February 2005 | Evergreen News
Democrats’ Tug of War: Who Holds the Ropes?
The aftermath of an electoral defeat is never pretty. In 2004, all elements of the Democratic Party—moderates, old-fashioned liberals, progressives—came together to help John Kerry defeat George Bush. When that quest ended in ashes on Nov. 2, there were plenty of recriminations and a whole lot of finger pointing. With the second consecutive loss for Democrats, it was bound to raise deeper questions about the party’s ideology and a larger struggle between starkly different visions for the future. This appears to be one of those times.
As the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gears up to select a new chairman on Feb. 12, the party finds itself caught up in a powerful tug of war over its principles and its platform.
On one side are the progressives, pushing for a bold new approach that includes adopting a populist agenda, a clear antiwar message and a real commitment to the grass roots. On the other side are members of the Beltway establishment—mostly represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)—who are clamoring for a more centrist/conservative platform. This latter group would embrace an aggressive, hawkish position toward the “clear and present danger” posed by global terrorism, while moving away from the party’s long-term commitment to a progressive social-issues agenda, especially on issues such as abortion and gay rights.
The battle is being played out inside the Beltway, with articles in leading opinion journals being served up and volleyed like balls in a tennis match. The debate is beginning to escalate, and soon one can expect the media pundits to begin talking incessantly about “the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party.”
They may actually be right on this one.
Dean of the Dems?
There are two flash points in the current battle: One is the consideration of Howard Dean as DNC chairman and the other is whether the party will shift its platform on abortion, given the growing role of male anti-abortion politicians among the party leadership.
Despite being an incredibly good soldier during the election campaign, offering energetic and unfailing support for John Kerry’s candidacy, Howard Dean still sends shudders down the spine of some pundits and politicos. Ever since his brief but blazing presidential run, Dean is seen by some as a wild-eyed lefty.
Bob Kerrey, a former senator from Nebraska and president of the New School University in New York, is supporting Leo J. Hindery Jr., the telecommunications executive, for DNC chair. Speaking of Dean, Kerrey told The New York Times “[H]e’s going to have some‘splaining to do, as Ricky Ricardo used to say. ... People remember him saying,‘I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,’ which means the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
“Which Howard Dean are we talking about? If we’re talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say, ‘Fine.’ But if it’s presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably say, ‘No.’ The committee has got to figure out how to keep people like me in it. If he’s firing people up and he’s saying we’ve got to swing to the left, it’s harder to swing along with him. And hell, I live in New York City. I don’t live in Nebraska anymore.”
What Kerrey sees as left-liberal, Dean sees as a wakeup call for the party not to go rightward.
’’Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there’s a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party that the way to win is to be more like Republicans,’’ Dean said in his first major post-election address. “If we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. We cannot win by being Republican Lite.’’
The role of anti-choice politicians and their influence on the abortion question is also proving very divisive. Peter Wallsten and Mary Curtius write in the Los Angeles Times: “After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.”
The topic came to the fore when former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe, emerged as a candidate for the DNC chairman job at the urging of none other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has not endorsed him, but who liked that he could symbolize a more open, big-tent Democratic Party.
Speaking on abortion, Roemer told the L.A. Times that the party “cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society’s most emotional conflicts.” Also contributing to the controversy was the fact that John Kerry told an AFL-CIO gathering that he had met many union members who were also abortion opponents during campaign trips through Pennsylvania and that the party needed to “rethink how it could appeal to those voters."
Better Political Operation
The glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is of course the fact that Kerry and the Democrats did not lose the election because of social issues and abortion or even gay rights. In the end, Bush won because the Republicans had a far superior political operation, a real grass roots network and effectively played the fear card.
The emphasis placed on Bush’s much-promoted personal strengths—decisiveness, determination, reliability, transparency—served to base his candidacy at once on “moral values” and on “national security,” in effect making possession of the first essential to protecting the second. Bush’s decisiveness was put forward as the flip side of Kerry’s dangerous vacillation, the answer to the threat of weakness Kerry was alleged to pose. This equation was dramatized, perfected and repeated, with much discipline and persistence, in thousands of advertisements, speeches and “talking heads” discussion programs on conservative networks, especially Fox. Despite all the talk about “moral values,” the 2004 election turned on a fulcrum of fear.
