But WHY are our Dem leaders such timid wimps? (Part 2)

By Weekly Archive On Nov 13, 2007

Democrats
need their own “framing” terms

Time
and time again, the Democrats, who should know better by now, fall
into the rhetorical trap of using the Republicans’ framing language
instead of going on the offensive by framing the arguments and
language in their own terms. "Supporting the troops," for
example, should not automatically refer to the funding of failed
CheneyBush policies in Iraq, but to "supporting the troops"
by arranging for them to depart the catastrophe that CheneyBush have
helped create in Iraq. The so-called "War on Terror" is
another one the Democrats have bought into without too much
thought.

In short, the Democrats seem to have ignored the
implications of their momentous victory in the 2006 election — that
they are now the majority and can start shaping their own agenda, in
their own way, using their own framing mechanisms. Too often, they
seem to be thinking and acting as if they’re still in the minority,
having to respond to GOP arguments and policies rather than creating
those of their own.

Yes, their margins in the House and Senate
are not great, and the Republicans are playing obstructionist games,
but introducing bills that don’t always pass is not the end of the
world. It demonstrates to the citizens (who, at this stage, hold the
Democrats in Congress in low repute because of their wimpiness) that
the opposition party stands for something, has alternative plans and
policies, and, if they were to obtain a veto-proof majority in the
November 2008 election, those plans and policies would be
implemented, the legislative logjam would be broken, and real change
might well come to Washington, D.C.

But if the Democrats don’t
locate their political spines and stand tall in opposition to the
worst of CheneyBush policies, they put at risk their likely sweep of
the House and Senate next November, and certainly open the door to
the possibility of a Hard Right GOP presidential candidate keeping
the White House in Republican hands for another four or eight years.
And no true Democrat or Independent or moderate-conservative
Republican wants that.

Other
motivations

Finally,
my address to Democrats Abroad stimulated some fascinating letters
(www.crisispapers.org/features/corres.htm) in response, including
some that offer broader, more controversial reasons to explain
Democratic timidity. Here, without necessarily accepting their
premises, are excerpts from a few:

–"RE:
Impeachment off the Democratic table reason #1?: Pelsosi, Reid,
Rockefeller, and Harman are up to their necks in the Bush nastiness;
the Roves etc. would love to get them involved in an impeachment
process and demonstrate how involved these Dems were in the
FISA/torture stuff. Hence, these Democrats have tied their own hands
and we are left with a fascist government. Scary." — Joan
Magit

— "Hillary Clinton is a Republican in
pseudo-Democrat clothing. Her voting record has basically been a
rubber stamp for much of Bush’s worst policies. She voted for the
Iraq war the day before she voted against the diplomatic option (so
she is a chronic liar when she states she wanted to continue with
diplomatic efforts in Iraq). She voted to fund the Iraq war ten times
before it became overwhelmingly unpopular. She voted for the USA
Patriot Act I and II. She voted to end habeas corpus. Hillary Clinton
bickers with Bush on minor points and superficial splitting of hairs,
but she is in all political substance George W. Bush in a woman’s
pant suit. I used to defend Hillary tirelessly in the 1990s and was
hopeful she would be a great leader for the progressive Dems in her
time in the Senate. She turned out to be a Neo-Con and a fraud, and
if she gets picked, the whole phony Rove vs. Billary will commence,
and she will either get elected because of it, or she will be
defeated by a much worse Neo-Con on the GOP side. Either way,
fear-mongering, war-profiteering, Neo-Cons will win and the rest of
the nation will lose and have to endure 4-8 more years of the
Bush-Clinton regime." — T. S. Golden

— "National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51 &
HSPD-20 dated May 9, 2007, would give Bush the justification to
control all branches of government and the opportunity to declare
martial law in the event of any ‘Catastrophic Emergency,’ meaning any
incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary
levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting
the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or
government functions. With our borders and ports essentially
unprotected and the huge number of illegal aliens entering our
country, the possibility of another real or staged terrorist attack
occurring is more than a possibility. … With the implementation of
martial law, could the Bush Administration use this action to suspend
indefinitely any future elections? The National Guard, the reserves
and the U.S. military are tied up overseas. They are unavailable to
protect the U.S. citizens at home. However, military contractors such
as DynCorp, Blackwater USA, KBR, Custer Battles, and Aegis could be
brought in for just such a purpose. They have no allegiance to the
American people." — Douglas Nash

— "[Response to
the funding appeals of Democratic party officials Howard Dean and Tom
McMahon:] I will not send one red cent to the Democratic Party this
year. They are failing this country by not impeaching these White
House criminals. Our Constitution is in shreds, thanks to the Dems
playing politics (badly). And if the madmen invade Iran, it will be
the Democrats’ fault for delaying the end of the occupation of Iraq
before the ’08 elections and for not impeaching. — Diane Lawrence
(10/23), South Florida Impeachment Coalition, www.FloridaImpeach.org

Well,
you get the idea. The level of anger, frustration and fear are out
there big time in the citizenry. Unless the Democrats get their act
together soon and start behaving as an Opposition Party should, there
is no predicting the ramifications of their lack of courage. But
certainly the Republicans holding onto the White House, or Congress,
for the next four years is a possible one. (And I haven’t even gone
into the likelihood of continuing electoral fraud.)

Organize,
organize, organize!

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