As recently as Thursday morning, I still counted myself among those who believe that pulling out every stop, making every donation, and doing everything humanly possible to ensure that Democrats hold on to both the House and the Senate is vitally important. While I’ve agreed for a long time now that Obama and Democrats in Congress have been too timid on way too many fronts, I still believed that some progress, though incremental, was better than a stalemate with Republicans.
But this week, Democrats, who should at least control the agenda – even though they too often lack actual control of Congress – lost me. Or more accurately, they dumped me. Again. And dumped you, too. All of you. They threw all of us under the bus this week and in the process finally succeeded in convincing me of something many of you couldn’t before: that they don’t deserve my ass-busting, my money and, most probably, my vote. If the election had been held yesterday, I still would have voted a straight Democratic ticket in the morning. If the election were held today, I probably wouldn’t bother. Below the fold, I explain my rationale, which in part is based on where we'll be in 2012 if we eek out a "win" now.
Now before you waste your time reminding me that the purpose of this site is for Democrats to promote Democratic candidates and policies, understand one thing: I get it. Your beef isn’t with me. It’s with a lot of Democrats now in office. Although I’m not in favor of an ideological purge of the sort Republicans have been conducting for quite awhile now, I'm beginning to believe there are more than just a handful of Blue Dogs who stand in the way of real progress. I increasingly have trouble believing we're ever going to realize real "change" on any issue unless we do some more weeding. And right now might just be the best time for us to prune out some deadwood.
Democrats have left the field en masse. They won’t even vote on the Bush tax giveaway to the rich? WTF? Can’t repeal DADT on a defense authorization vote? Okay, fine. You didn't have the votes. Unlike many, I accept the reality that a 41-vote minority in the Senate bent on abusing the filibuster can bring the Senate to a grinding halt; even if Democrats could stick together like Republicans, they wouldn’t be able to pass anything Republicans decided to filibuster. I don't like it either, but it's a fact we have to deal with unless and until Senate Democrats change the rules at the beginning of the next session (but I'm not holding my breath on that one, even if Dems hold on to the Senate). But what about bringing it up again and again between now and the election, forcing Republicans to cast the wrong vote again and again? Can't be in DC during a campaign? Too goddamned bad. I'm no Senate procedural guru, but is there some procedural rule that prevents that strategy? Make Republicans use it to block another vote. Procedural rules can be waived. Make Republicans the problem.
Too out there or too risky for you? Well then how about pushing for Obama to suspend DADT through an executive stop-loss order. Even if you’re one of those who feels DADT should not be a top priority right now, surely you can recognize what an important issue it is to mobilize and energize people like me in the LGBT base.
But on these two issues in as many days, Democrats have thrown millions of voters like me under the bus. Tax cuts and DADT were two issues on which Democrats could have galvanized the base and persuade the public, just in the nick of time. Why throw in the towel on both? Cowardice? Bought off? Brain dead? Don’t bother answering because it no longer matters why.
Just a little over three weeks ago, I wrote a diary (President McCain 9/1/2010, Speaker Boehner 1/1/2011) in which I was still urging those among us who are so disappointed they had already decided not to work, not to donate, and maybe not even to vote, that a Republican takeover in the Senate or House would be worse. But now I have to wonder – would it really? Would we really be worse off with a Speaker Boehner or a Majority Leader McConnell?
Suppose I don't walk off the field mid-game, too. Suppose I stick it out, continue to bust my ass and suck my bank account dry to try to keep Democrats in control. What do I get in return? Do I get Democrats who support me, who will support my family, support the overwhelming majority of us who don’t hold 2% of this country’s wealth? Do I get Democratic candidates who will fight tooth and nail for the rest of us?
No. I don’t get any of that. We don’t get any of that.
Here’s what we’ll get.