No one is against the Democratic Party having the proverbial big tent. But there is no indication that the party has been particularly hostile against anti-abortion politicians, be it Harry Reid, the new Senate minority leader and a Mormon from Utah, or Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal members of Congress who was strongly opposed to abortion virtually his entire career until very recently. And with the looming threat of Bush Supreme Court nominations reversing Roe v. Wade, opening up an internal debate about abortion is bound to raise hackles among many liberal Democrats.
What is crucial for the Democratic Party is not to run away from the principle on the issue, but to free itself from the no-win, pro-abortion frame that has proved a trap. The problem with the whole abortion discussion is that it’s played out in the context of an either/or debate favored by the most radical advocates and the corporate media, which thrives as always on conflict. The reality is that most people, Democrats and Republicans alike, are not “for” abortion. Yet in the media, the Democrats are consistently portrayed as being in “favor” of abortion, and the Republicans against it. Such positioning hurts the party because even though a majority of Americans support the rights of women to have abortions, they don’t “want” women to have them. The “choice” frame makes abortions sound frivolous—a take-them-or-leave-them kind of decision—that is simply untrue.
Rather than flirting with abortion foes, the party needs to restate its principle in a clear and simple fashion. Democrats are for healthy families and mothers. Democrats do not support coerced childbirth. The health of the mother is also a primary concern, and Democrats recognize the many consequences of abortion restrictions, including the birth of unwanted children. But by sacrificing principles to pander to swing voters, Democrats may well end up alienating many Americans who prefer people who stick to their principles even when they disagree with them.
Off-Center in the Center
Linguist and best-selling author George Lakoff (“Don’t Think of an Elephant”) argues that when Democrats move to the center, two negative things happen: They lose the passion of their base and they trigger the more conservative frame in undecided voters, reminding them why they should be sticking with those who believe more strongly in the issue, confirming Harry S Truman’s famous observation: “When given the choice, people will vote for the real Republican over the fake one every time.”
It is good to have a healthy and open discussion about the future of the Democratic Party, but such a debate should include the participation of the many thousands of people who made major investments of time and money in the 2004 election. When it comes to abortion, it should be the many women who have worked hard and long for the principle and for the party who participate as well. It shouldn’t just be a Nancy Pelosi political tactic or 441 people who get to choose the new DNC chair. This runs the risk of alienating the rank-and-file Democratic voters with a top-down process that ignores their concerns.
— Don Hazen, executive editor of Alternet.
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Public Domain takes a break this month from real-time spaces to ponder the future. Does Seattle—or the Denny Triangle, the commercial office core and the southern tip of Belltown, to be specific—need taller buildings?
Before you say no, consider that taller translates to skinnier too. While 15 years ago city voters passed an ordinance capping office buildings at 450 feet (roughly 40 to 45 stories), there is fear our urban landscape will soon tilt with too many squat, sprawling buildings.
Mayor Greg Nickels is proposing new guidelines that would allow buildings that are taller, but slender enough to allow sunlight to filter through. Good idea: Let’s not repeat the phenomenon familiar to New Yorkers, who can walk blocks without actually seeing the sun in some districts.
Another must-get for taller, leaner skyscrapers: Plan the created ground space for community members and not just room for corporations to show off signage or monuments to their profit taking. Make this public space green, please, oh, and a little more accessible to downtown meditative moments.
The whole taller/skinnier plan would roll out over the next couple of decades as city leaders attempt to attract more residents to downtown neighborhoods. That’s good for the environment (less car use, for one) and economy. But it is likely to squeeze what is a remarkably accessible big-city downtown area for parking.
Affordable housing mandates would be part of any permits granted skyscraper developers. No argument there.
