Democratic Betrayal Breaking promises again

Frank Rich, John Nichols, and others contest this, arguing that the newly-elected Democrats are almost across the board to the left of the displaced Republicans. Rich acknowledges that “disengaging America from that war is what the country voted for overwhelmingly on November 7 and that’s what the Democrats almost uniformly promised to speed up, whatever their vague, often inchoate notions about how to do it” (Rich, “It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided,” New York Times , November 19, 2006). Nichols points out that the “Progressive Caucus” of the Democrats in the House (about 64, but growing) is substantially larger than the collections of “Blue Dogs” (perhaps 40) or “New Democrats” (possibly 50) and that virtually all of the newly-elected Democrats were to the left of the displaced Republicans (Nichols, “The Crowded Progressive Caucus,” the Nation online, November 12, 2006). 

One difficulty with Nichols’s argument is that the Progressive Caucus is still a minority bloc and on his own count it is smaller than the Blue Dog plus New Democrat total even within the Democratic Party. The problem of the Democrats for years has been that with substantial numbers of Blue Dogs (self-described as conservative to moderate) and New Democrats ready to abandon the progressive ship on the basis of non-progressive principle, or at the drop of a lobbyist’s check, progressive actions are easily stymied. Thus, in earlier years under Carter and Clinton, progressive legislation and actions were regularly blocked in Congress, despite Democratic majorities and Democratic presidents. There have been no comparable dissident “liberal” blocs of Republican legislators, so that George W. Bush has had an easy ride with Republican legislative majorities. 

With a splintered and not very well disciplined Democratic majority in the House, a majority in the Senate with Bush ally Joseph Lieberman as the balancing voter, and with George W. Bush still president and in possession of a veto power, the possibilities for progressive Democratic action are sharply limited. It is hoped that the Democrats will at least launch some serious investigations of Bush administration corruption, law violations, and mismanagement, but while this may transpire, there are questions about how many and how aggressively and effectively they will function. The Democratic leaders will have to work with the executive to get many things done and they have already indicated that they are keen to avoid “partisanship.” But non-partisanship will discourage or compromise the needed investigations and legal actions within congressional power. 

I mpeachment is ruled out in advance—“off the table” for both Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers, although Conyers sponsored an impeachment hearing for Bush in the basement of the Capitol building on June 19, 2005 and, although in terms of impeachable behavior, “Bush is the most impeachable president in American history” (Paul Craig Roberts). Furthermore, experts like Elizabeth Holtzman, Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky, and Elizabeth de la Vega contend that impeachment for impeachable offenses is legally obligatory on Pelosi and company (see former federal prosecutor de la Vega’s plausible hypothetical indictment of Bush in “Tomgram: United States v. George W. Bush et al.,” Working for Change.com, December 1, 2006). The Democrats seem graciously willing and even eager to forget that the Bush administration’s effectiveness was based on partisanship without limit and that in the Clinton years the Republicans were prepared to sabotage government functions in order to weaken and discredit a Democratic president. 

One reason beyond their disunity that causes the Democrats to fight so weakly is their treatment by the media. We now have a very powerful right-wing media that runs interference for the Republican Party in a hugely unfair and unbalanced way, which has cowed the “liberal media,” causing them to work hard to disprove their alleged liberal bias by assailing the Democrats and showing their patriotic ardor. Thus the liberal media cooperated fully in the campaigns of denigration that sought Clinton’s impeachment for a lie without political significance, but none of them have called for Bush’s impeachment for serial lies of huge political importance. This contrast in itself is strong evidence of severe institutionalized media bias. 

The media have also regularly peddled and failed to confront the charge that the Democrats are weak on “national security” and Democratic deficits and spending have aroused them much more than Republican “borrow and spend” excesses. The Democrats are under constant pressure to counter their alleged spending excesses and “national security” caution, whereas the Republicans have been able to get away with larger and more corruption-ridden spending excesses and foreign policy actions that have been immensely costly while actually diminishing national security. 

Nichols, FAIR, and others have pointed out how quickly the mainstream media have rushed to claim that the new Democratic legislators are conservatives and not likely to rock the political boat toward populism and cutting-and-running. The media have also been very sensitive to aggressive Democratic statements that display “partisanship.” As Molly Ivins says, “So after 12 years of tolerating lying, cheating and corruption, the press is prepared to lecture Democrats on how to behave with bipartisan manners.” However, one thing the media (and John Nichols as well) fail to point out is that if many of the newly-elected Democrats are pretty conservative—several dozen of them were carefully selected by New Democrat (and former Israeli warrior) Illinois congressperson Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—they will not be truly representing the constituency that put them into office, a constituency once again denied a progressive option. The Democratic Party is capitalizing on a rejection of Bush and policies that Blue Dogs and New Democrats have tended to support, and their success in keeping out real progressives will help prevent any major attacks on Bush, his constitution-busting, his foreign policies, and neoliberalism. 

