I can already hear some folks, with their good intentions and, I think, their misunderstanding of what should be taken from experiences at Sorenson (not teacherken, BTW), into a tizzy. It is one thing to be congenial and polite to fellow Congressional Representatives. Pols should, even must--though too many don't. The politics and "economics" of destruction, as evidenced by McCain's vicious attacks on Obama the past couple of weeks, have certainly taken their toll.
But the wrongness of McCain's unprincipled attacks, does not mean that more bipartisanship would solve it. Given today's, truly radicalized Republican Party, we should not split differences, get meaningless "accommodations," or strive for nothing larger than (Clinton) incrementalism. Given all we've lost and all that is threatened, we urgently need to focus much higher. And that, for the time being, will take partisanship. Perhaps one day, we will reach a period where we have Eisenhower's-type Republicans again. Heck, even the power-monger Nixon was more enlightened legislatively than those with whom we can no longer split differences. The Middle Class will be extinguished if the radical conservatives dominating the Republican Party have their way. And, as we all know here, McCain is no moderate. McCain seeks the very same destruction of the Middle Class that George W. Bush does.
The difference between liberals and progressives, Krugman thinks, is between philosophy and action. "To be liberal," says Krugman, "is in a large sense to be conservative." It is liberals who wish to conserve those best things about our country that have improved lives over more than a century. Liberals also look to make improvements and refinements, but not to destroy programs Americans want by disinformation, deception and greed, as the other side is doing.
Krugman's book highlights what most of us here already know, that, as a matter of belief and policy, most Americans are actually liberal. Large majorities favor policies which would normally be called liberal, such as universal health care, government-run Social Security, etc. They've just been conned (so-to-speak) into believing they aren't (liberal) by 40 years of extreme badmouthing and re-labeling of liberal principles.
But conservatives, turning the meaning of the term conservative on its head, are the real radicals who wish to drown New Deal programs in Grover Norquist's proverbial bathtub. They've just been more effective at working the media and getting Americans to actually believe their mythology.
But the most intriguing, and, I think, important thing Krugman says in his book is that: Since today's Republicans, unlike Eisenhower Republicans, radically seek to overthrow the bulwark of programs helping the Middle Class, there is no possible bipartisanship, no compromise.
So, to be a progressive, concludes Krugman, then means being a partisan--at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition.
And, achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price price for their obstructionism--leadership that, like FDR,welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us from making society better.
And, as the Republican gassbags push ever harder on us right now, that resoluteness is worth savoring. Compromise with them and we will have exactly nothing. We'll have an elective prescription drug program where drug companies, through the "PPA" get to decide whether one gets medicine. One day, will you have to be a good corporate "citizen" to qualify? The people of Wise County must line up by the hundreds (over a thousand, actually) to get unaffordable basic services once a year. And, Medicare Part D allows drug companies to charge virtually whatever they wish to people on fixed incomes. Republicon Medical Savings accounts will do nothing to advance affordable health care for all, but rather push real universal health care out of reach for most Americans. This cannot go on. And only strong (Democratic) partisanship, in the best sense, will do.
As our outstanding candidate moves toward the general election, we may get irritated with him from time to time. And sometimes he may need reminding (through letters and calls to his campaign, for example) that partisanship, in its best sense, is a good thing. It wouldn't hurt if he reminds voters of this. But, then, may all Dems, and, especially, those those who still misguidedly think they should vote "Green," work till we "drop" to elect him and a strong Congressional majority. It's our only hope.
In order to create a meaningful, long lasting Progressive majority, you need to be biparitsanship, and anything less than that will cause another Anti-Progressive revolution. The progressive movement must be cognizant enough to know they it does not have all the answers and that only though working together, will real change happen.
You're charge that the progressive movement needs to be partisan "for now" will only become "we need to be partisan forever" and it will alienate moderates and they will move back over.
What I am saying also is that moderate Dems, moderate Republicans, and Greens ALL need to see the necessity of forging a partisan-type agenda to get constructive things done.
In addition to a more progressive federal government, the best case scenario I can envision for 2009 is for a few Republican Members of Congress to defect the way some Dems went the other way in '95 and for those moderate Republicans who choose to stay with the GOP to successfully wrest power away from the wingnuts who've driven them into the ditch they're in.
I do think, though, in the long run there are good reasons why we evolved into a two-party system, and if we're not going to evolve further into a non-winner take all, multi-party, parliamentary-type system, I think we need a strong credible loyal opposition to keep us honest.
I'm guessing, if we look hard enough, we can find the type of statespersons who could form the core of a worthy alternative among the ranks of today's GOP. For example, Obama's inclusion of Hagel in his just-concluded trip to Iraq seems like a good decision in retrospect. Locally, and admittedly only after his near-term political future became dismal, Tom Davis has been saying appropriately critical things about the current GOP "brand." I have no idea what's so great about Ann Veneman, but I presume there's some good reason Obama is vetting her, not that I think he should add a Republican to the ticket.
