Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama and Anti-War Democrats
As a close vote neared on a supplemental funding bill for more war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no." In effect, it was so important to President Obama to get the war funds that he was willing to paint a political target on the backs of some of the gutsiest new progressives in Congress.
But why would a president choose to single out fellow Democrats in their first congressional term? Because, according to conventional wisdom, they're the most politically vulnerable and the easiest to intimidate.
Well, a number of House Democrats in their first full terms were not intimidated. Despite the presidential threat, they stuck to principle. Donna Edwards of Maryland voted no on the war funding when it really counted. So did Alan Grayson of Florida, Eric Massa of New York, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Jared Polis of Colorado and Jackie Speier of California.
Now what?
Well, for one thing, progressives across the country should plan on giving special support to Edwards, Grayson, Massa, Pingree, Polis and Speier in 2010. If we take the White House at its word, they may find themselves running for re-election while President Obama withholds his support -- in retaliation for their anti-war votes.
But it's not enough to just play defense. We also need to be supporting -- or initiating -- grassroots campaigns to unseat pro-war members of Congress.
In the Los Angeles area, the military-crazed and ultra-corporate Congresswoman Jane Harman will face the progressive dynamo Marcy Winograd in the Democratic primary next year.
Harman's vote for the latest war funding was predictable. But dozens of Democrats with longtime anti-war reputations also voted yes. Among the most notable examples are Oregon's Peter DeFazio and Washington's Jim McDermott, who apparently found their antiwar constituencies in Eugene and Seattle to be less persuasive than the White House chief of staff.
"White House aides worked the halls during the hours before the vote, and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called some lawmakers personally," McClatchy news service reports. "DeFazio, who was undecided and wound up voting yes, said he talked to Emanuel by phone for about five minutes as Obama's top aide explained the administration's strategy in the war on terror."
This is a crucial time for anti-war activists and other progressive advocates to get more serious about congressional politics. It's not enough to lobby for or against specific bills -- and it's not enough to just get involved at election time. Officeholders must learn that there will be campaign consequences.
When progressives challenge a Democratic incumbent in a primary race, some party loyalists claim that such an intra-party contest is too divisive. But desperately needed change won't come to this country until a lot of progressive candidates replace mainline Democrats in office.
On behalf of his war agenda, the president has signaled that he's willing to undermine the political futures of some anti-war Democrats in Congress. We should do all we can to support those Democrats -- and defeat pro-war incumbents on behalf of an anti-war agenda.
47 Comments so far
Show AllNorm, is your big idea really that we should support 'anti-war' dems in the primaries? Trouble is, for every 'anti-war' dem you elect, ten more go over to the other side.
The democratic party is where progressive politics goes to die.
If you're serious about ending war, get active with the Green Party. Green Parties around the world share the principles of nonviolence, social justice, grassroots democracy and sustainability.
Join a party that shares your values: gp.org
I am so thankful I did not vote for war. So thankful I voted for peace.
Rep. Peter DeFazio does NOT have a "longtime anti-war reputation". See http://tinyurl.com/warfunding.
His yes-no vote score on war funding bills, those I've been able to track, now stands at 6-6. He is trying to straddle the issue.
While he is a liberal on domestic issues, as far as I can tell he has no fixed moral principles at all on foreign policy. Like most of his party.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that DeFazio does not find his Eugene antiwar constituency to be persuasive. In his 2008 election he had no Republican opponent. After being outvoted about 2-1 in the previous 2 elections, they just gave up. He had a Pacific Green Party opponent, who got a few percent of the vote. It is discouraging that more people weren't willing to vote for a peace candidate, when there was zero risk of putting a Republican in office.
DeFazio is popular with all the liberals in his district, most of whom apparently couldn't care less about his prowar votes. He has been our Rep. for over 20 years.
It reminds me of what Nader said about most Congressional districts being one-party, "It's just a different party in each district." So much for democracy.
Lynn Porter
http://lynnporter.wordpress.com
Which is a result of jerrymanding the districts...
Norman Solomon writes:
"When progressives challenge a Democratic incumbent in a primary race, some party loyalists claim that such an intra-party contest is too divisive. But desperately needed change won't come to this country until a lot of progressive candidates replace mainline Democrats in office."