Option 1:
A Republican-controlled House and Senate. One thing’s clear: those assholes won’t have a veto-proof majority in either body. As long as Obama vetoes whatever crap Republicans might ram through the Congress, Republicans won’t have the votes to override his vetoes. If that happens, what we’ll get is stalemate. But we already have stalemate on a whole host of issues that Democrats won’t even force Republicans to vote on, win or lose. The Bush tax cuts. Immigration reform. An energy bill. And the list goes on and on. If you’re politically aware enough to be reading this, you don’t need me to list them. (And don’t bother trying to convince me we need to maintain a Democratic-controlled Congress so Obama won’t be forced to sign Republican legislation. If he doesn’t have the gonads to veto shit, then he isn’t the man I voted for, and god help us all.) Let the Republicans take the blame for the inevitable stalemate that 2011 and 2012 have in store for us. And that brings us to the second option.
Option 2:
A Democratic-controlled House and Senate. One other thing is equally clear: even if Democrats somehow manage to hold on to the House and Senate, we will without a doubt have significantly smaller majorities in both houses come November 3. So what is a Democratic Congress with significantly smaller majorities going to do in 2011 that they couldn’t get done in 2009 and 2010? And in 2012, a presidential election year? Give me a break. We all know the answers to those questions. They aren’t going to do a single worthwhile thing, and they’ll face even more vehement voter wrath for that in 2012.
Democrats in Congress don’t have the guts to do the right things at a time when we have the votes and public support on the issues. Does it really take political courage to vote against tax breaks for the richest 2% and in favor of tax breaks for the rest of us? If you're that easily frightened into inaction, tell me again what the advantage is in having your congressional seat nominally in Democratic hands? Face it. This bunch ain't gonna accomplish a damned thing in 2011 or 2012.
Option 3:
Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Whoopdee doo! This is as likely a scenario as any, regardless of what any of us end up doing in the next 40 days. It would probably amount to a Republican takeover of Congress, given the likelihood that some of our favorite Democratic Senators would likely cross party lines (without paying any price for doing so, I might add, if the past is any indication) to pass Republican initiatives. If that happens, see Option 1 above. If, on the other hand, Democrats manage to block Republican legislation in the Senate, we’re back to a stalemate. Even if a Boehner-led House were politically savvy enough to moderate its legislative initiatives enough to get them through the Senate, it’ll still be conservative Republican legislation. Once again, see Option 1 above. You can bet on one thing. A Republican House is not no-way, no-how going to pass legislation WE want to see passed, not even in the interest of just getting things accomplished and enhancing their 2012 electoral prospects.
So there you have it. Why should I give away even more of my time and money to this crop of Democratic candidates? The Democratic candidate for Senate in my home state of Missouri, Robin Carnahan, supports extending all of the Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthiest 2%. Democrats in office and many of them seeking office have proven unequivocally this week they no longer deserve either my money or my time. They’ll squander both, and the reality is, either way they’re going to lose, whether they "win" the mid-terms or not.
Elected Democrats in Congress – conservative, middle-of-the-road, liberal and progressive – have across the board given up in defeat. They won’t even take the field. Republicans in the Senate don’t even have to filibuster anymore. All they have to do is threaten to filibuster, even on issues on which they not only lack public support, but are actually defying the public, and Democrats don’t even bother to make them cast a public vote.
Still not convinced? Then think about this. The price of Democrats maintaining control of Congress may be a particularly heavy one in 2012. I don't buy the "sit this one out and teach them a lesson" strategy. I personally think that's a dumb strategy for a number of reasons, but when did the Democratic base ever teach elected Democrats anything? They're not teachable!
But sitting this one out might not be such a bad idea after all, for an entirely different reason. The bloodletting some are predicting for Democrats this year may be nothing compared to the one incumbents will face in 2012 if a Democratic Congress and President return once more to voters with seemingly empty hands. And empty-handed is surely how Democrats and Obama will actually be coming to voters in 2012, if they retain slim majorities in both bodies this year. We already appear empty-handed right now given our candidates' abject failure to campaign on the accomplishments they've been able to squeeze through the Senate, meager as they may be.
None of the prospects are good ones now. I’m pretty much out of predictions. Except for my prediction of what I likely won’t be doing November 2, 2010.
One last note. I won't be able to hang around to debate this at length in comments, sorry. I'll try to pop in and out, but I'm one of the fortunate who's still employed, and I'm going to have to pay attention to work if I want to remain employed.