Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Feingold censure resolution - probably the wrong thing to do:There has been much discussion about the merits of Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Was it the right thing to do? What about the timing? Shouldn't the other Democratic senators join him? Etc. At this blog, we have one and only one standard for behavior in this election year: Will it increase the chance that Democrats gain control of one of the chambers of Congress? That's it. Nothing else matters. If anti-abortion Bob Casey becomes the senator from Pennsylvania, fine. If Feingold's censure motion diminishes whatever political standing the Democrats have, then that's not fine. This blog is inclined to support the position of Kevin Drum. Of interest are two posts on this subject by Digby and Glenn Greenwald. Note that in their defense of Feingold's action, neither makes the case that it will help the Democrats in the upcoming election. Digby and Grenwald don't say it explicitly, but they are arguing to a substantial degree about what Democrats should do. That's not convincing. It's what the Democrats will do this year that matters. If they shun Feingold, that's the reality. Saying Democrats should be united against Bush via censure won't make them so. Would this blog like to see the Democrats united with Feingold? Yes. But they aren't. Is this blog defending those Democrats who are running from the issue? No. On principle, Feingold is correct. The president should be censured (at a minimum). But so what? The issue here is power and who wields it. This is not the time for moral judgements. Those judgements have already been made. On Abu Ghraib, Schiavo, WMD claims, corruption, meddling in science, war of agression, cutbacks for the poor, ripping the safety net. And so on. Everybody knows what Bush is about. Now is the time to win elections. If the Democrats appear to be united - by the absence of a wedge issue like censure - that's great, even if it's an illusion. Whatever it takes to win in 2006. If Feingold's motion would result in improved chances for Democrats, then by all means it should be embraced. Will it? It's a judgement call. This blog takes the position that it will not improve chances. If Digby or Greenwald or others think censure will help, that's a legitimate argument, even if it's an intuitive gut-feel. But it's not one we've read. Finally, this post will end with a remark guaranteed to stir up trouble, but one that has to be said. After watching what happened in 2000 with Nader voters, do we really have to go through another exercise of people failing to support a flawed party (Democrats) in order to learn that pursuit of progressive purity is exactly what the Republicans would like to see? UPDATE: Instead of pointing the blowtorch solely at Nader and the Greens, let's go back to 2002. Remember that election year? Remember how it was considered important to unseat Jeb Bush? Remember how Terry McAuliffe spent precious money in Florida? That money might have been able to make the difference in senate races. Races that could have allowed the Democrats to maintain a toe-hold in the Senate? But no, the moral certainty crowd wanted blood and didn't consider the welfare of the nation as a whole, which would have been best served by ignoring Jeb and focusing on the national governance. If the Democrats had some power in the Senate after the 2002 election, just imagine how different things would have been. Real investigations into Bush's intelligence claims. Real investigations into torture allegations. And a better prospect for whoever would run in 2004. UPDATE 2: Recall Peter Daou's " The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal"? His essential point was that over time, Bush and his allies manage to defuse a scandal. In general, with each passing week, the saliency of a Bush outrage diminishes. With that in mind, Feingold should have considered a motion to censure much earlier. Before the White House and Frist and Sen. Roberts had time to work on "moderate" wavering Republicans. Before, say, the State of the Union address. But instead, Feingold makes his move after much of Bush's defensive fortifications are in place. And in a way that subtracts from the recent Democratic advantage over the Dubai port affair.
posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2006 07:27:00 PM
9 comments
I disagree a bit. Outliers help to make crazy notions part of the mainstream. I was telling all my wingnut friends that we lost the war shortly after W declared mission accomplished. Could see we lost "hearts and minds" if read between the lines. Now they are starting to come around (Murtha helps).
Of course I thought everyone would see this and all the other lies before the 2004 election, but I was wrong. So do I think this will become mainstream thought before 2006 - doubt it. But still applaud the effort. Maybe 2008?
I'm with reddan. Few will have confidence in the ability of Democrats to lead unless that act like leaders.
Perhaps the censure resolution has worked against us, but if so, it's not because of the censure itself, but only because the other DC Dems act like they normally do: like wusses.
Flip to another, contrary issue, defense and security. Even when DC Dems mouth the tough words, vote for defense spending and give the President still more power, they're acting like a bunch of wusses.