Well, I'm dumbfounded. This is precisely the opposite view that Solomon took when he served as an Obama delegate. At that time, I think he was advocating that only change could start to begin if Democrats were elected. Third parties can't win, Solomon said.
Maybe I've forgotten the exact details, but it was something like that.
Others who post here on Common Dreams have pointed out that Solomon tends to flip positions close to election time, and maybe that's what's going on here. It's a Robert Louis Stevenson tale of "Dr. Progressive and Mr. Democrat."
If that's what's going on, Norm, please stop it. We remember what you've written in the past. We want you to remember it too. Stick to your principles, whatever they may be.
-TIA
Great comments.
Can anyone tell me why we can't support Progressive Dems and Greens whichever is the viable candidate.
For instance, if there is no progressive democrat running then get big behind the greens.
If a prog dem is running then push for a Green platform.
At this juncture it is not viable to just support greens on anything but the local level.
How is pragmatism a bad thing when there are no other alternatives?
Solomon kind of answers your question (although that wasn't his intention) when he wrote, "But dozens of Democrats with longtime anti-war reputations also voted yes."
The Dem Party has a long-time history of supporting wars. Military spending is really a bipartisan Congressional-district funding mechanism, otherwise known as military Keynesianism. You funnel money to your state in that way, and lots of people get killed abroad. It's insane.
It's high time to break from such a party. Vote for a party that represents your interests. If that's peace, well then try Peace and Freedom, the Green Party and maybe a few others. The Dems don't cut it.
-TIA
TIA-
.
I think my main point is that we need to build a movement that is movable. If third parties are divided between a very small constituency then we have no power.
I think people on here are naive. Building a viable national third party to compete with democrats in national elections will take decades. Do we really have that much time?
My point is why not play their game? If they are going to bait and switch with progressives then we need to support Dems en masse who stuck to their guns and voted against the war funding.
Why can't we do that and be green or whatever else. We have a chance to organize and get behind real progressive dems and and greens at the same time. You get one chance. If you are a Dem and we support you and you vote against our platform then you are out.
Two years is nothing. The key is to stick together on the platform and not be divided between parties.
I think Solomon is saying let's support these Dems. Either the Progressive Caucus is full of it or this is the only alternative within the Democratic party.
You all want your cake and eat it too. There is no hope for us if even at a place like CD we cannot agree with what to do.
We deserve what we get if we don't discuss and organize. CD mainly seems to be just a message board.
oh well. C'est la vie.
Sure, HK, building a movement is tough. Dem/Pugs have tons of corporate cash at the ready. After years of anti-war marches, the average Joe still seems witless, not seeing anything wrong with the present course of this administration.
Still, let's not make it all too complex. The movement you speak of will happen when people stop voting for a party that sells them out. It really is that simple.
So, we basically disagree that about the Dem Party. I think it's corporate and can't be reformed. The handful of good Dems are just a fluke. They aren't growing in number. It's a strategy to support them, but it's the strategy of the desperate. Let's start with a party that represents our interests first. And yes, that may mean losing a lot of elections, but what's the difference?
-TIA
TIA-
I agree with you but I think we can do both. Why can't we support progressive dems against DNC dems when there is no viable third party candidate.
For example. Don't forget the media. You have a platform. You take it to the ProgDem, he agrees with it and promises. You build a constituency behind him, if he loses you have maybe a bigger movement because you have been able to get more moderate dems behind you who would not otherwise support a green platform. You also have the greens because it is basically their platform.
If he wins you get more more media attention and people feel good about it and more moderate Dems become progressive Dems. If he goes back on his promise than we have a constituency that has agreed to the platform and a green candidate in the wings ready to go.
Maybe you would call this piggy-backing or bait and switch, but I think it is a good strategy. I would relate it to kind of a tug of war. I would push for platforms and then say, "ok, there is only a green" or "you could go dem but we have a strong green".
I don't care if a Green runs as a Dem and then switches back and I would hope that Greens don't care if he runs as a Dem and votes as a green. Maybe he could call himself a 'Blue-green'.
