If not the morning after the election, then soon thereafter, we will all move from the false certitudes and pretended stark choices of the political contest to the contingencies of actually having to govern. And given the nastiness and disconnect from reality of some campaign ads, you are probably as ready as I am for this election season to be over.
Lately, my email inbox has been a competition between the Democratic National Committee and a horde of people who want to enlarge my penis, send me winnings from a lottery I never entered, renew my account information at banks I never heard of, and appoint me the American agent for various well-funded overseas enterprises that are desperate to receive the benefit of my investment skills. I am particularly doubtful as to why I am being wooed so assiduously by someone who signs his messages, "Governor Howard Dean, M.D."
I love the fundraising emails that repeat a link to facilitate online giving after every couple of paragraphs, like a child tugging at its mother in the supermarket: "Mommy, Mommy, click on this, click on this!" If voters are really as stupid as campaign managers seem convinced that we are, then perhaps we shouldn't blame those Diebold electronic voting machines for any strange results that occur on Election Day.
On October 18, Gov. Dean sent me one of those "Feed me! Feed me!" emails seeking dollars from "people just like you who believe that every Democrat should own a piece of this party - in contrast to the special interests and lobbyists that own the Republican Party (as if Americans needed another reminder of that, Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to corruption charges on Friday)." Somehow, Dean neglected to mention Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson, who was videotaped accepting $100,000 in bribe money, $90,000 of which was later found stuffed in his freezer.
On October 19, Hillary Clinton sent me an email on behalf of Tim Mahoney, the Democrat running for Mark Foley's seat in Congress. Inevitably, she talked about the need "to protect our children," just as Maryland Republican senatorial candidate Michael Steele does in a TV spot. This annoyed me despite my own criticism of Foley's abuse of his office, because few people honestly think of 16-year-olds as children, and the Democratic cries of outrage have been over-amplified by opportunism.
Sen. Clinton's message continued, "Florida's 16th district deserves better representation than Mark Foley - and we all deserve a better Congress!" While I agree that Congress will be improved by getting rid of the Republican leadership, I see no evidence that, the page scandal aside, Rep. Foley was such a poor representative in comparison to many of Clinton's Democratic colleagues.
Let's have a look at the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard. Mark Foley's scores for the 109th and 108th Congresses: 75 and 88. Sen. Clinton (D-New York): 89 and 88. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California): 88 and 75. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): 78 and 75. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana): 89 and 75. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida): 89 and 75. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas): 89 and 63. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan): 78 and 63. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana): 67 and 50. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada): 67 and 63.
To be sure, Democrats overall were much better than Republicans. For example, ten Democratic senators earned perfect 100s from HRC in the 109th, compared to one Republican, Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island). But the close races that will decide who controls the 110th Congress are between particular individuals, not statistics. Red-state Democrats, in order to defeat their Republican opponents, typically run to the right. For example, Tennessee Democratic senatorial candidate Rep. Harold Ford earned HRC scores of 25 and 44 in the 109th and 108th Congresses, after earning a 100 in the 107th. That shows the effect higher ambitions can have on a Bible-Belt politician.
None of this is meant to discourage those who seek a change in leadership on Capitol Hill. I am simply trying to administer a dose of reality. Even if the Democrats take control of both houses, they will almost certainly have narrow majorities, and the overall numbers on gay-related issues are unlikely to change much. The main difference, and it's a big one, will be in who gets to set the legislative calendar and run committees. Imagine the extraordinary moment when Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts, HRC score 100) takes over the Financial Services Committee.
The value of a Democratic Congress would not be that it would pass pro-gay legislation (which would only provoke a presidential veto), but that it would apply brakes to the hell-bound train of the nation's current leadership. That may be reason enough for deciding your vote this time out, but let's keep our eyes open. The last Democrat-controlled Congress gave us Don't Ask/Don't Tell and a ban on immigration for HIV-positive persons.
Looking ahead to the 2008 presidential race, the Democrats will need more than public disaffection with a retiring George W. Bush. They will need a candidate who can appeal to voters across the political spectrum. As it happens, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois, HRC score 89 for the 109th) just announced he is considering a run. He is bright, attractive, inspiring, and a deft centrist. He has charisma Hillary can only dream of. Please don't throw cold water on me for a while. I am entitled to dream, aren't I?
17 Comments for “Better, Maybe. Good? Maybe Not.”
posted by dalea on
Thank you for this realistic look at things. If the Dems win, which is still a bit iffy IMHO, the changes would be solely at the margin. Nothing major or earth shattering, no great changes in the firmanent. Little things.
Like openly gay congressmen in important positions. Like openly gay spokespersons for the representatives. Like an end to anti-gay bills passing. The dems are not ideal, they are just a little bit better.
