primaries because of that. I voted for him when he was the only Democratic candidate left, in November, crossed my fingers and hoped he wouldn't follow through on his promises. But he is doing just what he said he'd do and for once I'm sickened by it. All the polls were showing the Democratic Congress getting the lowest approval rating in history for rolling over for the minority Repubs and that same public elected a man who wanted to do the same from the Oval Office.
I'm in my 60s and I am still waiting for a real Democratic president like FDR. Or LBJ--without the war. Or even Ike!
I'm a Texan and I wasn't offended by your description of Bill Clinton.
i'm done with concerning myself with politics like i used to be. third party support is a joke right now. all of us who supported neither of the corporate candidates should feel pretty rotten about the state of affairs. the 2 business wings controlling politics come out as strong as they've ever been. we demanded absolutely nothing from them that we hold dear before over 99% of the voters gave them their votes, and for that, we won't get a thing. how many times does it take before you realize that AFTER you've given them your votes, they have no reason to concern themselves with more progressive policies if they so chose to conveniently reject them? how many flip flops can one do in such a short amount of time?
i wonder if greenwald voted obama? hmmmm... pretty ironic article if he did.
and i also wonder how many gays voted for obama? you know, i bet they voted 10 to 1 for obama who came out on record as saying he was against gay marriage rights. but did those same people know that they could have voted for candidates who came out standing for those very rights that they hold dear? (like nader/gonzalez)
so many voters could basically have contributed to giving more percentage votes to third party candidates which could possibly have pushed their support to the 5 percentile range, thus helping them qualify for matching federal funds in the next election. instead we get more of the same crap in each election and now with talk of billary in charge of foreign affairs....? this is too much, along with the bailout fiasco.
i say rebel against the establishment now at all costs.... yea, like not paying back your school loans to uncle sam who decided to bail out the richest tycoons in america and wouldn't forgive student loans for anything... instead they hike up interest rates on them.(i'm encouraging others to consider it) now a possible bailout for the auto industry? this is the last straw for me. i refuse to be a fool, even if most of america wants to play the fool and continue the game as usual.
I had been derided for voting for McKinney this past November 4th with everyone telling me I "threw my vote away," or worse, that I "gave a vote to the Republicans."
Well, let me tell you something: here in Illinois we wouldn't have a Green party choice on the ballot without those of us with the courage to "throw our votes" toward the Green party in the 2000 election.
Voting third party can, and does, make a difference.
gracefulswan:I know about school loans. Can't even declare bankruptcy on them. If you don't pay, they'll just creatively work up the interest. Check the Frances Fox Piven article lower on the list on CD and there's a "guideline" of sorts for protest. May I suggest a book, even if just the preface? Howard Zinn's "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", a memoir, but more like an autobio, Beacon Press: Boston, the 2003 edition has a great introduction. I'm feeling glum so far, but it's early yet....
Graceful swan: It's not true you can't get bankruptcy relief from student loans. It's not as easy as getting relief for consumer debt, but you can get relief. It's just not automatic, and much is left to the judge's discretion. This is a longstanding, widely held myth about the impossibility of declaring bankruptcy with student loans. I have done a lot of research on this and know it is not true. Just a couple years ago I spoke to a bankruptcy attorney who was in the process of getting bankruptcy relief for a woman who had 90,000 in student loans. But one should wait until repayment has been due for at least three years, according to this attorney. And at least make some kind of effort, however half-hearted, to repay them, before coming to the judge.
I don't know. I was just thinking not to pay them back... regardless. I'm sick to death of the system and how it suckers would-be students into everlasting debt with high interest. It's about time students protest en masse and just not pay them back instead of busting their asses for the rest of their lives paying back uncle sam.... the very same one who bailed out the rich wall street swindlers... the very same ones who now might bail out the auto industry without strict conditions.
Memory_Hole:that's insufficient evidence.
What article would that be? I'll take a look at Zinn's novel as you recommended.
gracefulswan:I wasn't clear. Howard Zinn's book is an autobiography,not a novel. "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", Boston:Beacon Press, 2003 edition,but there's an earlier one. It's my favorite book. It's almost a handbook for activism; the introduction alone is great reading.
The Frances Fox Piven article is way down on the CommonDreams page, but still up, I think with a title something like, "Obama needs a Movement". She has a book, recently published, on challenging authority (which may be the title). Her career of over 4 decades (that I know of her work) is based on what ordinary people can do for making changes. There's videos on YouTube of her speaking also.
