When the Leaders Lead, the People Have Sorrow
Many are familiar with the adage, "When the people lead, the leaders will follow." But what happens when people enable leaders to follow the dictates of the powerful?
These days, the answers are arriving in the form of a news drumbeat that's apt to seem like a dirge.
From Afghanistan to Wall Street to the Gulf of Mexico, policies of military action and regulatory inaction are exacting terrible costs: in human life, economic resources and irreplaceable nature. Silence and inaction enable the destructive policies to continue.
We're living in an era of crises so dire and unrelenting that many souls must struggle not to shatter. At the same time, the election cycle keeps turning.
Millions of us have received countless emails this spring urging defeat of two corporate centrists now in the Senate. Those messages contributed to positive results in Democratic primaries last week: After giving mediocrity a bad name for decades, Arlen Specter finally lost in Pennsylvania. And corporate shill Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff election in Arkansas.
Now, overdue national attention should turn to the imminent possibility of defeating a powerful Blue Dog in California's June 8 primary -- a war enthusiast, civil-liberties nemesis and Wall Street collaborator -- Congresswoman Jane Harman.
While Harman may rank even worse than Specter or Lincoln on scales of odiousness, Harman's challenger Marcy Winograd is far more progressive than Joe Sestak (who beat Specter) and Bill Halter (Lincoln's surging foe). Defeating Harman would be a huge victory to show that progressives can send Blue Dogs packing.
Big money and longtime incumbency bring plenty of advantages. But for a determined grassroots campaign, a sustained volunteer effort can pull off an upset. That's the prize where tireless Winograd volunteers have kept their eyes.
Not long ago, the conventional political wisdom pegged Sestak and Halter as longshots. If progressive groups and individuals had deferred to that "wisdom," Specter and Lincoln would have celebrated victories last week.
Despite the weight of the Democratic Party establishment thrown against Winograd, recent polling indicates that her energetic campaign is within striking distance of a vulnerable Harman.
Such situations are unpredictable. A strong surge of support for Winograd from progressives around the country in the days ahead could undermine Harman's efforts to circle the wagons in her Los Angeles area district.
The national press does plenty of "horseracing" coverage that speculates on how many Democrats will win congressional seats in November. But an unaddressed question is: What kind of Democrats?
Revitalizing the Progressive Caucus in the House will require some new members -- not only to join the caucus but also to help it cohere into a purposeful entity. Right now, when the chips are down, many caucus members seem to be PINOs -- progressive in name only.
Back in the home district, Jane Harman is now desperately straining to present herself as a "progressive" member of the House. But she is a longtime member of the center-right Blue Dog Coalition and has never joined the Progressive Caucus.
In sharp contrast, Marcy Winograd would not just instantly join the Progressive Caucus -- she would immediately be one of its most intrepid and resilient members. Anyone who has ever worked with Marcy is sure that her progressive commitments are unshakeable. That's why Democratic Party power brokers are doing all they can to defeat her.
Washington's policies are taking their toll from Afghanistan to Main Street to the Gulf of Mexico. That's why so many people are more determined than ever to lead from the grassroots by sending genuine progressives to Congress.