Unless, of course, the reps then decide to purge all the gay staffers at the demand of the fundi-gelical. Then things might get interesting.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The value of a Democratic Congress would not be that it would pass pro-gay legislation (which would only provoke a presidential veto), but that it would apply brakes to the hell-bound train of the nation?s current leadership.
Would it?
Look at the people touted as leaders in the House for a “Democratic future.”
The same people voted for the Iraq War. They voted for the Patriot Act — twice. They voted to approve the present fiscal-year budget which increases spending almost 9% in a single year.
Many of them voted for, and continue to proclaim their belief in, anti-gay legislation like DOMA (which not only bans gay marriage but also the oft-promoted civil union “alternative”).
They have some nice boring plans. They claim they’ll vanquish corruption (despite the fact that the Dem party is just as corrupt). They will wrangle with Republicans in the areas where the two old parties disagree on where government should be expanded next.
But if you’re expecting a Democratic Congress to result in a slow-down in the growth of government’s reach into our private lives, a decline in the ability of the power-hungry to make war on our own personal decisions and individual sovereignty, or a brighter future for gays in Washington, you’re going to be solely disappointed.
Progress will come from the actions of everyday gay people in the local communities which make up the fabric of the nation, who will push forward with things like the oft-maligned equal rights lawsuits — and drag official Washington, kicking and screaming, along as it goes. All the election will do is change the party affiliation of some of the kickers and screamers.
posted by jomicur on
NE is perfectly on target. The Democratic Party not only gave us DOMA and DADT. They also gave us Howard Dean on THE 700 CLUB this year, spouting about how the Democrats believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, etc. Anyone who seriously believes a change in the Congressional leadership from the GOP to the Democrats will result in significant movement toward gay equality is in a severe state of denial. We need to support 3rd parties–the Libertarians, the Greens, or whoever. Nothing short of that will pressure EITHER major party to begin taking us and our concerns seriously.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It should be amply clear from what I wrote (and I have a max of 900 words per column) that I am not thrilled with the Democrats. I agree about Howard Dean’s obnoxious comments on the 700 Club. But the Democrats are nonetheless likelier to apply brakes to Bush’s agenda than the Republicans. We don’t have years to wait until a third party becomes a credible force. The last time a third-party candidate influenced an election, it was Ralph Nader in 2000, who got about 90,000 votes in Florida alone, which was about 150 TIMES the margin Bush had over Gore in that state. In other words, the third-party choice had the effect of handing the country over to GWB. I know for sure that NL and others resoundingly reject that, but it is still true. If you honestly think that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties,” then you won’t care. But the over-the-top recklessness of this president shows that there IS a difference, and the many flaws of the Democrats do not erase that difference. Rejecting the flawed Democrats at this point will not result in a third party controlling Congress, it will result in King George retaining his power and feeling vindicated in his worst authoritarian impulses. We cannot afford that.
posted by jomicur on
Are you serious? The Democrats voted for the war. They supported the Patriot Act. They opposed meaningful campaign finance reform. When Russ Feingold introudced a measure in the Senate to censure Bush–not impeach, mind you (that would have to happen in the House), just censure–only two other Democrats voted for it. And lest we forget, the Patriot Act IS a piece od Demcoratic legislation, first introduced by the Clinton Administration. On which issues, exactly, do you see the Democrats differing from the GOP? Which of the Bush policies they supported will they “put the brakes on”?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
jomicur, the question is are YOU serious. If all you have to say about the Democrats and the war is that they voted for it, that suggests you haven’t been paying attention lately. That is a sign of dogmatists and zealots: once they have made up their minds, no further data is examined. As most people are well aware, a lot of Democrats in the past couple of years have been increasingly critical of the war in Iraq, and in particular the arrogance and incompetence of its execution. And of course all Dems did not support the war; for example, the first-term senator I mention in the last graf of my article above.
And once again, I too have a long list of things over which I am frustrated with the Democrats. But more criticism of Bush and his reckless policies has come from the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican side. And the tide has turned against Bush. A change of control in at least one house of Congress would continue that turning tide, and put wind in the sails of those who advocate more responsible policies diplomatically, militarily, fiscally, constitutionally, scientifically, and environmentally.
Pay attention to the House and Senate campaigns: even with Republicans running away from Bush, they and the Dems are not all saying the same things. I don’t care for the Dems’ rising populist-statist-isolationist wing, but we can have that fight after the folks currently running the House and Senate are safely removed.
Some of you, though, appear unwilling to take due notice of any criticism of Democrats or Republicans unless that criticism is totally, monolithically harsh and completely dismissive. No matter how sharp my criticisms may be, my failure to completely reject and scorn the Democrats altogether makes me some kind of shill for them in some of your eyes. Well that is just the foolishness to be expected of dogmatists.
