E.J. Dionne is one of the best columnists going. And he is demonstrating some real insight into the fractious relationship that defines the Democratic Party and its base today. His latest column provides
this important point:
Here's the problem: Feingold and the activists are right that Democrats can't just take a pass on the wiretapping issue, because Bush's legal claims are so suspect -- even to many in his own party. The opposition's job is to raise alarms over potential abuses of presidential power.
But Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.
For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine what's "moderate" and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.
That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven't.
Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?
This is as succinct and dead on an analysis of the situation as I have heard. And yet I DO believe the problem lies with the Dem Establishment mostly, not with the Dem activist base. The Dem Establishment HAS to learn not to repudiate its base while not necessarily embracing every position the base is pushing for. The other day I wrote in a diary:
With the exception of the dim bulb Dodd, [no Democrat (Lieberman doesn't count)] said anything really harmful. "I'm going to wait" is not my answer. It is not Feingold's answer. And in a perfect world it would not be the answer given by ANY Democrat, or Senator for that matter. But that's not our world.
Now there are different ways to say "I am going to wait." The manner in which our Democratic Senators did so is an exercise in stupid politics and weakness. Here is a simple lesson for them -- Next time, excoriate the Bush Administration for their arrogance, apparent lawlessness, "JUST LIKE IN THE PORTS SCANDAL," and their inability to "come clean with the American People," but Censure is a serious matter and one not to be decided lightly. Say that you will seriously consider the Resolution from Senator Feingold, "A MAN OF PRINCIPLE," but that you are not taking a position at this time.
Senator Reid, of the undecided Dem Senators, comes closest to this. But the opportunity to criticize the President must not be passed up. Argue from strength. Not ready to take a position? Then don't. But do not act afraid. Whatever you think of the resolution and its effect on Dems' image on national security, the pathetic show of weakness by these Dem Senators has done 10 times the damage - feeding every negative Dem sterotype of weakness and lack of principle.
I had strong words of criticism for the Lefty blogs as well in that piece. But the heart of the problem is the misunderstanding of the different roles involved and what the reality of the mindsets are today. I have had this thought in mind since I front paged Senator Barack Obama's famous piece last September. I'll discuss it on the flip.
Obama wrote (by the way, I urge you all to read that diary again. It is very smart and not condescending. You can disagree with Obama. But you can not say he does not treat us with respect.) that:
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
That is part of our hypothesis. We also believe that it is important to show "backbone" independently for the sake of the image of the Democratic Party with ALL voters. Kerry was put in a bad position on his "I voted for it before I voted against it" line because of the prevailing view that Democrats have no principles that they fight for.
Obama continued on the Roberts nomination:
It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). . . . A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.
I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.
Here is where Obama went off the rails in my opinion. It is one thing for me and others like me to urge a filibuster but it is another to rail against Senators for not filibustering. We were not fools in the blogs. We knew there was no support for a filibuster of Roberts. But we did want a STRONG statement against the White House Stonewalling on the issue. To be frank, Obama never understood our point. And it is here that Dionne's insight comes into play. And Obama lacks it at this time. He needs to learn it.
Obama wrote:
In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.
I note the irony of Obama believing that Russ Feingold needed to be defended. But I blasted Pat Leahy for his YES vote on Roberts because it was a betrayal and dumb tactics. But Pat Leahy will have my support and has it, not that he needs it. He is Senator for Life. This is what I responded to Obama's argument:
Senator Obama
Criticism of the ones we love, constructive criticism, should always be welcome. I thank you for your reasoned argument but I respectfully disagree.
Certainly, amongst your colleagues, it is my view that you should not criticize each other. I have always applauded Sen. Ben Nelson's approach on this while strongly criticizing Sen. Lieberman's precisely for that reason.
But since it was my view, and the view of many others, that Sens. Leahy and Feingold made a terrible mistake, I think it is not only right, but incumbent, upon us who feel this way to say so and loudly.
The stakes are monumental. We should not stand silent and let our friends make mistakes without voicing our views. That is what some of us have done.
I commend your impulse to defend your colleagues. It is what YOU should do. But I believe those of us who disagreed with their actions did what WE were supposed to do too.
I think that on this, I have a much better understanding of our respective roles than does Senator Obama and the rest of the Dem leadership. Perhaps if they hear it from E.J. Dionne, they will accept it more readily.
Finally, I think it should be clear that even the most strident Dem activist will forgive and forget and "fall in love" again with the Dem leadership when good results and firm stances become the order of the day. In that sense, even I am making too much of the rift.
The REAL issue is what is our Leadership is doing. And is it working? In the end, that is what really matters.