Please understand, I'm not saying I'd ever vote for one of these creatures any time soon, and I'm not advocating forgetting some of the horrendous votes they may have cast, but I think it's good for everyone to forgive, and I think it's good for everyone to have objective critics to counter the weaknesses we all share and too often are in denial about.
What I should have made clear, and what I meant in my use of the term "partisan in the best sense," is forging an alliance with those willing to act progressive, regardless of party. I urge that they all get on the same page in a show of "partisanship" favoring a progressive agenda. That would not just be the most progressive thing; in many respects it would also be the most conservative thing. I think Chuck Hagel gets it most of the time. But he did feel the need to "balance" his criticisms of both Obama and McCain following his trip with Obama. That's the kind of splitting the difference and bending over backward to an out-of-control GOP that doesn't need doing. I am suggesting more Republicans should act like Dems in the short haul. I think there are still some Republicans out there who could and would, if they saw it to be in the nation's and their own interest. It will also be good for the GOP. It will get its soul back and become the richly diverse (politically) party it was once. And that's a win for all but those who are partisan in the old, worst sense.
But by extreme partisanship I do not mean the vicious, nasty, mean-spirited treatment, we've seen be equated as partisanship. That is simply bad citizenship, poor governance, unconstructive (and even immoral) behavior.
WEBB SUPPORTS COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING RESCUE LEGISLATION, CALLS FOR CAP ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATIONWashington, DC- The Senate today passed a comprehensive bipartisan housing bill supported by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) designed to restore housing market confidence, help homeowners across Virginia deal with the ongoing housing crisis, and provide temporary authority to the Federal Government to help Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
"The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008" passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, July 23, and the President is expected to sign it into law next week.
"While far from perfect, this bill will assist thousands of Virginians who are struggling to keep their homes, while helping to restore stability to the nation's housing market," said Senator Webb.
The legislation notably includes a provision advocated by Senator Webb, which gives federal regulators the authority to limit excessive compensation packages of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac executives.
"The bottom line is that if American taxpayer money is required to help correct the business decisions of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or for that matter any of our banks, our nation's workers shouldn't have their taxes used to continue the record-high benefits of the executives who run these institutions," said Webb. "Instead, those executives should be required to give up some of their huge compensation packages.
"Congress is taking appropriate, decisive action to help stabilize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which control half of the mortgages in the United States. But, we should challenge the notion that it is acceptable for profits to be privatized and losses to be socialized," continued Webb.
As of June 30th, home foreclosures in Virginia already surpassed the total for 2007, with 20,771 so far this year. According to a study released by RealtyTrac on Thursday, Virginia ranks 11th in the country for home foreclosures.
With increased foreclosures, many communities are seeing decreased home prices and declining property taxes. A recent Joint Economic Committee analysis estimates that Virginia home prices will fall 13.5 percent between 2007 and 2009 resulting in a net loss of $135 billion in housing wealth. It is also estimated that Virginia will suffer losses of approximately $2.32 billion in mortgage-related foreclosure costs over the next year and a half.
For a break-down of provisions included in "The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008," visit: http://banking.senate.gov/publ...
Let me discuss some of my classmates, without names. We have an elected official, a county board member from near Richmond, whose politics are more conservative than mine, who seeks me out to discuss aspects of educational policy, exploring why I feel the way I do. So does someone who is in the middle of the road who is a lawyer in Richmond. Similarly, we all listen to the one classmate who lives in a County with no stoplights on whose planning commission he sits and who has bought a farm near where he grew up because he is looking to balance sufficient economic growth with trying to preserve the good parts of the rural way of life. For those of us whose lives have been urban and suburban he offers us an insight from which we can learn.
I have no trouble with partisanship where appropriate. None of us do. I have chosen to stay out of one Congressional race in a distant district because one of my classmates is a staffer for the Republican. If I lived in that district, I would not hesitate.
Look, I despite Bob Barr for his role in the CLinton impeachment, and perhaps even more for his insistence on the Reagan naming binge which inappropriately changed the name of the airport 6 miles from where I write this. But on the 4th Amendment he has been absolutely correct. Politics requires building and rebuilding of coalitions. Most are temporary. And if we insist on a scorched earth policy on every issue we will find fewer and fewer willing to align with us when such alliances could advance the agenda we seek.
My own ideas are radical. I just read (and reviewed at dailykos) the forthcoming book from Markos. Let me offer a quote that I also used in that "review":
Some battles are worth fighting to force rapid change, and choice and civil rights certainly qualify, but the fact remains that the most desirable pathway to change is slow, steady, and incremental, a process that can bring whole societies along. It's the difference between having courts force something on the people and having the people - through their elected representatives in a legislature - make that decision themselves. Only in extreme cases do we want to make that decision for the people, because the most effective change occurs when people lead the way with the ideas they've already bought into - and that takes a long-term commitment to engaging in political persuasion. It is evolution, rather than revolution.
