snip
From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.
If they don't think George Bush is who all -- ALL -- of his policies manifestly demonstrate him to be, it's because people like you, Senator, don't call him out. As for tone, something tells me you aren't complaining about people being too gentle towards the Republicans.
They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.
This is setting up straw men, Senator. I learned that trick in high school. Critics of the Democratic Party's flaccid response Republicans' policies on workplace safety, worker rights, minimum wage, Bermuda domiciles, no-bid contracts, air pollution, water pollution, logging in old growth forests, drilling in ANWR aren't saying business is inherently evil. Critics of the way the Democrats gave Bush the war authorization he wanted so that they could switch the attention to domestic issues before the 2002 elections, critics of the way the Democrats refuse to call Bush on his lies about Iraq, preferring to hide behind the skirts of the mother of a dead soldier, do not think America is n imperialist brute. They think that you and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and the rest of the leadership are cowards.
Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?
How about just telling them the truth? John Bolton was manifestly unqualified, he lied under oath and he refused to release documents that probably would have showed he accessed wiretaps inappropriately if not illegally. The fiscal meltdown is not a matter of opinion or partisan horse-trading. "Asking" Republican senators who want to consent to the appointment of an unqualified perjurer or agree destroy the economy in a fiscal meltdown not to do so is just asking them to do their damn jobs honestly.
But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
So we should be open to new ideas on pre-emtive war, new ideas on encroaching on privacy and the right of women to control their own bodies, new ideas on sending jobs to Mexico while sending corporate taxes to Bermuda, new ideas on cutting taxes for the wealthy, new ideas on how to end Social Security, new ideas about torture emanating from the future attorney general? No, Senator, I think not. Maybe you've been hanging out with a bunch of Ralf Nader supporters somewhere, but I haven't seen any Democrats anywhere demand every single item on some sort of checklist.
Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.
Tell that to Karl Rove. Last time I checked, the Republicans were transforming the country pretty effectively.
Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone.
You are probably too young to remember, but I remember a time when there were budget surpluses as far as the eye could see and a chance to really protect Social Security. No, Senator, the Republicans didn't make the problems "worse," they made them. Period.
And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.
Since when does a polarized electorate get turned off by politics? I just saw 3 million extra bible-thumping wackos turn out for George Bush and hand him the 2004 election. You know what turns people off of politics, Senator? It's people who want to turn the other cheek, who let people like Thom DeLay and Bill Frist pass as reasonable human beings, who say, like the junior senator from New York, that she is voting to authorize war in order to make war less likely. It's feckless leaders who don't simply stand up and tell the truth about the destructive, racist, theocratic, kleptocratic, cronyist policies of the Republicans. "I'll stand up to George Bush. Isn't it time somebody did?" The Democratic establishment universally ganged up on the one man who said those words, but they needed to be said then and they needed to be said now. And you aren't saying them. Hillary Clinton isn't saying them. Joe Biden isn't saying them.
But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.
Yet another straw man. No one but no one is suggesting "just putting more money into existing programs" or refusing to admit that some programs don't work very well.
And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Faith-based ideas? The First Amendment may not mean as much to you as the 14th, but it does to me. I want to keep all of my civil rights.
Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully.
That would mean responding quickly and forcefully every single day about every single policy. Because they lie every day and tey lie abuot every policy, whether it's calling more clear-cutting "Healthy Forests" or calling a plan to phase out Social Security a plan to save it. Never mind quick, I'm still waiting for a forceful response to the Swift Boat liars. Hell, I'm still waiting for a forceful response to George Bush saying Democrats don't care about national security during the deabate over creating the Department of Homeland Security.
I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.
Yes, Senator, and the truth is, we have every right to be outraged at Republican policies and Republican lies. It's people like you, who seem to want to invite the Republicans over for tea after they've slandered Democrats who make Democrats look weak. And if people don't see the Democrats standing up to the Republicans, they aren't going to trust Democrats to stand up to Osama bin Laden. Let me say it again: In this political climate, how Democrats stand up to their political enemies tells people how they will stand up to the country's enemies. It's time to go see The Untouchables again. For God's sake, the Republicans' chief bagman now seems to be involve in a contract killing. You'd better believe that the tone you take matters. No disagreement there.
In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.
No, Senator. The Republicans must be discredited. Before they can be defeated, they must be shown to be unfit, both as stewards of the nation and as human beings. Because that is the truth about the likes of Thom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist and George bush.
And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.
OK, how about this: How about you don't post a long diary chock full of straw men in a lame defense of a feckless Democratic Party leadership? How about you stand up and tell one plain, unvarnished truth after another about who the Republicans are, where they have taken the country and what their continued rule will mean?