With the latest Democratic capitulation on the occupation of Iraq, it appears that a lightbulb has switched on for many progressives who have reached a startling realization about the current Democratic Party leadership (and, frankly, most of our presidentials):
These people aren't going to get it done. Ever.
Hunter's brilliant piece today summarizes the issue perfectly: the core of the Democratic Leadership as it exists in Washington, D.C. is useless.
In fact, it's less than useless: if the occupation of Iraq was going to continue anyway; if no serious bills on healthcare, the economy or other issues (the excellent energy bill excepted) were going to suffer Bush's veto pen and embarrass the Republicans; as long as investigations into GOP malfeasance were not going to result in subpoenas with teeth and criminal contempt charges (much less impeachment motions); given that Democrats were going to cave on Bush nominations (and no, no points get awarded to Harry Reid for blocking recess appointments if people like Mukasey are allowed to pass muster without a recess appointment); so long as the pork was going to continue unabated, the ethics rules remain largely unchanged, and the excesses of corporate welfare remain uncurbed; if the government was allowed to devalue the dollar and ensure future economic disaster while Bush took credit for helping low-income subprime mortgage holders; if all these things and more were destined to take place in spite of electing a Democratic congress, then what did we fight for, exactly? To what end elect a Democratic Congress?
Indeed, by failing to seriously affect public policy in any way worthy of the name or even embarrass Republicans into publicly avoiding change, Democrats have done worse than nothing: they have caused public contempt for congress. They have created apathy and a sense of helplessness among the American people. They have given another argument to all the Nader voters and libertarian cranks who insist every day that there is no difference between the two political parties, and to all the armchair revolutionaries who insist that no good can be done through insititutional political change. Above all, they have horribly harmed the image of the Democratic Party as a vehicle for the change that voters desperately want.
I have a theory about why our "leadership" has brought us to this pass: I believe that they are not spineless cowards, but rather cynical manipulators who believe that by pretending to stand and fight against the Bush Administration, but doing nothing to actively oppose it, they can whip up public anger against Republicans without suffering any political consequences that might ensue from, you know, actually standing in the way of Republican insanity. Plus, like most of those in congress, they're more than a little corrupted by the preposterous amount of money flowing through the system.
The only problem with this (beyond the damage done to America in the meantime by Republican policies) is that, in the end, voters won't be upset just at Republicans: they'll want to put a pox on both our houses. After all, to use an analogy cribbed from Devilstower's marvelous post on Sunday, people will run away from aggressive lions, but they won't exactly worship hyenas and vultures, either. In the end, they'll simply walk away from the Savannah entirely.
When all is said and done, though, it doesn't matter why the leadership Democrats behave the way they do. What matters is what we do about their behavior. This question is the one that troubles Hunter. It is the one that should trouble every progressive activist in light of the depressing reality of our current predicament.
There is an answer to this problem-and it isn't just electing Better Democrats as opposed to More Democrats, though that needs to be done. It isn't just attempting to remove scoundrels like Steny Hoyer from leadership positions--though that, too, would be nice.
No, the real answer is counterintuitive, but critical. It may seem like heresy to say on a political blog, especially one ostensibly dedicated to helping get Democrats elected. But in the long run, it's the only way to accomplish the goal of transforming the party, changing our politics, and altering the course of history. It's also the only way, in the long run, to really elect more Democrats--not just in the next cycle, but over the course of the next four or five cycles.
The answer is to stop paying attention to elections, broadly speaking. Supporting individual candidates that we believe in is fine and necessary. As a strategist on a Democratic congressional campaign myself and longtime donor to ActBlue, I'm no slacker when it comes to individual candidate support. Ensuring that a Democrat--just about any Democrat--take the presidency is certainly a must. Taking out the worst Democrats through primaries and other mechanisms is important.
But in the end, just doing those things is not going to make a great deal of difference. And if I'm right about the cynical manipulations of the Democratic leadership, they'll simply use those electoral victories to consolidate their own power, and begin looking toward the next election cycle, figuring out how best to make Republicans look bad without actually doing anything to make themselves look good.
The truth is that the likes of Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann do far, far more to advance the progressive cause than do those who work strenuously to put one more Senator or Representative in the Democratic column. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly have done far, far more to advance the conservative cause than any individual Republican Representative or Senator ever did.
The battle is not fought at the ballot box. The battle is fought in the media, on the streets, and in the hearts and minds of the American people. The ballot box is simply a contingent affirmation of the hopes, angers, fears and aspirations of the American people: fears and aspirations shaped, massaged and cultivated by influential voices.
The great weapon of the Conservative Movement of the last thirty years has not been its politicians, but rather its network of media figures and think tanks. The politicians, as we have so clearly seen, have always been simply the public face and swinging fist of the conservative media empire and idea network.
If those in the progressive blogosphere wish to truly make a difference, we will learn both from the successes of right-wing in the past, and from our failure to effectuate adequate or even middling results through ballot box success. It behooves us to spend less time ripping one another apart over which Democrat will take the nomination or obsessing over individual House and Senate races, and instead spend more time actively engaging the American Public through charismatic appeals, while doing our best to humiliate and destroy every media establishment--whether personal or institutional--that assists in advancing conservative agendas and frames. It behooves us to focus our efforts more on movement building than on simple electioneering.
Otherwise, we can look forward to a long future of ineffectual incremental change and eternal disappointments from those "More and Better" Democrats we spent all our time figuring out how to elect.