There's the irony. Don't expect the public to believe that you're really tough on national security if you're not tough on anything else. Don't expect the public to believe that you're tough enough to fight terrorism if you're unwilling to fight George Bush, Bill Frist, etc.
It's not just positioning. It's the Gestalt.
Note that in their defence of Feingold's action, neither makes the case that it will help the Democrats in the upcoming election.
This is insane. Glen and Digby have been beating this drum for days now, and their main point has been that this issue is a political winner for Democrats.
Digby said, in the very post you linked to: This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don't mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won't matter a damn if the Republicans are on the ropes ...
Glen says: Either the Democrats will vote their consciences and come across as confident and principled, or they will once again look fractured and cowardly, uncomfortable in their own skin. The GOP did not take back Congress in 1994 by shying away from what they believed or pulling their punches when it came to criticizing an unpopular president.
Democratic strategists always seem to think that swing voters are looking for some milquetoast moderate to vote for, someone agreeable, someone who doesn't rock the boat. They're wrong.
Both have explicitly argued that backing this issue is a winning strategy. Why would you say otherwise?
I agree with your commenters. To me, your "standard of behavior" needs to be turned a bit on its head in this particular instance. I see no obvious reason that this censure motion will harm the Dems. NYT articles about how the Republicans are rubbing their thighs about it are very unpersuasive to me.
I think one of the things bothering you and Kevin about this is that there's no obvious policy payoff to warrant the possible politcal risk. And that's true. In a sense it is just "politcal theater". My point would be that respect for the rule of law is not instinctive. It needs constant reinforcement, and a debate about the breaking of the FISA law would be useful in reinforcing it. I also agree with Pilot that people respect politicians who take what appear to be principled positions, not obviously connected to political advantage.
If a member of Congress actually honors the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and calls the President to account when he admits illegal behaviour and proudly shows his lack of respect for the rule of law, then we should applaud that effort regardless of its timing, or how it might play on Faux News.
The Democrats are not going to regain control of either House in 2006 and they will go down to defeat in 2008 as well unless they offer a clear vision and moral principles and the willingness to fight for both. I guess we're doomed.
It is unfortunate that the strategy you espouse, and the reasoning behind it (along with that of Drum and the Democratic startegists) is a prime example of why Democrats have no hope of ever regaining control of Congress.
The message it sends is this: Democrats believe in nothing, and will not fight for anything. And it makes sure that message is plastered on headlines across the country in 36-point type for all citizens to see.
Faced with the president publicly boasting about breaking black-letter law, Democrats have made it a point to tell the public that they will not defend the Constitution, they will not defend any principle, and they will not defend or support a member of their own party.
Would YOU vote for these people? I won't. I will be staying home come November. Yes, I despise the Republicans. Yes, I'd like them voted out.
But I cannot vote for any of the establishment Democrats. Better the Republicans should have 100% control of the house and senate than have Democrats like the current crop who provide fig-leaf cover for Republican policies.
It's interesting that you would proudly admit that you care about nothing except winning elections, and that you would gladly trade all of your principles for a few more senate and house seats.
Interesting because that's one of the strongest arguments that the Republicans make to swing voters that Democrats are unprincipled -- and rather than refute the charge you wear it like a badge of honor.
I disagree with the very last point, that Feingold's timing was somehow inappropriate. Feingold introduced his resolution after the Intelligence Committee had decided not to investigate the warrantless NSA spying scandal. Feingold took a few more days to see if Democrats had a better plan to react to that news, saw they didn't and went ahead.
I agree with other posters here, first the Democrats need to prove they deserve to win. They need to prove to the American people, those who support the Constitution of the United States, that they have their heads screwed on straight, that they have their priorities right.
Then we can all talk about how to win!
I disagree with your post.
The reason Republicans pound Democrats at the polls every single time is because they paint Democrats as people who are weak on crime, weak on defense, weak on terrorism. That message resonates so much that as we proved in 2004, it doesn't matter how bad the economy is, how bad the intelligence failures are, or how free Osama bin Laden remains.
The message on Democrat weakness resonates because Democrats are timid. Yes, it's regrettable to have to issue a censure. But that's what the job requires.
|
