Hi. I send you these essays not because I believe in a two-party system or that the Democratic Party will be transformed by a progressive movement committed to that party. The one time in our history that happened was in the 1930's, with FDR and by an enormous, burgeoning labor movement critically organized and influenced by a large, experienced Communist Party. Good or bad, we're incredibly far from that.
I fully subscribe to Jeff Cohen's urging of developing independent movements that will demand such a pact, but skeptical that anything short of a third party or parliamentary system will ever work. That can never come about without the grass-roots organizing he prescribes, and probable failures thru the Democratic Party. Even a strong movement will only survive if it's skeptical about victory thru that agency. I pass on many such essays because, like almost all who receive these emails, see a nascent fascism being developed, step by blunderbuss step, by this administration. They must be stopped. Both essays go into the whats and hows of that, and we're all on the same side of the vision. This election has to be a turning point in that process and really, the only way to stop it. An absolutely critical step to keep democracy, erase these recent depredations, all the while building forces to expand the vision - our vision. I'll resend the ballot evaluations this afternoon. Ed http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin The Difference Two Years Made The New York Times | Editorial Sunday 05 November 2006 On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible. That is why things are different this year. To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House - and for the most part, the Senate - during President Bush's tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country's dependence on foreign oil. Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition - and even the more moderate members of their own party - out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation. The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles. That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women's rights. For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president's ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don't need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything. An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today. Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons. After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error. In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president's campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush's goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary. This election is indeed about George W. Bush - and the Congressional majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate. *** Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/06cohen.cfm ================================== ZNet Commentary How to Turn This Election Into a Progressive Mandate November 06, 2006 By Jeff Cohen Many pundits are comparing the expected Democratic victory in the upcoming election to the Newt Gingrich-led Republican triumph of 1994, an election in which the GOP gained 52 House seats and ended 40 years of Democratic majority in that chamber. Unfortunately, the comparison may be overstated. Even if Democrats take control of the House, this will hardly be a triumph like 1994. The Gingrich-led GOP ran on a coherent, detailed, principled - albeit wrong-headed - platform called the "Contract with America." (One delightful promise: "cuts in social spending. . .to fund prison construction.") If Democrats win control of Congress in November, they can hardly claim a mandate for a coherent program. Because Democratic leaders have avoided a comprehensive program, while ducking big issues like Iraq. So if Democrats win on Nov. 7, don't think 1994. Think 1998. That was the stunning Congressional election in the sixth year of Bill Clinton, when he was about to be impeached - ridiculously - over deceptions about consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky. Voters went to the polls and shocked the Beltway (with pundits predicting GOP House gains of up to 15 or 20 seats) by giving Democrats a pickup of five seats. 1998 was nothing more - and nothing less - than a rejection of rightwing extremism run amuck. A rebuke to ideologues pursuing an agenda so zealously that they lost touch with public sentiment and with reality. It was also the beginning of a grassroots group called MoveOn http://moveon.org/ - as in "simply censure Clinton and move on to more important issues." A Democratic win in 2006 would be similar to 1998: a rejection of rightwing extremism and hypocrisy - from the Iraq disaster to fiscal abandon to preachers of morality and war lining their own pockets. So how do we make 2006 more than just a rejection of the other side? And with a wide-open presidential campaign approaching, how do we move a majority of the country to embrace a positive agenda for reform? First, by recognizing that change comes from below. Today's Democratic leadership may not have a coherent progressive agenda - but neither did FDR when he won the presidency in 1932. Powerful grassroots organizations and unions propelled the New Deal agenda and pushed the Democrats to enact one popular program after another that made them the dominant party for many years. Second, by fighting to change the Democratic leadership. This is especially crucial in advance of 2008. By and large, the current leadership has few principles, except taking power. . .and is generally inept at that. It's timid, waffling, too close to corporate interests and too afraid of the American public, especially on issues where the public is more progressive than they are - from Iraq withdrawal to trade to universal healthcare. That's why a progressive platform was avoided in 2006 - and why Democrats could not win in 2000, 2002 and 2004 (or win by enough to avoid the election being pilfered). 2006 should have been about a positive agenda - a permanent one, not something that needs to be reinvented every election cycle. But a progressive platform is unthinkable with pro-war corporatists like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel running the Democratic Senate and House campaigns, and often choosing the candidates (including a slew of hawkish pro-corporate types.) Democrats need a progressive compact with America emphasizing national health insurance, just taxation, living wages, jobs-producing energy programs, trade policies that protect incomes and the environment. Polls show these are popular measures with the American public; they are not so popular with corporate lobbyists and consultants close to Schumer, Emanuel and the Clinton wing of the party http://alternet.org/story/40482/. Mass organizations like MoveOn have a duty not only to mobilize voters and dollars to defeat Republicans on Election Day, but to work after election day to transform the Democrats into a winning (and growing) party that progressives can be proud of. That's the clear mission of a newer group, Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org/. Of course the biggest issue facing our country now and in the foreseeable future is Iraq. Yet top Democrats keep thinking they can sidestep it (which contributed to defeat in '04). Emanuel doesn't even list Iraq as an issue on his website today. That's not leadership. The Iraq invasion - supported by many top Democrats - was a destabilizing adventure that defied the U.N. and international law. Now that it's a bloody occupation, Democratic leaders like to criticize Bush (or Rumsfeld) not for going to war illegally, but for not managing the war well. As if it were possible to well-mange an occupation of a divided foreign country, while not understanding its religion or cultures, after having invaded it based on false pretense. These Democrats want to prolong an unsalvageable occupation despite polls showing that two-thirds of Iraqis believe US troops make the situation worse and that large majorities (including most of Iraq's parliament) want a prompt timeline for troop withdrawal. 37% of Iraqis want all troops out immediately; another 34% want them out within a year. A University of Maryland poll recently indicated that 61% of Iraqis actually support attacks on US troops. Not surprisingly, given the false justifications for the invasion, many Iraqis harbor suspicions about our government's designs on Iraq and its oil. With more US troops deployed to Baghdad in recent months, violence only worsened. As Iraq expert Phyllis Bennis points out http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/iraq_10-23.html, the presence of US troops is a cause of the violence, and foreign terrorists operate now within an umbrella of popular resistance to occupation that would afford them less protection if US troops departed. There are basically two options. 1) We can withdraw our troops in a prompt and orderly fashion, as we negotiate with Iraqi factions (including insurgents) and hand over diplomacy and peace-keeping to regional organizations and allies - while providing massive humanitarian/reconstruction aid to Iraq's people. Or 2) as in Vietnam, we can wait years to withdraw our troops, probably in a less orderly fashion, after more chaos and bloodshed. Yes, Democrats need to be strong on foreign policy - and even more important, smart. Prolonging the occupation of Iraq squanders lives, depletes our resources, and undermines our reputation and national security. Dodging such a huge issue does not project strength. It projects weakness and deceptiveness. With Republicans in meltdown mode, Democratic evasions may work in this election. The numbers may even suggest a landslide. But only activism aimed at winning a majority of Americans to a positive agenda for change will produce the political landslide our country needs. Let that campaign begin on November 8. * * * Jeff Cohen http://jeffcohen.org/ is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media http://www.amazon.com/Cable-News-Confidential-Misadventures-Corporate/dp/097606216X/sr=8-1/qid=1157854253/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3269566-1435014?ie=UTF8&s=books. He is on the advisory board of Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
