Let's Stop Counting Our Chickens Before They Hatch!
I'm a Generation X, lifelong liberal/progressive and I think we should all take take a brief but important stroll down electoral memory lane. It is important for those of us who actually experienced the pain of watching liberal/progressive Democrats lose in a string of crushing landslides and may have forgotten. It is also important for younger progressives who may be ignorant of the fact that liberal/progressive Democratic nominees have had a dismal history in presidential elections of late.
1972 - George McGovern - was our nominee in 1972 and a noted anti-war liberal at the time. The 1972 Democratic Convention was taken over by leftwing students and led to the brokered nomination of McGovern. He was famous for talking about the "redistribution of wealth" in his nomination acceptance speech. He went on to a 49 state defeat against President Richard Nixon. Electoral vote count: Nixon 521, McGovern 17.
1980 - President Jimmy Carter - We all know Carter's reputation as a peace broker. He lead a very peacenik foreign policy during his four years as President and was credited with brokering a peace accord between Egypt and Israel. However, a bad economy, the Iranian hostage crisis, and what many Americans perceived as his weakness in the hostage crisis and the nuclear arms race against the Soviet Union, led to a crushing landslide defeat in his bid for re-election in 1980. Electoral vote count: Reagan 489, Carter 49.
1984 - Walter Mondale - He was Carter's Vice President. Again he was widely considered to be very liberal and he selected the first woman Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, as his running mate. What he was most famous for was his pledge during his nomination acceptance speech that year to RAISE our taxes in order to reduce the budget deficit. He also went on to a 49 state defeat that year. Electoral vote count: Reagan 525, Mondale 13.
1988 - Michael Dukakis - He was governor of what is widely considered to be the most liberal state in the union, Massachussetts. He also campaigned on the usual liberal themes. He actually started out the election with a double digit lead against his opponent at the time, Vice President George Bush. He was most famous during the debates that year when he stated in front of a national audience that he would support the death penalty even if his wife was raped and murdered. He also went on to a crushing landslide defeat in November. Electoral vote count: Bush 426, Dukakis 112.
The Democratic Party has only won three elections in the last 40 years. Jimmy Carter won BY A HAIR in 1976 because the Republicans were in shambles in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Bill Clinton was elected with a plurality in 1992 as a centrist governor from Arkansas and was re-elected in 1996, again with only a plurality, as centrist President. In 2000, Al Gore, also centrist Democrat (although very liberal on environmental issues) won the popular vote but not the electoral college. I blame his loss largley on liberal/progressives who opted to vote Ralph Nader in the ERRONEOUS belief that there was no difference Al Gore and George W. Bush.
It is with this history, this DISMAL record of electoral losses by liberal progressive candidates, that I find frustrating when I hear my fellow liberal/progressives, many on this site, who have the gall and audacity to demand IOUs at this early point. We haven't elected a president yet, but they act like it's a foregone conclusion. In the face of trying to raise funds for the party (the RNC is out raising the DNC 20 to 1 so far), raise money and organize his own general election campaign, unite a fractured party that just went through a bruising primary battle, prepare for the convention and choose a vice presidential running mate, we have fellow liberal/progressives demanding that our current nominee vote THEIR way on the FISA legislation OR ELSE.
We have become presumptuous with our FALSE sense of acquired power. THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF HUBRIS!
It seems to me that the only power we liberal/progressives have demonstrated that we have at this point is the power to destroy ourselves in yet another presidental election year.
Even though I have berated my fellow progressives for an obsession over their disappointment with Obama's FISA vote, I too am disappointed. But I also know that the FISA debate did not end with this legislative session. This will be revisited via the courts or by subsequent legislation. With a President Obama, I believe that we will have his ears regarding FISA in the future.
Of the three branches of the federal government, the executive branch is clearly the most powerful and the most consolidated. THIS SHOULD MEAN ALOT TO PROGRESSIVES! The president single-handedly controls the executive branch. The president hands down Executive Orders, appoints HIS kind of people to powerful cabinet positions (State Department, Defense, Treasury, Attorney General, Health and Human Service, Environmental Protection Agency and Labor to name a few). The executive branch, through its many departments can set policies and creates rules and regulations favorable to our causes. The president appoints the entire federal judiciary. The president has the bully pulpit and sets the overall mood, tone and direction of the country.
Obama has been rated the "Most Liberal" senator and is arguably the most progressive (with a VERY real chance of winning) nominee we've had in decades. In light of his work as a community organizer and when examining his record in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate as well as the books he's written, I believe that he is pretty close to that label. After all, This is a man that opposed both Alito's and Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court and worked to reform the Illinois justice system after a string of death row inmates were exonerated by DNA. The Presidency (and by extension the executive branch)is where we have the best chance to imprint our values on the country.
Given our dismal electoral record, I totally understand his attempts to move a tad bit to the center. Whether it's Obama on the left or George W. and Reagan on the right, all presidential candidates make this move. Conservatives gave Reagan the room he needed to move a bit to the center. We need to give Obama the space he needs. It's a cliche in American politics that general elections are won at the center but it didn't stop Reagan from spearheading a lasting conservative movement with his election and it won't stop Obama from spearheading an enduring progressive movement with his election. Let's not make any mistake about it. Obama is ONE ON US...even if we disagree with him occasionally.
What the FISA debate amounts to is a small slice of cake that we can't quite have yet. But like i said earlier, this debate isn't over. However, Obama's election, provides us many more avenues to forge that debate again. I suggest we stop presuming that our job is done and that we can start making demands. NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS. He's only been nominated, we all need to concentrate on actually getting Obama elected in November along with a Democratic Congress and a veto proof Senate. Without that, all of our hard work and money we contributed early on will mean NOTHING. Yep...and we can kiss any thought of progressive values at the executive branch of government goodbye.
Let's donate and voluteer with the same fierce urgency we had during the primaries. When we finally accomplish THIS goal: a liberal progressive president, which we have failed miserably at time and again in the past, then we can have the entire cake and eat it too.