Getting back to the subject of the long-term fight for civil marriage equality (in which I have spent considerable time in the trenches here in local, hometown, non-national D.C.), I repeat that strategy and timing cannot be seen as dirty words by those who are serious about creating positive and enduring change instead of merely indulging themselves.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As usual, Richard has thought he understands my position, but he doesn’t.
Had Nader not run, perhaps Gore would have won. The fact is, a Gore victory would not have made a whit of difference in how things unfolded. 9/11 would have happened, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred, the Patriot Act would have been passed, etc.
Oh, I know Democratic apologists like to argue otherwise, but it’s nonsense. The same big-defense contractors who donate to the Republicrats also donate to the Demopublicans. The most outspoken supporter of the Iraq War in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, would have been number 2 in the Gore administration. Gore himself, who has no principles on any issue, would have easily gone along with the DLCers running his campaign — Donna Brazile, etc. — who were on the television promoting the Iraq venture non-stop. The man couldn’t even decide what to wear without consulting them, and they wrote his entire platform.
Even on gay marriage amendments, the Republicans would still have presented them in the House and Senate to use the “wedge issue,” and Gore would have been his regular limp-fish self on the issue. Perhaps he even would have endorsed a “compromise amendment” ala Bill Clinton’s betrayal on DOMA, to keep power.
So instead of “handing the country over to Bush,” we’d have “handed it over to Gore” and there’d be no difference whatsoever, except Richard would still be shilling for Democrats and calling anti-war candidates “out of touch” and “desperate.”
Richard’s brand of democracy is the “shut up and sit down” form of empowerment. Individuals in his column argue that third parties shouldn’t run because they aren’t effective — except that when they are then effective, they shouldn’t run because they “steal votes.”
What’s really hilarious about Richard’s phony brand of partisan “pragmatism” is that his own party friends don’t support it themselves. I’ll give you a couple of examples.
In Texas, in Tom DeLay’s old district, there are two candidates on the ballot — a Libertarian and a Democrat. The Lib and Dem are running neck-in-neck. The Lib appeals to Republicans at least on his fiscally conservative platform. The Republicans are running a no-hope campaign with a write-in candidate who might cost the Libertarian the election (the election is, at the moment, polling too close to call). Are the Republicans generously stepping back for “pragmatism’s” sake and allowing the Libertarian — who has even agreed to support a GOP speaker if the House is deadlocked between the Dems and Reps — to win the election? No way. And why should they? It’s democracy at work.
In Indiana, a Libertarian candidate is running neck-in-neck with a very conservative Republican candidate for statehouse. The Democrat is running in a distant third place. Are the Democrats pulling out of the race to at least allow the Libertarian social liberalism to prevail over the religious-right nutty conservative? Nope. But the same Democrats will throw a Sore Loserman tantrum over Florida whenever Nader’s name is mentioned.
Richard’s core objection grows out of the arrogance of acquired power. The old parties, having accomplished the construction of a duopoly through restrictive balloting and media blackouts, feel entitled to power. It’s their birthright. How dare those stupid voters support a candidate who matches their actual beliefs? This office is OURS, damn it!
Ironically, they’re continuing to lose their grip on power. 2006 is shaping up to be the strongest electoral year for both the Libertarian Party and the US Greens in history. Both parties will win a large number of offices — Libertarians may even claim up to two Congressional seats if things swing towards the party’s way — and at the very least, we’ll have placed in the 30% support range in every major race where we concentrated on the issues. That’s a concern to Richard and his ilk, since they prefer a centralized approach to the issues where wise sages from on high impart their wisdom through published knowledge in old media channels — not where grassroots people roar out of nowhere to “spoil” the well-planned strategies of the Washington coffee clique. It’s easier to be a “rebel within the establishment” who cheers for the tweedledum candidate than someone who is truly independently minded and whose vote is earned.
I won’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t support either marriage equality or getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. I won’t vote for a candidate who wants to expand the size and scope of government and its reach into my life. I won’t vote for a candidate who supported the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the various wiretapping laws, the torture bill, or any of the various other predations that Republicrats have delivered over the past eight years in a consistently bipartisan form.
Richard would prefer people like me, who aren’t really political, simply drop out of the system and leave things to the self-appointed “experts.” We used to do that. But now we’re getting involved and the people who often sit out elections entirely — plus the thinking electorate — are demanding their votes be earned, not taken for granted.
You’d think that the Democrats, at least, would learn this lesson (the Republicans are about to with their “moderate” fiscal-conservative, social-liberal wing). Instead, their party intelligentsia continues to express contempt and disdain for people who vote differently — a hypocritical departure from their own “count all the votes” rhetoric of years past.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As most people are well aware, a lot of Democrats in the past couple of years have been increasingly critical of the war in Iraq, and in particular the arrogance and incompetence of its execution.