You can rock the boat, but it ain't moving to the 'left.' And what is the left? Those socialists who want to end the war and US military based policy, have universal health care (and not what Obama is proposing), ending corporate and political corruption. That is all unacceptable to the status quo, and therefore the democratic party leadership.
If only there was bipartisan support of following the law and basic principles of justice.
With Obama, the only thing to hope for is that that you can hope for hope.
As long as the public continues to empower the corporate mainstream political parties, you will not see a change.
"The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."
~ Ralph Nader (if only that were true Mr. Nader)
Please stand by while our elected officials are kissing each others ass after being showered with corporate dollars which they will shortly repay 1,000 fold.
I remain suspicous of the outcome of the vote in the last election. For the life of me I can not understand Americans voting 48 percent in favor of the Republican Party given the absolute incompetence of the last administration.
If you want an example, here in Canada brian Mulroneys conservatives went from a majority of some 160 odd seats to TWO SEATS total in the following election as the voters turned on him at the turn of the last decade.
Yet i am to believe that some how the American voters pshyce is so much different that their republican party only dropped some 3 percentage points.
Something is very wrong here. Mulroneys conservatives were no where near as venal and corrupt as the republicans were.
As to how could we elect harper...? I think he won based upon the factthe economy had remained strong to that point . More importamtly parties to the left....garnered over 60 percent of the vote. While haprepr is a Bush want to be..the polcies of the Conservatives her ein Canada are more akin to the Right of center Democrats...such as clinton.
As a whole our country is NOT that Conservative.
PK
If the election was rigged, Obama wouldn't have won.
Republicans rig elections NOT Democrats.
Obama won, therefore the election was not rigged.
This is not necessarily true. There were a lot of anomalies in the 2006 Congressional elections, indicating that the Republicans tried to steal those too. But so many voters were outraged and voted Democratic that it overrode the fixing of the machines. Still, Democrats would likely have won MORE seats had the machines not been fixed by the Repugs.
Where did you ever hear that Democrats do not rig elections? have you ever heard of Daleys machine in Chicago?
GwNorth:possibly so re the old Daley machine. Have you seen Conyers report on OH in 2004? Or Bobby Kennedy's and Greg Palast's work on recent Republican vote suppression,etc. And Mark Crispin Miller's? check www.democracynow.org for transcripts of any of them for a start.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," Obama said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."
That is why we elected Obama. We do not want to tear this country apart. To assume that the past eight years have been filled with uncritical bipartisanship, is to to completely distort the record of Democrat's opposition to Bush. Remember if not for the Democrats, the Republicans would have invested all our Social Security savings in the market, and now it would be gone. If not for the Democrats there would have been no investigation into abuse like the Valerie Plame Scandel or the attorney firings. If not for the Democrats the minimum wage wouldn't have been increased, they wouldn't have been able to reduce prescription-drug prices for seniors by requiring Medicare to negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, and we'd be drilling in ANWR. So can't we show a little bit of gratitude for their efforts? Let's not forget that it wasn't the Democrats who got us into this mess - it was Bush and the Republicans.
Joe Hope: It wasn't the Democrats who got us into this mess? What are you smoking? Did you even read Greenwald's article? It surely WAS the Democrats who got us into this mess, the Democrats who voted for every major Bush initiative. Go back and read the article again.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I regard myself as being on the radical Left wing of the Democratic Party so pardon me for not taking the least bit of comfort from your argument.
A couple of points:
You say: "Remember if not for the Democrats, the Republicans would have invested all our Social Security savings in the market"
Sorry, Joe, you don't seem to be comprehending the fungible nature of the combined balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury. Ever since the 1980s every President has been stealing the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the general operations of the government. Our Social Security Trust Fund consists of nothing more than that proverbial "file cabinet" full of I.O.U.s from the fine folks running the operational side of the government. In other words, your Social Security money in the past was simply pissed away on war crimes and the occasional earmark. Now the situation is vasty more dire as the Republican Administration and the Democratic Congress colluded to steal $700 Billion for the TARP which is another encumbrance on the Social Security Trust Fund that Grover Norquist is now counting the days until the implosion of the Federal Government, the U.S. Treasury and thereby the ability of the government to provide a pension of last resort to the elderly. Please, Joe, spend some time studying the real nature of the disaster that is lurking in the contingent liabilities of the U.S. Government and you won't again make the mistake of believing in the fairy tale that the Democrats have saved Social Security from those mean Republicans.
