Today, I read Eddie C's passionate rant about
milquetoast Democrats, currently at the top of the Rec List. It's often that someone here on the blog will get up the gumption to rant about the current Democratic leadership and their failure to take a stand on anything of substance, to call out the Republicans for what they truly are. I like reading such rants, because they remind us our party needs healing too. Good work, Eddie C.
But as I thought about my diary, and read about the milquetoast Democrats, we need to understand something fundemental about our politics if we're ever going to change our party and nation for the better. Come close, I need to whisper to you the dirty little secret:
For the most part, the "Democratic Leadership" doesn't want real reform.
We need to understand this when we get mad at the "Democrats" or the "Democratic Leadership". "Why won't they take a STAND?", we wail, while ignoring the fact it is far, far eaiser to be milquetoast than be macho.
That's what Chasing the Boogeyman is all about. If the Democrats can give the rank-and-file a boogeyman to worry about, you'll never worry about the fact that they're taking millions from corporate interests just like the Republicans are.
When you actually point that out to the Dem "leadership", they'll say..."Oh, sure, but the Republicans are MUCH worse about it. They take MORE money, and they are further to the right. But if you support us, we'll be a BACKSTOP against their shennaigans. We'll be better than they are."
When I think of the cooing of sweet nothings by the Democratic leadership in my ear, I think back to 1993. Most people forget, in the era of Republican rule, that we once had the executive and both houses of Congress in the D column back then. I often wonder how it was that with both those branches of government, we weren't able to get a health care plan passed. But there it was, debated throughout 1993 and effectively dead, in the words of Senate Majority Leaders George Mitchell, in 1994.
And then...the Gingrich revolution. Bye, bye Congress.
I don't know. I'm a cynic. I tend to think the reason we didn't get health care reform when it should have been a slam dunk is because of the amount of money that pours into the Congressional coffers. In the 1994 election cycle, fully half of the top 20 recipients of campaign money from insurance interests went to DEMOCRATS. Of the top 20 recipients of health services and HMO money, fifteen were Democrats.
Newt Gingrich was fourth on the list...one step below Ted Kennedy.
So don't mind me if I don't get too excited and fall in line when Harry Reid gets indignant and pushes the "Abramoff is a Republican scandal" talking points.
Sen. Reid, I know you're not corrupt, but that doesn't mean just because I'm a Democrat I'm going to ignore certain facts. Such as the fact that Edward Ayoob, a former legislative aide of yours, worked for Abramoff and is now the chief lobbyist for Tyco International. Or the fact that while he worked for Abramoff, he hosted a fundraiser for you in Abramoff's offices. Or that on March 5, 2002, you sent a letter to Secretary of Interior Norton opposing the Jena Band of Choctaw's attempt to get a casino, and that the next day, your Searchlight Leadership PAC got a $5,000 donation from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the main opponent of the Jena tribe's bid.
All of that is perfectly legal, as is the $66,000 you received from Abramoff clients. You have pointed that time and again, and you have said you will keep the money, because this is a Republican scandal, not a Democratic one.
And that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to cheer on your indignation just because some of those donations, trips, and influence were "bribes" and some were "legal contributions".
It all stems from the same system, and the same problem: the culture of money in Washington. Republicans, when they took over, just put the system on steroids. Then they got cocky with their schemes, and they got caught.
But we've got huge suckerwrappers on our heads if we think it will get better by the simple fact the Democrats will be in charge.
And there are probably quite a few in the "Democratic leadership" that know you're a sucker if you get fired up at the sight of a boogeyman.
Oh, there probably won't be any corruption or bribery, at least not for awhile. But the money will continue to flow...and flow...and flow. And the influence that money will have will be bigger than Blogger 24601 on the Daily Kos wailing about the lack of leadership in the Democratic party.
We can change that, I think, through netroots. But only if NETROOTS does not become an ECHO CHAMBER for the current leadership.
Otherwise, our party leaders will pop in here, rally the troops, preach to the choir, and say, hey, when you get a chance, can you a spare a dime for the cause?
After all, we're better than the boogeymen, right?
Well, you can count me as one who will not be giving money until I see concrete proof of that the party realizes:
1. they have to stop chasing boogeymen, and start proposing solid reforms; and
2. that this isn't about '06, or '08, or '10, or '12...it's about building a party, not about elections
So far, the only one that seems to get it is Howard Dean. It's a good step. But he's got to bring the elected leadership along, or we need to start electing the new leaders ourselves.
I love my party, but I'm willing to inflict a little pain on it to make it stronger for the future.
Comments are closed on this story.