Some numbers from the Nickels proposal: Skyscrapers downtown could reach up to 700 feet, just short of the Washington Mutual Tower. In commercial parts of the Denny Triangle, maximum heights would jump from 360 to 600 feet. Buildings around Pike Place Market would remain capped at 125 feet, while Pioneer Square, the International District and most of Belltown would see no zoning changes.
If you are looking for examples, you need only glance up to Vancouver, B.C., where the taller/skinnier effect is in full force, attracting some 130,000 residents into a more dense, lively and planet-friendly downtown that has drawn mostly raves from designers and citizens alike.
—Andrew Mulholland (photo by Rich Huston)
Major Internet Attack Predicted
Just as we seem to be getting over, around and through a regional economic downturn heavy on the tech-busting, the Pew Internet & American Life Project throws up another possible roadblock—or at least an accident waiting to happen. In a mid-January report, it said two of every three experts agree that a “devastating” attack will hit the Internet or an electrical grid in the next decade. More than 1,200 experts and specialists were surveyed.
Since the Pew report was publicized, some of polled experts have clarified that the attack, while widely expected, might be less than devastating. A number of those experts said the Internet would recover, most likely in hours, from any software siege.
“A repeat of the SQL Slammer virus that shut down ATM cash outlets and delayed flights is certainly possible,” Johannes Ullrich told Newsday in New York. Ullrich is chief technology officer of the Internet Storm Center, an Internet threat research center.
"But something that would last days or so is unlikely because there are engineers that would apply countermeasures pretty quickly."
Not that the attack wouldn’t be economically or personally devastating. There’s a reason why people buy anti-virus software and services.
Most of all, the Pew report magnifies a delicate question: Just how much should the government be regulating or overseeing the Internet?
Just the thought gives shudders to many people. One of the Internet’s greatest feats is its community-driven or user-driven feature. For the most part, everyone can blog or sell something or surf at will. It’s a grass-roots marketplace/information exchange that is unprecedented in history.
Still, several experts surveyed by Newsday said that government agencies should develop security standards to prevent a cyber attack. They drew a line between meddling and the real threat of bringing the world to a standstill. Just think about the last time your computer crashed.
“The security of the Internet is too much reliant upon self-policing and private sector companies,” said one respondent. “Government-enforced minimum standards of security are the answer, but I do not see governments having the will or the means to do this.”
— Bob Condor
Pick a Social Ill, Any Social Ill
From the Shake-Your-Head-in-Disbelief Department: The World Health Organization has announced the United States now has shorter life expectancies for men and women and higher infant and child mortality rates than Canada, Japan and all of Western Europe except Portugal.
The numbers don’t shock researchers who study aging. Some countries, such as Japan, have “outlived” the United States for decades. But the current upper hand of all Western European countries save Portugal points to America’s being on the wrong side of various public-health measures: weaker laws on toxic chemicals, higher levels of economic disparity, junk-food diets and a lack of health-care access for millions of families.
Consider one example: The Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) reports the Environmental Protection Agency has approved the continued use of the banned toxic pesticide methyl bromide, which is highly dangerous to human health and a leading cause of ozone depletion.
The Montreal Protocol, a landmark international treaty signed in 1987 by every industrialized nation, required that methyl bromide be eliminated by the end of 2004. About this time last year, President Bush announced the United States would be the only industrialized nation to pull out of the treaty agreement. Just last month, the United States not only permitted methyl bromide, it also increased its allowed use.
—Andrew Mulholland
Things Do Not Go Better with Coke
Stamp this one “right on.” The American Postal Workers Union recently passed a resolution “that the United States Postal Service remove all Coca-Cola products from all postal facilities.” The reason? Coca-Cola’s heavy marketing to children, including schools, and the company’s recent denial of negative health effects (obesity, diabetes) associated with consumption of sugar-laced sodas.
“The school system is where you build brand loyalty,” said John Alm, Coke’s chief operating officer, in a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution interview.
But apparently no longer at the post office.
—A.M.
![[Send]](http://seattle.consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
