| |
Dems' Big Middle Finger to the American Voter
|
|
|
Dems' Big Middle Finger to the American Voter
|
|
by David Sirota
|
| |
|
One of my idiosyncratic little hobbies of late is to keep a tally on statements
by Washington politicians and pundits that are express an open hatred for
democracy. This hobby is a subset of a bigger collection of quotes I collect
that show how Washington politicians are entirely divorced from the political
reality they purport to be experts on - a classic example is Sen. Chuck
Schumer's hilariously moronic declaration to New York Magazine that
strengthening the Patriot Act is politically good for red state Democrats
(thanks for your helping make the Montana Senate race that much harder,
Chuck!). I'm not exactly sure why I focus on this, other than because it is
important to always remind ourselves just how different - and hateful - the
Beltway is towards the country it purports to represent. Today, we get a beauty
from South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D).
In the Washington Post's solid writeup of the debate over Iraq in the House, a
faction of Democrats continues to attack the very Election 2006 mandate they
were vaulted into office on: opposition to the war. Justifying her opposition
to bills that would stop President Bush's military escalation, we get this gem
from South Dakota's lone House member:
"I
don't think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls."
I give Herseth credit - her use of "overreacting" deviously implies
that there are just a few very recent polls here and there showing negligible
opposition to the war, and that Serious People in Congress should never
"overreact" to the supposed fleeting whims of the American people.
But, of course, the American public has been strongly critical of the Iraq War
for almost 4 years now. Go all the way back to August of 2003 - just a few
months after the invasion - and polls started consistently showing that
Americans felt the Bush administration misled us into war, and that Congress
should put the brakes on war spending bills. By the eve of the 2006 election,
opposition to the Iraq War was at an all-time high. And just a few weeks ago, a
CNN poll found that a strong majority wants Congress to cut off funding for
President Bush's escalation, while the Washington Post poll found that a
majority of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal, want Congress to do what
it takes to stop Bush's escalation, and strongly support a plan to force the
White House to adhere to strict troop training standards - all positions
Herseth and her small faction of "conservative" Democratic colleagues
oppose in the name of faux "centrism" and "not overreacting to
public opinion."
Herseth, of course, is following the tried and true path of fellow politicians
and pundits insulated comfortably in the Washington bubble. It was Cheney who
said in November that the war "may not be popular with the public - it
doesn't matter." It was David Brooks who said a few months ago that
"voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American
politics." There was the Bush administration in August of 2006 telling the
New York Times "that they are considering alternatives other than
democracy" in Iraq - after repackaging the war as an exercise in
pro-democracy nation building. The Times itself just recently said that
Democrats pushing antiwar legislation strongly supported by the public are
"fringe." And let's not forget The New Republic's Peter Beinart who
trumpeted groups that - in an oxymoronic backflip - believe "the less
beholden politicians are to grassroots activists, the better they will
represent voters."
The message from Washington, D.C. to all of us out here in the heartland is
very clear: Our government is the exclusive gated community of Big Money
interests, their appointed pawns in Congress, and a select group of
self-declared "experts" in the media and at think tanks (which are,
of course, funded by many of those same Big Money interests). Inside this gated
community, actually listening to or shaping policy on behalf of the vast
majority of Americans is considered either laughably outdated or disgustingly
unsavory.
This is why we have a House lawmaker running to reporters attacking efforts to
end the war as "overreacting to public opinion." This is why we have
a Vice President who goes on national television declaring that what the public
wants "doesn't matter." This is why the largest newspaper in America
continues to publish a columnist who says voters shouldn't decide elections.
This is why, months after being elected to the majority on an antiwar mandate,
we have a congressional Democratic Party that still refuses to do anything to
end - or even slow down - the war. Because underneath all the platitudes and
rhetoric, Washington, D.C. is a place that hates democracy.
David Sirota is the author of the book Hostile Takeover. To order the book, go to Amazon ,  Barnes & Noble or Powell's Bookstore. To subscribe to Sirota's regular newsletter, go to www.davidsirota.com and sign up on the left hand side.
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