***
You said: "If not for the Democrats there would have been no investigation into abuse like the Valerie Plame Scandel or the attorney firings."
Wow, what are you smoking over there? Perhaps you haven't notice, but the Valerie Plame case and the firing of the U.S. attorneys case have both passed the point where there are going to 1) prosecutions of the guilty or 2) meaningful change in the direction of the government. Face up to reality, Joe. The Bush Administration got away with both acts of political treachery without suffering any substantive consequences.
***
You said: "If not for the Democrats the minimum wage wouldn't have been increased,"
Again, let's try to act like adults here. The minimum wage as specified in recent Federal legislation is still below the minimum wage specified in about 20 states that include about 2/3 of the population of the nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages
The baby steps that Congress took to raise the minimum wage are woefully behind where they would be if we lived in a nation run remotely like the enlightened social democracies of Europe.
Shall we praise the Democrats? I can't think of why we should. They've abandoned us in favor of coddling corporate lobbyists and cravenly cooperating at ending the semblance of democracy in America for the sureties of plutocracy and kakistocracy. For this we should be grateful? Oy vey!
Hey Ray,
Why are you still in the democratic party?
The green party could sure use help, they are almost as disorganized as a scout troop, but the solution will not come from within the democratic party.
peace
www.NotOneMore.US
I like the looks of your website. Thanks for putting that up.
I was a founding member of the California Green Party. I chose to rejoin the Dems in 2000 in the hope that I could move the herd a bit to the Left. As I'm learning much to my chagrin, most Democrats are too ill-informed to be part of the New Deal coalition.
I may be tempted here shortly to rejoin the Greens, although that party went pretty much moribund here in Central Oregon about 4 years ago and hasn't recovered since.
Dear Commondreamers,
Some of you may not like this comment, but it is important you realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans is Republican, regardless of their party affiliation or how they vote or don't vote.
Here is a simple test, based on a book written 40 years ago. The name of the book was "Ecotopia." In its fictional world, the USA had been broken up into eight or 10 smaller, successful, peace-loving countries, which lived in democratic harmony with one another and within themselves. Anybody who would not endorse the proposal to break the US up into eight or 10 smaller, successful, peace-loving countries would seem to be, by definition, a Republican.
I have had many of my Democratic, and even leftist friends take this test. All failed.
Peace,
Eduardo
Eduardov: That is some creative logic, but I dunno. I think your definition is creative, but needs more something.
i love the idea eduardov and would have voted for north idaho to join canada..unfortunately we can not even get it together to split up states..north cali ruled by south cali..north idaho ruled by south idaho..same in nevada and east west in the state of washington..maybe if the house of cards is really tilting we will have a chance to change..
ken
Obama has reached out to Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.
He still refuses to talk to or appoint Liberals, Progressives or Independents.
The change Obama's offering is becoming apparent...
...He simply is no longer even pretending that corporate democrats and corporate republicans are members of opposition parties.
As long as the left continues to let the Democrats con them out of their money and their votes there will be no change. How many times does this have to happen?
I suspect that the major lesson that will be taken to heart by the DC beltway politicos from Joe Lieberman's success in retaining his Senate committee perks is that under the current beltway Democratic leadership, there is no meaningful penalty to be paid for blatantly breaking party ranks and actively aiding the partisan cause of the GOP.
Blue dog Democrats everywhere will take note and take heart. You are henceforth free to emulate Zell Miller to the point of even giving convention addresses and stump speeches on behalf of the Republican Party - urging folks not to vote for Barack Obama - and there is no political price to be exacted as retribution.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi apparently decided that keeping Lieberman's one extra vote inside their caucus column outweighed any downside of sending a wider message about the malleable, live-and-let-live nature of the new majority party's internal discipline. I suspect they, and the Democratic Party House and Senate whips in particular, will likely live to regret that trade-off many times over, just in terms of their own institutional power relationships.