Who cares? So have many Republicans.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Washington overwhelmingly supported the war, muzzled the critics who pointed out the fact that it was a disaster in the making, and the Dems even shot down their front-running presidential candidate because he was opposed to the war.
I guess their ignorance of the “facts” doesn’t make them “zealots” though, does it, Richard?
I mean, we should all understand they made a mistake. What’s a few hundred thousands dead Iraqis, Americans, and Britons anyway? Water under the bridge! Now that they’re courageously acknowledging the whole thing is a mistake when the polls are against the entire enterprise, we should reward them with absolute power.
Oh sure, they’ll screw up again, ignore the facts again, attack people bringing up inconvenient facts as “zealots,” and bring yet more disaster on the country, but at least they’ll be sorry after the fact — and maybe they’ll administer the recovery effort from the self-inflicted disaster more effectively.
Wow, that’s one mightily powerful campaign platform you’ve got there, bub.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL tells me who my friends are, and puts words in my mouth such as calling voters stupid. Not much new there. But he also writes, referring to himself, “people like me, who aren’t really political….” Not political?! Gimme a break, already.
NL talks incessantly about Washington political elites, as if there is some sort of black magic associated with geography. As a matter of fact, all the national-Washington types (with whom I have few dealings, since as I have repeatedly said and he shows his honesty and fairness by simply ignoring, I am a local and not a national activist), the national-Washington types come to DC from all over the country. You all send your trash here to my hometown, and it somehow becomes our fault? I don’t think so. It’s not a Washington thing. That’s just a political slogan, coming from the professed non-political NL.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Richard, I knew you wouldn’t address any of the points in my writing. It does underscore how ridiculous your core contentions are, when you have to shift from obfuscating for the Democrats’ benefit to obfuscating for your own benefit.
You’re not in the best position to accuse jomicur, myself, or anyone else of “not looking at the facts,” since they quite clearly go against you.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, your descriptions of non-Washingtonians who come to pollute your hallowed halls as “trash” is nothing if not an indication of the inside-the-Beltway contempt for the rest of the country that I’ve alluded to earlier.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Hey, NL, you’re the one issuing repeated, sweeping insults of everyone in Washington. I was simply picking up on that. I think you know perfectlhy well that I wasn’t seriously indicating that everyone who comes here from around the country is trash. I think you know that my point was that to the extent that the people sent here by voters in the 50 states are corrupt, Republicrats, etc., that cannot possibly be blamed either on the people of D.C. or on the geographic area inside the Beltway. You refuse to act in good faith, NL. You merely look for ammunition for more cheap point-scoring. You seem to have a need simply to pour contempt upon contempt. Every characterization you have made about me is wrong. And you have offered no constructive suggestion. Since you consider my political realism wrong-headed, what exactly do you advise voters to do in the midterm election a week from now? A protest vote for some third-party candidate will likely have the effect of keeping the GOP in charge of all branches of our national government. Some victory for reform that would be. Demanding all or nothing, you would leave us all with nothing.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, I have addressed more of your legitimate points than you have mine. The trouble is, most of what you offer at this point is mischaracterizations.
NL wrote, “You’re not in the best position to accuse jomicur, myself, or anyone else of ‘not looking at the facts,’ since they quite clearly go against you.”
I will change every view I have on which I am shown that I am mistaken. (Not misguided; that is a subjective value judgment.) But I have little doubt as to who is shown by the totality of the written evidence here to be more reasonable. You won’t even acknowledge that I have been quite harshly critical of the Democrats, because I don’t reach your conclusion. So you call me a Democratic shill, which you cannot honestly believe is accurate since no shill would have written so harshly against the party he is shilling for. That is not serious argumentation, NL.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Richard, you haven’t addressed *any* of the points I made regarding the Democrats’ record, the hypocrisy they’ve shown in their own no-hope campaigns, my dispatching of your baseless assertion that a Gore administration would have varied significantly from a Bush one on the issues, my points on the open nature of democracy (versus the closed-to-most process you’re advocating), or even the laughable notion that now that they’re condemning Iraq War in degrees the Dems are ready for power.
Facts matter…
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
More evidence of a lack of difference between the two old parties.
Vote for Hillary in 2008, get Dick Cheney from 2000.
posted by Carl on
The Republicans in Congress are probably going to purge themselves of any gay staffers, any gay associates, and will run far to the right in order to pick up more seats in 2008. At they very least, Democrats in control of Congress would take the bully pulpit away from the GOP. And people like Barney Frank would be in major leadership positions for the Democrats.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
At they very least, Democrats in control of Congress would take the bully pulpit away from the GOP
Which doesn’t matter, since Hillary and Obama have already telegraphed that their message on matters important to gays will be the same rhetoric of Dick Cheney circa 2000.
If that’s what you want, why not just vote for Cheney’s party and get the real thing?