I hate the Dems as much as you but I don't see any negative aspects to this and the seemingly positive results could be helpful.
I don't think Obama is threatening the Prog Dems on the War Funding bill as a rouse. I think he doesn't care about them or us. I think it is personal to him as well as part of the corporate system he likes. I don't think he is worried about a small group of progressives.
Personally I am beginning to think that he is a narcissist and does not identify with the poor or people of color.
Well, OK. Sounds good. I still like a simple plan since most folks do not seem to spend a lot of time mastering political nuances.
Your final paragraph is dead on, I fear.
-TIA
let me see if i can sum this up. it is clear that our government is a plutocracy, and that it is not capable of acting as if it were a democracy. we often vote for somebody not quite as ba as the other person, but plenty bad enough. or we vote for a third party candidate. But third parties are forbidden by the system from going anywhere. so that's not much more than an idle gesture.
stay in the party and try to make it something like Dennis did, and they will see to it you are locked out, and no will even be allowed to vote for you
it would be lovely to have a huge spontaneous grassroots uprising, but hope for that seems more remote now than it ever was.
so what we do is struggle along as best we can to try to get some little wins here and there- right now i'd be thrilled if we could stop mountain top removal- but look how hard it is to even get that done.
the country we live in is shackled by a brand of capitalism so ruthless and so pervasive that it is like living in an occupied country. i'm not the first person to notice this, but i think it's a necessary starting point, to understand that.
"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."
-Father Edward Downing
Well, ... yes.
It sounds bad, and it truly is. When most people understand what you wrote, change will begin to flower.
-TIA
Since 0's agenda is not progressive but corporate, "reaching across party lines" to Republican shills comes naturally, and the loss of young progressive hopefuls, far from being a sacrifice, is a necessity for him.
If Mr. Soloman is asking us to unseat pro-war Democrats (AKA "Democrats"), why not unseat them with third party candidates instead of more Democrats?
Old Guy says: This is why the Democratic Party should be called "The Democratic Bait and Switch Party."
The growing level of cynicism in this country has not yet reached the levels we see in Iran--but it's getting there.
Would someone please explain the Norman Solomons' of the world to me....please? Somebody?
Moonpie: if I could explain the Norman Solomons of the world maybe I could "explain" the innumerable NS-types who inhabit my own social circle: the very "progressive" church I attend, the members of numerous grassroots movements on behalf of many "good causes," and literally some of my family and best friends. I believe they are sincere in the belief that they can maintain their liberal orientation while supporting a party (the Democratic) and a politician (Obama) so many of whose actions are the antithesis of the beliefs that I credit them as sincerely having. Drinking the kool-aid isn't enough, there's a "What's the Matter with Kansas?" book that has yet to be written about how their political behavior denies their own interests and ideological beliefs.(Paul Street's Obama book may be closest so far to doing that.) NS is a relatively rare sub-species of this type, in that he advocates "pressuring" the Democrats and Obama, even while we know (strongly suspect) that he won't commit the ultimate act of pressure by voting against them and urging others to do the same. I think it must have something to do with the Manichean division between good and evil that we incorrectly think is only characteristic of fundamentalist thinking: if you're not for us, you're against us. People in these circles have spent 8 long years demonizing George Bush as "evil" (certainly not without cause), any old "not Bush" who would be the lesser evil to his greater one must be promoted on the basis that he is an "electable" alternative. They of course fall victim to the self-fulfilling prophecy: if people define a situation as real, it becomes real in its consequences. If a "better" alternative to the continued duopoly is defined as a non-winning alternative, people don't vote for the better alternative in the fear of promoting the chances of the greater evil. So these days when Obama is criticized or when bolder ones like Solomon propose he be pressured, the response is likely to be the old: at least he's better than Bush: you don't like our wars, if McCain were in office we'd be bombing every target in sight; with McCain, the defective health care "reform" we're likely to get would have been no change at all. Always the foil of the evil "what if," as if we were still in an election campaign and George W. Bush were still the opponent. A new meaning, I think, to that statement about "keeping your enemies close to you."
I didn't do a very good job of "explaining" NS, but maybe somebody else can come up with a better one and use something I said as being at least a start.