Suffice to say, neither FDR nor LBJ, Tip O'Neil nor Sam Rayburn, would likely agree. And it's pretty likely that the ultimate impact upon public policy formulation and actual legislative outcomes will consistently tilt contested Congressional dynamics in favor the right wing of the political spectrum.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
Most excellent analysis & critique by Mr. Greenwald. There's a reason why it takes TWO oars to move a boat upstream, a reason why we have TWO brain hemisphers, and a reason why the two political parties are expected to represent differing perspectives. Never could following nature's examples prove more prudent than now, given the egregious waste of blood, time, treasure and ecosystems. Instead it looks like America (and by extension the world) is assured a continuation of all these messes by re-instituting the same figure heads who got us into them!
It is TIME for a paradigm change... if the US doesn't cooperate, higher forces will take the "wheel."
America HAS two oarsmen vigorously pulling the load. They are both perched on the right side of the boat. Which is why the progress of U.S. democracy resembles that of the contents of a toilet bowl when its lever is pushed.
When she took "impeachment off the table" two years ago, Nancy Pelosi made it abundantly clear that the Democrats would continue to enable the Bush Regime's agenda and crimes. Looks like they will continue Dubya's agenda and crimes in the next administration.
Go read DailyKos. We left Dems and everybody else don't have to "buy" bipartisanship.
Chomsky said after the election, on an interview on "Uprising Radio" www.uprisingradio.org that what Obama's presidency will become, depends on people making him do what we, the people want. (Paraphrase) The show is on KPFA, Pacifica Network's station in Berkeley, hosted by,and interview by Sonali Kolhatar. She said this morning, on the national special fundraising show, where she played the excerpts, raising money for Pacifica Radio Archives, it was Chomsky's first interview in this country after the election. The interview is on a CD and can be purchased. I heard it on WBAI Pacifica's NYC station.
If Mr. Chomsky really would have chosen an evolutionary change, he would have urged people to vote third party. I haven't seem him have an effect on the democratic party the last 8 years, why would he think that he would have any now after throwing any leverage he could have had?
In the 1940s and 50s, the idea that the left and liberalism was a conspiracy was widely ridiculed as paranoia, even by the likes of William F. Buckley. Nixon’s campaign and presidency with its appeal to a “silent majority,” however, brought this idea into the conservative mainstream. They believe themselves to be victimized by educated persons – a liberal elite who dine on chablis and brie. In resistance to these elite, conservatives ally themselves whith those whom Rush Limbaugh has identified as the “country club Republicans” – a far more numerous and widely distributed conservative elite who dine on steaks and martinis. Nevertheless in the end both elites desire nothing more than to sustain their privileges under the rubric of “freedom” – they simply disagree on how best to accomplish this and it is from here that supposed partisan rancour emerges. It is only the continuing moans and groans of conservative self-pity drowning out the polite accommodations of liberals. Liberals should recognize that appeasement of conservatives cannot be achieved and therefore never works.
Excuse me, but when the two major parties agree on virtually everything, that's not bipartisanship, that's one-party rule, whether they disagree on trivial details or on issues the Fed shouldn't be involved with anyway, like abortion.
Today's headline: Reds and Blues agree that there will be no war crimes investigations or prosecutions. Imagine that... so much for the whole basis of our government, where one side is supposed to be checked and balanced by the other side(s).
Which is exactly why the "alternative" parties - Libertarians, Greens, etc - need more and louder support. It's the only answer to the restoration of real checks and balances and the eradication of the word bipartisan.
The Democrats, like the Republicans, simply cannot abide the thought of admitting that the government of this country could EVER be run by gangsters, sociopaths and criminals. They will never do it. It is the dark, dirty back alley of patriotism. And as long as they are unwilling to do so, they will always run the risk of being enablers of one sort of crime or another.
Sioux Rose
FRANK: As usual, apt, frank and insightful analysis.
Always thought the bipartisan schtick was a new spin on the old triangulation. For Centrist Dems it specifically represents capitulation.
The new support-the-troops viral meme used as Obama's transparent complicity is:
"Hold your friends close and your enemies closer"
That pretty much rationalizes any old neocon triangulation and allegiance without a shred of accountability and at the same time, I actually saw Kucinich buying into this new paradigm where we are all brothers. Suckers is a better characterization.
The progressives who were scorned and browbeaten in their defiance of the Obama bandwagon should feel vindicated.
How the worm is turning--even on the more partisan Huffington Post.
That didn't take long.
Thank you Vern. I do feel vindicated.