DEMOCRACY:
Government & Politics | May 25, 2005 & June 8,
2005
WE
HAVE
NO
MORE
GROUND
TO
GIVE
An
E-Mail to Democratic Activists &
A
Posting in "Comments
from Left Field"
Facing
the "nuclear option", both
sides blinked.
Bush
got three more judges who shouldn't be approved, approved; and
four or five more will soon follow. Sure, two other judges now,
and two or three others soon, who shouldn't be approved
apparently won't be approved; but that hardly qualifies as any
sort of "advance" for progressive causes, let
alone a "victory" for Democrats -- particularly
given the circumstances under which these concessions have been
exacted: The threat by the GOP to cheat on the rules
-- having Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule incorrectly
on a Point of Order that to change the rule on filibuster, as
any rule of the Senate, would not require a two-thirds
vote of the Senate -- amounts to extortion. Negotiating
with a blackmailer is not only nothing to brag about but is also
an invitation to endless extortion in the future.
The
"deal" just concluded by a handful of Senators on
their own effectively commits in writing the
Democratic Party as a whole to
voluntarily give up the filibuster -- the one and only real lever
of federal power we have remaining -- except under the most
"extraordinary circumstances".
I
don't seem to remember that phrase in the Constitution: The
Senate shall give blanket approval to all Presidential
appointees, except under the most extraordinary circumstances.
In
Korea and Vietnam, the Congress effectively gave to
the President its Constitutional powers to declare
war; now it effectively gives up its check on Executive power
over the Judicial branch.
And we
Democrats are supposed to savor this "victory" because
the Far Right is throwing a tantrum over not having
gotten every single thing that it wanted.
I
heard a Redneck comedian on the radio the other day making fun
of a Left Wing couple's kid throwing a tantrum; he joked
how he would've gotten his butt whipped by his daddy if he
would've acted up like that. He respected his daddy for
that, and he -- and his audience -- disrespected the
other folks for letting their brat get so out of control. We
Democrats had better not expect to earn any respect -- let
alone regain any meaningful political power -- if we continue
to give ground: If we hadn't already noticed, we've
got no more ground to give!
It
is one thing for your political opponent to take unfair
advantage on its own -- in full view of the American public, a
majority of whom were decidedly opposed to just such action (the
elimination of the filibuster) -- it is quite another
thing for you to emasculate yourself -- likewise
in full view of the American public, a majority of whom are
undoubtedly even more convinced than ever that the Democratic
Party cannot be entrusted with the security of our nation ("Heck,
just like when Kerry was attacked by the Swift Boat Veterans and
didn't fight back, the Democrats can't even defend
themselves; how are they going to protect the whole
country?" the conventional wisdom goes).
Of
course, the filibuster "deal" pleads with the
President to be more considerate and merciful in future judicial
nominations. On exactly what evidence or precedent is that
notion based? ("The Democrats are way too naive for their
own good, let alone ours," the conservatives and
independents continue.)
Bush is expected
to consult more with the Senate, presumably out of respect
for its members -- the vast majority of whom were not
consulted about this "deal," binding upon them all.
And
lest we think this de facto coup by probably for the most part
well-meaning "centrist" Senators -- led by now Presidential
front-runner John McCain (Name one Democrat who could beat
him now. And don't
mention Hillary, even if she were going to run) -- will be limited to this issue at hand: "Some
who forged the deal expressed hope that the agreement would
create momentum for compromise on other knotty issues, such as
Social Security..."
Yes,
let's "open the door" on privatization "just
a little bit" -- what's the harm in that? My God, are we
actually complete "relativists", as everyone on the
Right from the Pope
to the Shrub
keeps harping? Do we have absolutely NO principles left? Is
everything on the bargaining table? Are we going to just
try to keep cutting our losses and never try to take a stand on
anything? How the hell are we ever supposed to regain
any power? It all depends on support from the public -- not the
Senate, not the President, not the Chief Justice, but John and
Jane Q. Public -- and that all begins and ends with
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
I
thought that after one electoral DISASTER after another -- particularly after having made accommodation after accommodation
to the GOP on taxes, Iraq, etc. etc. -- and after having made
Howard Dean our Party leader that we were finally going to show
some backbone and stand up for what we believe in, come what
may. We may lose some battles that way; but in the end, we will
gain respect and regain our rightful share of political power.
As
President Clinton demonstrated time and again, compromise can be
a virtue in politics; neither side rarely ever gets all it
wants. The policies of Mr. Bush are in large measure abhorrent
precisely because they are almost uniformily polarizing and belligerent:
It is he -- the President, who sets the tone of the national
and much of the international debate -- whom history
will condemn in no uncertain terms for most of the disharmony
and aggression in the country and around the world in this
most dangerous time.
However,
that does not mean that giving in to blackmail in
order to minimize injury in the short term is in any way
shape or form a "victory" or is anything but an
invitation to extortion ad nauseum, ultimately ending in disaster.
As
Faust, Neville Chamberlain, and Anakin Skywalker found out the
hard way, making a deal with the devil will cost you your
soul.
A
Follow-Up to Democratic Activists
I
appreciate your call to action. But the deal was made, by the
Senators you ask us to call. I understand fully the rationale
behind the deal, and I do respect the Democrats who made
it. But I hated it, particularly for its long-term
consequences; regardless, the bottom line is that it's
been done.
And
now more jaded than ever, I fully expect another
"moderate" deal will be struck when Justice Brown is
perhaps inevitably nominated for the US Supreme Court, from
that "springboard" Court of Appeals.
We
had ONLY the filibuster to work with (other than the power
of persuasion in the press, in which Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi
and Chairman Dean have been doing truly yeoman service);
now the filibuster has been effectively traded away --
except under the most "extraordinary
circumstances" (which I would've thought any true Democrat
would've considered applicable to any of these horrendous
nominations) -- in the face of the GOP threatening to break the
rules (with Cheney incorrectly trumping the
Parliamentarian) in the Senate.
The
bully has threatened to steal our lunch money and we gave him
three-fifths of it. No wonder a big majority of Americans
think we Democrats are too wimpy to defend the country: Al Qaeda
is worse than the GOP, of course. What would we do in the
face of a threat? Give Bin Laden 30 of the 50 states? That's not
what I believe, but it's now tougher than ever to convince
anyone else that we have backbone.
Return to
Archive of DEMOCRACY: Government & Politics
Home
| Editor | Values
& Issues
| Feedback
| Legal | Links |