Good points; I always see the larger systemic picture.
Simply put, our big-money, media orchestrated, winner-takes all, duopoly controlled, corrupt system is not capable of producing candidates that offer significant differences. The only thing we can hope for is : well at least he speaks well and is not as bad as Bush.
Mr. Solomon seems to be caught within the parameters of the existing system, corrupt or not, he is not able, apparently to see beyond the framework of the status quo.
When gangsters become banksters...
It only follows suit that the criminals become lawyers...
Then the fascists become politicians and lobbyists...
This the inherent flaw of the "republic"...
"representatives" are too easily corrupted, bribed, or threatened...
Only a Direct Democracy of "one man = one vote" on national referenda will work...
Even with IRV, campaign finance reform, and an end to paid lobbying...
These are merely attempts to patch a flawed design...
I think it is time to pull the plug on the current system and reboot Democracy 2.0
We need a more user friendly operating system...
The current bodypolitik is comparative to a Television...
The programming only flows one way...
With sensationalized propoganda to sell you crap...
And hide the naked truth that the content is worse than worthless...
Direct Democracy can not work in America, even the idealists of 1776 understood that. America is too fractured and diverse, hence E pluribus unum. It's not true, or even possible, but that was the goal.
In practice it has failed miserably.
With all due respect... I completely and utterly disagree with your sentiment...
By the time our "founding fathers" wrote the declaration of independence and the bill of rights...
There were nearly three hundred years of genocide against the "savages"...
Like the Iriqoui Nation, who had developed a direct democracy in a coalition of tens of thousands living in harmony & prosperity...
The ownership class of the colonies bought african slaves because the indigenous populations would rather die than be enslaved...
With the advent of the industrial revolution, the newly forming Blue Blood Bougouisie wanted the spoils of capitalism all to themselves...
& pitted England against France to achieve liberation from colonization... To become colonizers themselves (like a slave becoming master)
only to create a political system that only recognizes rights for the priveledged class based on ethnic purity, property value, & gender bias...
Diversity in the population or political process is only a problem for those attempting to exploit it for their own selfish purposes...
I believe that the constitution has functioned exactly how the founding fathers intended it to...
to keep the power and wealth concentrated and consolidated in the hands of the plantation/factory owner class...
Look at Haiti... They had their revolution and liberated themselves well before The USA ever had their civil war...
with the African slaves creating a free republic right next to America... That pissed off the US, who sent in the marines...!
I agree, well put; we need to completely overhaul the democratic process; the one we have now is corrupt in so many ways. The Mainstream Media stranglehold must also be broken.
Socialist-
Right on! The media is the one holding up the curtain. As soon as the truth is exposed people will do the right thing.
Plus politicians and corporations will have their pants down and be weakened.
I think this should be our main objective. Electoral politics is a long hard road.
It seems that turning people attention to a new media would take less time and be more beneficial.
I think this includes artists and activists joining forces. The internet is not enough. We must engage the public square and our religious and social institutions.
We must bring festivity and healthy debate to the public square again. Who's with me?
Peace
DeFazio . . . said he talked to Emanuel by phone for about five minutes as Obama's top aide explained the administration's strategy in the war on terror. "We ain't got no strategy", Emanuel said. "Dat's de secret. We just kill people. After a while, de rags say enough and cry uncle. We win." He paused ominously and concluded by poking DeFazio in the chest with a forefinger, "An' if you ain' wit us, you 'gainst us, see?"
Apparently, DeFazio did see.
DeFazio?
Voted for this because of a five minute conversation?
Threats to life and limb and family?
What the HECK is going on with these guys?
So disappointing. But, not a surprise.
Democrats who vote to appropriate funds for these wars
should be challenged in every election possible by peace/anti-war candidates. The most effective means of doing
this is by building Green Party congressional campaigns.
more info at: gp.org
odoco
Strange - I just left the Green's website, will be joining today, I then turned here and read your post . . . Yesterday I called the Missouri State Dem headquarters to complain about the turncoat Dems voting for war funding - they were 'swamped' with similar calls, by their own admission.
