But WHY are our Dem leaders such timid wimps? (Part 1)

By Weekly Archive On Nov 6, 2007

When
I was in Germany recently, addressing the Democrats Abroad chapter

(www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm
) in Munich, most of us in the meeting hall were perplexed by the
behavior of Democratic Party officials in Washington, D.C. What is
behind those leaders’ ongoing timidity that in some cases is making
them enablers of the worst of CheneyBush policies, especially with
regard to the Iraq Occupation, excessive presidential powers, and the
trashing of the Constitution?

With those topics in mind, let’s
spend a bit of time here trying to figure out the possible genesis of
this Democratic wimpiness, and what can be done about it.

Speaker
Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid appear to be saying: "Given our
relatively slim margins in both the House and Senate, and Bush’s
newfound desire to use the veto pen, we find it much more useful to
try to peel off enough moderate Republicans to our side on a number
of issues in order to get some positive legislation passed. Passing
defunding-the-war resolutions, or ones authorizing an impeachment
panel, for example, might make us feel good but they might well
alienate the very moderate Republicans and Independents we’re trying
to lure to our side. We want to get legislation passed for the
American people and that’s where we should be focusing our energies,
not on distracting, bash-the-Administration resolutions that stand
little chance of accomplishing anything while making our legislative
work more difficult."

If that is the motivation for much
of the Democratic leadership’s timidity, I would disagree with the
strategy but at least I could understand the reasoning behind it. In
many cases, however, I think that argument is a smokescreen for
deeper motivations.

I haven’t heard any Democratic leaders say
this out loud, but it’s likely that privately a number prefer the
Iraq Occupation to continue through Bush’s tenure because that way
it’s "Bush’s War," a "Republican war," and the
margin of victory for the Democrats in 2008 could be even bigger,
given the massive unpopularity of the Iraq war in the country. If
this cynical point of view is actually operable, those Democrats
would have blood on their hands; all the U.S. forces and the Iraqi
civilians will suffer in the next 15 months because some
Machiavellian Democrats waited to act to remove the troops until
after the presidential election.

What I suspect is actually
going on for most Democrats is Karl Rove Syndrome. They fear that if
they don’t continue funding Bush’s war in Iraq, they might be blamed
if something goes even more disastrously wrong on the ground there
(because they didn’t "support the troops"); they might well
be swiftboated as being "unpatriotic" or insufficiently
"anti-terrorist." In short, these Dems don’t want to do
anything that could jeopardize their re-election chances or those of
new Democratic candidates for Congress.

OK, though I find that
attitude somewhat cowardly — and immoral, as an awful lot of U.S.
troops and Iraqi civilians will be killed and maimed in the next 15
months — at least one can understand its partisan political
roots.

The
tendency to cave early

But
how does one explain so many other caves by the Democratic
leadership? Good example from last week: The revised FISA bill
contained a retroactive amnesty for the giant telecoms that violated
the privacy rights of American citizens in the domestic-spying
operation run by CheneyBush’s National Security Agency.
(Incidentally, we now have learned that the data-mining started early
in the Bush presidency, long before the tragic events of 9/11.)

(www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/17009
) The Dems fought that amnesty clause but finally gave in.
(Interestingly, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay
Rockefeller, who has accepted large contributions from the telecoms,

(http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001685&cycle=2006
) capitulated early.

But that’s not the most flagrant retreat
to which I’m referring here. Sen. Christopher Dodd, who is in the
running for the Democratic presidential nomination, alerted Majority
Leader Reid that he was going to put a "hold" on the bill,
so as to not give Congress’ imprimatur to unconstitutional
law-breaking by giant corporations. Reid chose to ignore Dodd’s
request, which is a violation of traditional senatorial courtesy. Why
would the Majority Leader diss one of his own senators in the face of
Administration criticism? Looks like a complex cave to me, which,
when added to so many others, underlines the unwillingness by Reid
(and Speaker Pelosi in the House) to act like a true party of
opposition.

Another example is Pelosi separating herself from
the tough comments of Rep. Pete Stark, who denounced his Republican
colleagues’ upholding of Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP bill extending
health care to poor and lower-middle-class children. Bush said the
bill spent too much money, but Stark reminded his Republican
colleagues that they always seem to find the hundreds of billions of
dollars necessary to fund the Iraq Occupation but claim not to have
enough money to help sick kids. Stark’s courage in stating the
obvious should be applauded not dumped on by the Democratic
leadership.

But maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised by
Pelosi’s cowardice. After all, she gave away the store when she
announced in the run-up to the 2006 midterm election that impeachment
would be "off the table" if the Democrats became the
majority in Congress. Impeachment is the remedy called for by the
Constitution, the ultimate weapon that can be used against an
Executive Branch that has run amok with its power. Pelosi’s pledge
means that the Republicans can carry on as usual knowing that Bush
and Cheney will never face any accountability for their illegal,
immoral and self-destructive actions.

Nancy Pelosi is my
Representative in Congress, and I’ve written her numerous times to
try to find out the reasoning behind her "off the table"
decision. Her replies are generic blather without ever responding to
the question. I can understand why she might have made that "off
the table" remark prior to the 2006 election, so as to not scare
away moderate Republicans who might be amenable to voting for
Democrats. But the situation is different now, and CheneyBush have
not altered their domestic and foreign extremism. Plans are
proceeding apace for an air attack on Iran, for example. Thus, voters
would understand if impeachment were to be put back "on the
table" as a weapon-in-reserve to make CheneyBush think twice
about continuing their rampaging policies.

Suppose, for
example, Congress were to pass a bill saying that absent an imminent
threat from Iran against the United States, a CheneyBush attack on
that country would be, ipso facto, grounds for immediate impeachment.
That might concentrate their minds a bit. Powerful forces inside the
Pentagon, opposed to an all-out, shock & awe attack on Iran’s
military infrastructure and weapons labs, reportedly have made
CheneyBush alter their plan

(www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27889)
to one relying more on surgical strikes.

(Next
week in the second and final part, Dr. Weiner suggests how democrats
can frame the issues and other motivations needed to take the
offensive when it comes to the politics of the U.S.)

Bernard
Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught
at universities in California and Washington, worked as a
writer/editor for the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and
currently co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net.

First
published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground
10/23/07.
www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/wimps.htm