I want to win the war, and I remember that George Washington did not fight every battle to the death, sometimes withdrawing in "defeat" so he could live to fight another day. I have no trouble with confrontation on important issues. Here another quote from the book is relevant:
Change is never brought about by those who play it safe.I believe in taking risks. I will challenge people, by word and by deed. But in the vast majority of cases I have no desire to destroy the person who opposes me on this particular issue. Perhaps it was my time in the Civil Rights movement, but I learned the importance of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. And maybe it is because I am by choice a Quaker - I believe in answering that of God in each person.
None of these - what I draw from civil rights, my being a Quaker, nor my participation in Sorensen, in any way makes me less than a fierce partisan for things in which I believe, for candidates and causes on whose behalf I labor. And from what I have seen of people who have been through Sorensen, or like me are now part of one of the programs, I am in that sense not a rara avis, I am very much in the mainstream.
Thus I view your dig at Sorensen as misguided, ill-informed, and totally unnecessary.
Peace.
And while I think the incrementalism Markos speaks of is often the only way, sometimes even the best way. Now is different. So much has been eroded, and so much is under threat of being destroyed, things that took a half, or even a century to accomplish. What I am saying is there is no "bipartisanship" that will cure that. At the same time I am suggesting that party labels may not actually always be the best determination of who's a progressive. Let all progressives join together and for a brief time "act" Democratic (and democratic), restore the things America has accomplished over these many years and build on them in a responsible manner, mindful of the budget, fostering good stewardship, which has been absent under this presidency.
Since I talk of partisanship in the best sense, I do not in any way suggest that I disagree with any of the things you mention in your reply.
But I want to add that your inclusion of the quote "Change is never brought about by those who play it safe" is what I have tried to say, but less clearly than I would have liked.
And that is what I mean by acting as partisans in the best sense, with a sense of mission, and with Americans' best interests in our hearts.
It should also be noted that Webb has the Congress/Senate he has. (God that sounds terribly like a Rummy statement, forgive me). What I'm saying is that Dems need to get a strong majority in Congress and then remember what they stand for. Progressives of all stripes should join in in a sense of new "partisanship" which puts Americans first, not whether or not they can get the endorsement of the most conservative elements of the GOP.
Americans want progressive populism that looks out for them. We shouldn't sell it short. There is strength in building the kind of new partisanship I speak of, by our side showing again that it will lead responsibly, treat the loyal opposition with dignity, stop forcing secret pages (by the hundreds and thousands) into legislation behind the fellow congresspersons' backs, stop the GOP practice of calling for votes when key people are out of town. In many respects those improvements have been happening since Jan 2007.
But most of all, I think that the kind of strength that builds coalitions across parties is the strength that comes from remembering the voters, first and foremost. And Webb does it better than most. Yes, when we have strong majorities in both houses and Democratic president, we should remember from whence we came, remember the loyal opposition should be treated with respect in policies, votes and everything else. Our side should not rule in the harshly negative, disrespectful way the GOPhers have. But pushing a largely partisan progressive agenda is the best and right thing to do. It's what most Americans want.
And we have to be willing to give up something here and there now, while keeping our eye on the prize, the progressive agenda Americans say they want..
Think about how effective environmentalists would be if they had the same strength that the NRA has.
Because we do not have a parliamentary system with multiple parties and quick, short elections which offer distinctive differences among the parties, we have a two party system tending toward the middle, and a Conventional Wisdom common philosophy which, over time, has been pulled so far right by a determinedly partisan Republican minority that what was the old middle now seems like far left fringe, demonized as "liberal."
If, as most of the voters now say, the country is on the wrong track, it is blind and foolish not to offer a choice far removed from what we have been served with since the days of Reagan. Never mind the howls from corporate media whores. If insisting on a return to the old middle and left of center philosophy is to be called "partisan," so be it.
Maybe partisanship isn't it. It does have negative connotations, though, those are by a bully Republicans and compliant press. Note usually it's only Dems who are called "partisan" normally.
Partisanship is simply commitment to a particular party and its philosophy. At its best it involves making a passionate and logical argument for your principles and attempting to persuade voters to your side. It also means commitment to advocacy for your side.
None of that means you have to be rude or nasty to the other side. In fact, you often persuade more people with civility and you turn voters off with rudeness.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship done well. The problem is it's been done badly for so long that nobody recognizes good, effective and civil partisanship any more. That's why it has a bad name.
BTW, I love Paul Krugman and have been recommending The Conscience of a Liberal for months now. And wonderful diary Kathy. Also, I hope you feel better.