I do believe now is the time to seriously start raising hell. I don't know if the Green Party is the answer, but ANYTHING is better than the system now in place. I have been part of that system for my 59 years - not one more day. Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit with three high school kids - and I did so. One of them stated a teacher had told him he had not voted for Obama, but he was 'his' president and he would support him to the 'end.' I explained why this type of logic was catastropic in a true democracy - AND EACH OF THE STUDENTS FULLY COMPREHENDED AND AGREED WITH THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT.
All of us here, whenever and wherever possible, simply have to begin educating each and every young person we can contact. The republicans know that the younger generation is not, by nature, conservative and/or corrupt. They are open-minded, more accepting of diversity. Alternative systems of education are the real avenue of change; othewise, those who control the media win the game.
odoco, right on you reached those three young minds.
I too am gonna try going 'Green,' smart people are advocating it, we must adapt.
Blessings, humbly....making mistakes but darnit! Trying to learn from them.
Odoco-
Kudos! Great to see people like you here doing more than just complaining. We can all do our part. It is very important to teach our children well. They have alot to teach us too.
We need to let them know that they and the future matter and we are not all just bantering back and forth on the left and right. Of course the left are more right and the right are more wrong but I am so fed up with the hypocrisy and immaturity on the left. Of course the right is awful but that does not mean the alternative is to be a little less belligerent on the left.
It is people like you are making a real difference.
In Mali for example, all of the village is responsible for taking care of the children. If a child is doing something wrong then anyone can intervene. It is for their own safety.
We must offer alternatives to the younger generation. We need to be more positive and peaceful on the left too.
It is not enough to just be right. We have to be a kinder and wiser alternative.
Anyway, I am blabbing on but keep passing the torch.
Peace.
Wasn't this the same Norman Solomon who joined the side bullying their base into supporting Obama? Cynthia Mckinney, who I proudly voted for, was a tough progressive who knew how to stand up to rightwing bullies 9 out of 10 times and a far better African American woman in one. Neither Hillary nor Obama could come close even putting those two bozos together. Our system is a bullying system and Obama loves it to death that he'll even undermine his base just like he did to Cegalis in 2006 when he and Rahm teamed up to help rightwing Dem Tammy Fuckworth win the primaries only to lose in the general election. Do not look at Obama as a nice guy even if he tries to sound and look smooth. Glad to be heavily armed so that no MFer can force me or my wife into being drafted. I can't count on Obama or the Democrats for that would be like trusting the Republicans.
"Officeholders must learn that there will be campaign consequences." That's a great admonition, Mr. Solomon. Can we take this as your personal pledge that, when the "office-holder" President Obama comes up for re-election, you will not again as you did in 08 go to the Democratic convention as an Obama delegate? Or are the "consequences" you advocate only consequences for a member of Congress, not a "progressive" President who has consistently given the middle finger to the progressive voter? I'd like to see your answer on this comments board.
Ouch! That must have hurt. I am glad, and my conscience is clean--I voted Nader in all of the last three presidential elections.
Lingum: don't know what you mean "that must have hurt." Didn't hurt me, like you I voted 3rd party in the last election (McKinney) and have the clean conscience and it hasn't been hurting me for the last year to call people out on the "lesser evil" nonsense. What would hurt (themselves) would be if Solomon and other "Progressives for Obama" were to be more forthright in admitting that Obama in office is never going to be any dependable road to a progressive future. Now that, I suspect, would hurt! And more than one poster on these comment boards who have taken the road to disillusionment could, I am sure, describe the pain for you.
Yeah.....I was thinking that Normon was pussyfooting around that elephant.
Thanks for your input Jerry, gave me a good laugh. :)
Normon's first step to support peace is to call it what it is. It is not anti-war anymore than word war is anti-peace.
Anti is a warring word in and of it's self. When you say Anti-war, you are saying war-war. Lets call the agenda pro-peace. Peace-peace.
Though it may not seem as if this holds much importance, imo it is the difference between peace and war.
