Ok, Democrats won a 30 seat majority in the House and a one-seat majority in the Senate. What do we do now?
There seems to be three camps:
The "DLC Camp" states that we won because of conservative Democrats who won because their constituents were tired of GOP corruption and a focus on uniting issues such as raising the minumum wage. They point to races like the Virginia Senate, and House races in Arizona, Kentucky, North Carolina and Palm Beach, Florida. They also claim that liberal leaning districts such as those in Connecticut jumped because of the corruption issue.
The "Progressivist Camp" school states we won because we drew sharp distinction between Progressive values such as opposing the War in Iraq. They point to races in upstate New York, Iowa, Indiana, the defeat of Richard Pombo in California and more recently the victory of Ciro Rodriguez.
The third "Insider" camp does not care how we won, they want to keep it.
My answer, all three are wrong; and right.
DLC Seems to Want a Return to 1992
The DLC camp is right in the races they cite. A full-on Progressive like a Tom Hayden or Dennis Kucinich would never have won in Heath Shuler's(NC) race or John Yarmuth's race (KY).
But they are also very wrong in some ways. They also use this rationale to call for a return to the 1992 style of triangulation and for "safe" governance that seems to be missing the real ideas or energy that the DLC once made claim to when it was about finding a middle ground in a white, Middle-Class oriented electorate.
The world has changed since 1992, as has the electorate, which is more ethnically diverse than it ever has been. It is estimated that Texas will be 50% Latino by 2010. Arab-Americans are part of 3 Congression Districts in Michigan (Conyers, Kilpatrick and Dingell) and One in California (Darrell Issa R-CA).
Also the Party is far more grassroots oriented than it was in 1992. The Internet, blogs (including DailyKos)have broadened access to a certain level of the political process as never before, bringing the grassroots into the political process with all its benefits and foibles.
The DLC pushes a safe agenda, if one at all. But if we cling to too safe a strategy, we call into complacency and in doing nothing, risk a short short stay as a majority. Also the GOP is not interested in rolling over and playing dead because they have the Executive Branch still.
A replay of 1992 enables the GOP to return to their playbook of the same era. And for those who forgot, that is how we ended up with 12 years of GOP Congressional rule.
Progressivists - Visionaries or Circular Firing Squad?
Progressivists were right calling for clear lines of distinction. Discontent with the War clearly was a factor in East Coast races Harry Truman said that "if you give people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they choose the Republican every time."
They are also right that they built a new wave of activists in this country. Some have been smart in learning from the past, others seem doomed to repeat it by forgetting to work with others.
However, it would be erroneous to think that election was a blank check to pursue idealistic or irrational policies, just as it was an error by the GOP to think that the 2004 elections were about supporting school prayer and an end to abortion.
Those who are calling for immediate impeachment or a withdrawal from Iraq to be done by next Sunday risk a disastrous 2 years. There is no doubt that the American electorate was tired of secret deals and special favors but that does not mean it is ready to move to immediate impeachment. They want a government that works for them, not one bent on revenge (on the GOP, DLC or anyone else).
That motive of revenge in 1998 lead to a loss of GOP seats in the House in 2000 paving the way for 2006. Granted there are stronger grounds for legal action now than in 1998, but the public perception of revenge will remain regardless unless a carefully constructed case is laid out. A case needs to be made to the public that the trust was breached in a manner constituting high crimes and misdemeanors.
Waxman and Conyers, both impassioned Progressives understand this, and are building teams of experienced prosecutors to do so and working with other Democrats who are right of them to build a consensus for action.
In California, the leadership of the California Democratc Party Progressive Caucus was outvoted in its call to put together a slate for local Democratic Central Committee positions based on impeachment only as part of a 6 point slate platoform, but has persisted in driving a wedge into its own party by declaring a statewide war on Democratic activists who do not agree to support the Progressive Caucus in everything it does in the future.
The recepie for lurching too far left also would bring a repeat, but this time of the 1980s where some in Party leadership tried to pull the party too left too fast. Those who attack Israel as if it were North Korea or those who call for the cuting off of funding for the war in Iraq by attacking their own through public embarassment are forgetting that politics is ultimately a coalition sport.
Jews make up 2% of the U.S. population but 4% of the vote and tend to vote Democratic 80-20% in good years (1992, 1996, 2000, 2006), 65-35% (1968,1984,1994,2004)in bad years. In cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Palm Beach they are 10-30% of the vote. In some cities, very Progressive Congressmen are being picketed for refusing to blindly support the McGovern plan. Why alienate your friends who would vote for you by antagonizing or embarassing them?
Progressives need to get smart to win just as leaders such as State Senator Sheila Keuhl worked with business to build a universal health plan based on single-payer principles in California or liberals in Massachusetts got together with business to do a private-based health plan.
It may not feel as good now, but long term growth requires discipline, not emotional validation.
Just as important, if you can't keep the majority together, you are no longer a majority. Progressives alone are not a majority anywhere, even in California and New York were Democrats and Greens combined don't make up a majority of voters. If we go too far too fast without bringing the rest of America along, we lose because the GOP is waiting to pounce in on the gap and to drive a wedge in with non-essential issues such as the "war on Christmas."
Just Govern, But Why?
This brings me to the third group. They believe that we should just govern and get on with it. The Pelosi's and the Schumers are in this camp and they are very right.
Governing is a consensus job and taking stands on every single issue is still a do nothing government. We need a good budget that is not bloated fast to show that deserve the public trust. We need to keep our promises to the public and find ways to correct 12 years of GOP inequalities built up.
But we need a soul too. On Stem Cell Research, on finding a consensus plan to end the Iraq War that starts moving troops out of Iraq rather than sending more in without a clear set of goals or objectives, on undoing the damage to the environment and stopping government giveaways to those not in need, we need to stand together.
Be Smart for a Lasting Majority
We need to be smarter in building a consensus on the issues we care about and stop demanding 100% litmus tests on every issue. Even business can be a friend we are smart and start thinking about how to talk with them in terms that they are comfortable with (obviously there are some that won't play the game such as Halliburton).
Let us be smart in making our principles a reality or we may not have this chance again for another 12 years.