FISA and the Sellout Democrats
The rhetoric over granting amnesty to the telecom companies yesterday is intense to say the least. And I for the most part, side with those that are mad as hell with the Sellout Democrats. That notwithstanding, Atrios makes a notable point about the Sellout Democrats and their motives.
While one can’t discount legalized bribery campaign dollars entirely, I do think too often we assume they’re the reason lawmakers do the “wrong thing” when the simpler explanation that they believe the wrong thing is in fact the right thing is the answer.
Too many Democrats simply don’t have the values we imagine they do, and it lets them off the hook too much to assume they’re simply craven people who need to get re-elected instead of bad people who don’t share our values.
I must agree that not every Member of Congress is on the take, and as evidenced yesterday nothing could be further from the truth that too many Democrats don’t share our values. And as an aside, I must say I have grown to despise the word values when put in context with politics. The neocons tout it ad nauseam as if they are the Chosen Few, the Righteous, the Anointed, and have a patent on values. But for the sake of brevity, values will serve this specific purpose.
With respect to Atrios posit, I believe it’s fair to say we have a substantial number of brainwashed Democrats in Washington that need their reset button pushed and if that does not work, their constituents need to get out the hook. But what is the default state the Sellout Democrats should return to when the button is pushed? More importantly, how or why did they diss their constituents and the majority of Americans?
The problem seems to be manifested when a politician becomes a Washington Insider. But what is a Washington Insider?
The term is not in a standard dictionary such as Webster, and if you Google it, you get a long list of publications and people described as an Insider. I’m sure many would disagree, but my perception or definition of an Insider, in simple terms, is a long-time Washington politician or lobbyist, who is familiar with and has the ability to maneuver and/or manipulate the Washington-based political system
Dick Cheney is an incredible example of a well-seasoned Insider. Pulling the levers of Washington is arguably Cheney’s greatest skill. His proficiency is so great it is equaled only by the danger that accompanies his lever-pulling.
Slapping a picture of Cheney in this post with a big red arrow pointing to it and an accompanying caption of “What’s wrong with the the Democrats” would probably suffice at a basic level, but that borders too closely with fear-mongering. And I should add that Republicans can be easily interchanged with Democrats in the caption.
Atrios provides a good basic description of what is problematic with many of the Sellout Democrats, however, Barack Obama, in his book Audacity of Hope, provides an excellent illustration of Sellout Democrats and the Washington Insiders.
[Traditional aka Barry Goldwater] Republicans are not the ones who have driven the debate over the past six years. Instead of the “compassionate conservatism” that George Bush promised in his 2000 campaign, what has characterized the ideological core of today’s GOP is absolutism…There is absolutism of the free market, an ideology of no taxes, no regulation, no safety net — indeed, no government beyond what’s required to protect private property and provide for the national defense.
There’s the religious absolutism of the Christian right…that insists not only that Christianity is America’s dominant faith, but that a particular brand of that faith should drive public policy, overriding any alternative source of understanding, whether the writings of liberal theologians, the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the words of Thomas Jefferson.
And there is the absolute belief in the authority of the majority will, or at least those who claim power in the name of those in the majority—a disdain for those institutional checks (the courts, the Constitution, the press, the Geneva Conventions, the rules of the Senate, or the traditions governing redistricting) that might slow our inexorable march toward the New Jerusalem.
Of course, there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similar zealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove or a DeLay, the power to take over a party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some of their radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic and economic differences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections—all these things tend to prevent those Democrats in office from straying too far from the center…
Instead, we Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated city. Others pursue a more “centrist” approach, figuring that as long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably—and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground.
Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction….We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.
And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics. The accepted wisdom [of Democratic activists] goes something like this: The Republican Party has ben able to constantly win elections not by expanding its base but vilifying Democrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, and disciplining those who stray from the party line. If the Democrats ever want to get back into power, then they will have to take the same approach.
[Ultimately any attempt] by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in…Whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it’s precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. [1]
(Emphasis added.)
Prescient.
Yesterday (and many months before), when the Sellout Democrats caved in to the Republicans’ and George Bush’s demands on FISA, they could not have provided a more pristine illustration of executing Democratic accepted wisdom — modeling themselves after Republicans, pursuing rigid orthodoxy and ideological purity. They were terrorized by the prospect of the illegitimate and thundering criticism from the GOP that might cost them votes.
There was no Democratic leadership that possessed authority and represented its party or the people. Harry Reid failed miserably as a leader on multiple accounts. He exaggerated his cause with idle threats and was summarily dismissed. In conferencing, he fell in lock-step with the Republicans, while publicly thumping his chest in defiance of the Republicans. His singular achievement was to make a fool of himself. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold tried their best to lead, with Sheldon Whitehouse following close behind, but without the requisite authority their efforts were handicapped.
The Sellout Democrats, and thereby the Democratic Party will achieve little at best until they cease modeling themselves after George Bush Republicans and their lawbreaking compadres.
[1] Obama, B., (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream (pp. 37-40). New York: Crown Publishers.