Days ago, a warning shot from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue landed with a thud ...
and then:
Officeholders must learn that there will be campaign consequences.
most everything barackstar is doing these days is landing with a thud. a different kind of thud. and because of those thuds, the repulsicans will continue to gain momentum, with each passing day. the only hope, pardon the pun, for barackstar is that the repulsicans actively push forward palin's political dreams, ambitions and hopes, again, pardon the pun.
the political game of campaign consequences only has a direct result on the american people. the political cons really could care less.
now, about the war thing. the sad reality is that from now until the end of oil, the punk of world culture - the good ol' usa - will be involved in war. most all the political con men (and women) already know this. most of the american sheople do not know this, or are in denial.
pity the mentality of our leaders who had not the foresight to invest even one third of their war budget over the last decade into solar and wind. long after oil is gone, the sun will rise and set each and every day, shining its simplicity down upon what is left of a sad and sorry and stupid example of humanity.
imagine energy starvation.
how commercial is the us government - how important is the finances
well now we have to pay our congressmen - who already get a salary - extra funds - bonus funds - for doing the "right thing"
i presume that it goes without saying, then, that there are people paying our congressmen to do the "wrong thing"
i might be naive but isn't it illegal to pay people to do bad things - don't they call it bribes or something fancy like that
and now, bother obama puts the squeeze on the congresspeople who do the right thing - which i guess is not really the right thing - if you look at it a certain way.....
brother o has become an embarassment for all the red face progressives who looked to him to bring change and even integrity back to the hill
boy do we feel silly
at as time when the country is going to hell in a hand basket brother o is logging more on air time than maury povich
bowling, playing hoops, channeling fred astaire on oprah and ellen, having burgers with the boys....
he's got a lot of time on his hands because all of his goverment's decisions seem to get made in the dark of night or the smoky back rooms
you get the feeling he isn't even involved with that
just put it on the teleprompter and the brother will read it with all the fake sincerity he can muster - and that's a lot
i say we vote him off the island right now
and, if it is aint illegal to bribe our leaders agaisnt the wishes of the people right now, it ought to be
YES. But I dont feel silly...I feel really really PI$$ED. I will write thank you notes to the brave newbies who did the right thing, and contemplate where to go from here. Its gotta happen at the grassroots level. I see "yes we con" getting worse with time...not better.
The Democratic Party Congressman in my district just got the last vote he will ever get from me. Although I have never voted for a Republican, I may vote for his Republican opponent in 2010.
I would rather have a real Republican in office than a passive-aggressive pseudo Republican.
I was thinking along the same lines. But lately, I've decided that in 2012 I'll write in my bulldog, Luigi Federico Poochini.
Poochini will get my vote!
If there's a 3rd party candidate on the ballot, vote for them. If you're allowed to write in a candidate, write in yourself and vote for you. Don't vote for a Republican OR a Democrat - there's little difference between them.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townsend
I hear you, but in order for a non Duopoly candidate to win, we have to demand an overhaul to the entire election and campaign system. What we have now is not a funcitioning Democracy, but rather Plutarchy for the highest bidder. Our corrupt system will never allow a non-Duopoly candidate to win the Presidency.
We live in a country where barely 50% of eligible voters, bother to register and actually vote, even in a Pres. election. Polls suggest that many people recognize that the system is corrupt and don't bother to vote, because it makes no real difference. That means something around 25% of eligible voters determine which of the two the pre-selected Duopoly candidates wins. In short, we have a crisis of democracy in our country and very few are even aware of this.
.
Lots of people are pissed off, but don't go back to the Republicans who screwed us worst of all. Vote for a third party candidate. You may feel like you're wasting your vote, because we've all been conditioned to think that way, but if even 10% of voters vote for a non-Republicrat, that's a crack in the wall that will get people thinking about the need for more voices and more choices.
If you're anti-war, get active in the Green Party. Or do you want another 100 years of Democrats and Republicans?
We need to do more than just that; a corrupt system is incapable of producing a result that is not corrupt. If we only show up every couple years and 'vote' we will never get anywhere. We have been saying vote for a non Duopoly candidate for years and years, yet there are very few successes. Even ask Nader what he thinks of the systemic and structural corruption that prevents any alteration of the status quo Duopoly.
I would be glad to write in my nickname on the ballot. I always dreamed of ROBOCOP for President. At he'd have a totally independent mind of his own just like in the movies and series.