These political constraints on the Democrats flow in large measure from the fact that the Republicans serve the business community more undeviatingly than the Democrats, are more trusted by business, and get more financial support from them and kinder treatment by the corporate media. The Democrats have to struggle harder to prove their business-supportive credentials, including their support for “defense” and “national security.” This, and the related media bias, weakens the Democrats’ capacity for service in the general public interest and even for rational behavior. As regards Iraq, the Democrats are now hamstrung by the threat of political costs in failure to “support our troops” or responsibility for “losing.” Extrication has political risks in both Iraq and the United States and the Democrats don’t like risk-taking, especially in a media environment in which a Democratic war hero can be trashed while Republican war evaders (“I had other priorities”) and deserters can be essentially free of criticism. 

So the widespread public call for extrication will not see the Democrats calling for a speedy withdrawal or even a definite timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi’s attempt to get John Murtha appointed House speaker, if successful, would have placed in a strong power position one of the few Democrats committed to an early and rapid withdrawal. His rejection was a defeat for the possibility of a Bush-contesting Iraq stance on the part of the Democrats. (The winner of that struggle, Rep. Steny Hoyer, ranks number one in Public Citizen’s ratings of representatives “most dependent on special interest money to finance campaigns.” Admittedly, Murtha also ranks high in receipt of special interest money.) 

The Democrats are also not likely to use their theoretical control over the military budget to force a rapid withdrawal. Some of them probably favor an escalation in one more “last push” to establish military control and “stability,” using this as an alleged response to the demand for change. One of Harry Reid’s earliest post-election statements was a promise to boost the military budget by $75 billion “to try to get the Army’s diminished units back into combat shape” (Jonathan Weisman, “Reid Pledges To Press Bush On Iraq Policy,” Washington Post , November 15, 2006). The Pentagon is reportedly preparing a larger emergency budget request of $127-150 billion that will supposedly put the military establishment into conflict with the Democrats and test the Democrats’ ability to rein in military spending (see Julian Barnes and Peter Spiegel, “Controversy Over Pentagon’s War-Spending Plans,” Los Angeles Times , November 29, 2006). On the other hand, it may be a deliberately inflated request designed to give the Democrats room to make cuts without impinging on Pentagon plans, a tactic used often in the past. 

Another major constraint on the Democrats is their close ties to the pro-Israel Lobby and financial dependence on Lobby-related campaign contributions, the latter compensating in part for the business community’s pro-Republican bias. We are talking about 40 percent or more of the Democrats’ campaign budget, large enough, especially when combined with the aggressiveness of the Lobby, to make any systematic criticism of Israeli policy, no matter how egregious, out of the question. Hillary Clinton and Pelosi have been notorious for Israel-protective apologetics and the new chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, is a virtual agent of the Israeli state. This is likely to constrain Democratic policy not only on doing anything about Israeli ethnic cleansing and semi-genocidal attacks on Gaza, but also in making difficult any constructive actions by the Democrats on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, where Lantos, Pelosi, and company are likely to support or at minimum fail to oppose Israel’s hardline and militaristic policies (see “AIPAC Eats New Congress Critters for Lunch,” Signs of the Times , November 13, 2006; also Pelosi’s appalling remarks before AIPAC on May 24, 2005, Mark Gaffney, “Nancy Pelosi Gives a Pep Talk to AIPAC,” with a copy included on Common Dreams.org, May 27, 2006). 

In short, with the Democratic Party’s electoral triumph we may expect a small increment in the minimum wage, some other modest economic policy actions that serve middle America and the poor, and a brake on the Bush program of service to a tiny elite and regressive environmental policy. The Bush takedown of the Constitution will probably be halted, but reversals of the serious encroachments via the PATRIOT and Military Commissions Acts will face the veto, plus traditional Blue Dog and New Democrat defections. Impeachment is already off the table and investigations that will take place may be useful, but may be compromised by the Democrats’ bipartisanship proclivities. 

The Democrats may exercise a modest drag on the military budget, but the party has long been supportive of a militarized state and party funding, pressures to prove their “national security” credentials, and fear of charges of failing to support our troops are likely to sharply constrain Democratic initiatives here and as regards Iraq. They are likely to follow along with something like the weak, conditional, slow withdrawal proposals of the Bush appointed “bipartisan” Iraq Study Group. As regards Israel and Palestine, the Democrats have been virtually captured by the Lobby and we can expect nothing from them in this crucial area where U.S.-Israeli policy feeds hostility to this country as well as Israel. Given Israel’s eagerness to get the United States to attack Iran, here again the Democrats are likely to offer nothing constructive and will provide little brake if Bush-Cheney decide that another war might serve God’s and the Bush administration’s interests. This country and the world still desperately need a party in the United States that will support non-violent and non-imperialistic alternative policies, something that the victorious Democrats do not provide.  

Edward S. Herman is an economist, media critic, and author of numerous articles and books, including B e yond Hypocrisy (South End Press).