How to explain the continuing inability of Democratic Party leaders to present a clear and compelling vision as an opposition party? I firmly believe that many of the
"Blue Dog"Democrats act on their real convictions (and are thus not real Democrats). How to explain the ineffectiveness of so many of the rest of the leadership ... could it be:
The
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological state in which the victims of a kidnapping, or persons detained against their free will – prisoners – develop a relationship with their captor(s). This solidarity can sometimes become a real complicity, with prisoners actually helping the captors to achieve their goals or to escape police.
The syndrome develops out of the victim's attempts to relate to his or her captor or gain the kidnapper's sympathy.
While I recognize that you can't apply such a psychological diagnoses to a group, I think it is a handy way to describe the recent behavior of so many of the so-called "liberals" in Congress.
After all, the extreme tactics that the Republicans have pursued and perfected starting with the Gingrich Revolution have held much of the progressive agenda "hostage" and the attacks from the Theocrats and attack-poodle press have put our elected "leaders" in fear of losing their offices.
After all, don't frightened "captives" say things like Biden said:
“I think we should compromise and say to them that we’re willing to — of the seven judges — we’ll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through, and put off this vote,”
Reward the bullies by giving them what they want. Is this the belief of a truly independent representative of the "left's" point-of-view?
"Biden's always been conservative," you might say, but it's not just the recent fights over extremist judges and the filibuster that raise my concerns. The Democratic Party has been arguing on Republican terms for a couple of decades now. When Bush says that our leaders have no ideas, it stings because it is largely true. I know that Clinton's supposed "genius" was to "co-opt" Republican talking points, but under his rule we a diverse media, the social safety net and many of our protections against the greed of rapacious corporations.
There has been so much pandering on "moral values". So willing to throw the poor overboard, and to abandon American workers by voting for egregious things like the Bankruptcy Prevention Act and NAFTA, without standing up for measures to protect workers, their families and their communities. So willing to move away from protecting women's health, gay marriage and protecting the right to vote.
How to explain it? Some of them are like the "Blue Dog" Democrats ... they truly are Democrats In Name Only. Some are just careerist opportunists, doing what they can to hold onto their jobs while risking little. There are (precious few, like Sen Boxer and Rep Conyers) who fight hard for our values. How to explain the rest? You can listen to their speeches, hear what they say they stand for, but when the battle gets bloody, when the going gets hard, far too many ask "how high" when the right says jump. Having been bullied by the extreme tactics of the right, they now flinch whenever someone calls them "liberal", like whipped curs that don't want to be hit again.
How do you explain it.
(crossposted at Liberal Street Fight and unbossed)