(TPJ 185)
by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – March 26, 2008
A little over two years ago, Steve Gheen kindly asked me to
comment on this article by Greg Sargent (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10814, greg_sargent@newyorkmag.com)
and its contents. That column appeared on February 9, 2006. This
one is being written on February 21, 2008.
The Democratic primary season is gradually coming to a
close. Unless something very
unusual has happened between the time I wrote this just after the Wisconsin
primary, and the time you are reading it, Sen. Barack Obama is the presumptive
Democratic nominee. Mr. Sargent’s article raised critical “where do we go
from here?” questions going into the 2006 Congressional elections. Mr. Sargent pointed out that an early Democratic Party take on
the “Abramoff Scandal” as it was being called for short (and boy, did that
become old news quickly, didn’t it) is that the Party should focus on
Republican corruption and how to deal with it.
Mr. Sargent said: “A few polls suggest
this early strategy is yielding short-term results. But it nonetheless begs a
big question: Can Dems really expect this argument to translate into the
lasting gains they’re hoping for? Or should they be trying to formulate a
strategy that goes beyond merely tarring the GOP as the corrupt party and looks
for ways of weaving the mushrooming scandal into larger arguments about the
Republican Party’s most conspicuous domestic failings?”
As I said then, I think that the thinking had to go far beyond
that issue, and in certain quarters, thankfully, is indeed well beyond it
now. The Dems have to get beyond simply looking at what particular issues
they might win with and should be running with. I still think that it has
to begin with a focus on what continuing dominance of what I call the
“Georgites” in national policy and governmental administration means to the
country and its future. Then it needs to develop the Democratic
alternatives, and why they the country desperately needs them as
replacements.
This is indeed a different approach to winning elections. It begins with “why should we win?” and then proceeds to “what
can we win with?” rather than dealing with the first as a sideline if at
all and focusing entirely on the second as both of the above responses
do. To a certain extent it is this contrast in approach that has
differentiated the Clinton and Obama campaigns. If one does that, a
rather different strategy emerges. What have the Georgites done to our
country? Well, most readers of The Political Junkies know the
answer to that question very well. If you don’t already you just have to
read Mickey Walker’s great columns on the subject.
What are the most important ones (as I saw them at the beginning
of 2006)? I would agree that under the Republicans political corruption
has been carried to its highest level since the regimes of two previous
Republicans, Warren G. Harding and Ulysses S. Grant, perhaps even outdoing
those two worthies. But this harm pales in comparison with others.
As regular readers of TPJ know, from our statement of purpose to our frequent
articles on the subject, the prime goal must be to defeat the Georgites in
their increasingly ferocious drive to overturn US Constitutional Democracy and
replace it with what some observers call a “Unitary Executive.” Others more
correctly identify it as open theocratic fascist dictatorship. It was so
refreshing to see Al Gore take on this issue in his Martin Luther King Day
speech that was reprinted in this page on January 19, 2006. This is
absolutely issue No. 1 in my view. If we lose this battle, we can forget
about the specifics of “energy and health care,” so beloved as (loss) leaders
by the avatars of the DLC (and their remaining candidate, Hillary Clinton)
quoted in the Sargent article.
To win, that is to defeat Georgitism, the Democrats will have to
develop a whole new series of political tactics, beginning with an
understanding of what “always attack, never defend” really means and how to do
it, over and over again. I dealt with the tactical issues at length in a
series of columns written during the Kerry Campaign (most of which can be found
through the links list every week at the end of my columns), will not revisit
them here, and will get back to them again on TPJ at some time in the
future. I will most likely be resurrecting some of those columns this
year, in fact, as we get into the Presidential campaign itself.
At this point I must say that I was wrong when in my column of
Dec. 5, 2007 (TPJ No. 172) I characterized Sen. Obama as the second part of the
DLC “entry” in the Democratic Primaries, along with Sen. Clinton. I could
not have been more wrong. The biggest difference between Clinton and
Obama is that she is the candidate of the task lists for which she has the
“solutions” as she so readily tells us, while he is the candidate of vision,
knowing that if we have a new vision, Hope as he defines it, for our country
and it takes control of the Executive Branch from the Constitution-destroyers,
the solutions will come right along.
On November 25, 2005 I published in this space my proposed “Ten
Commitments” for the Democratic Party. I republish them (again)
here. My primary list for the most part eschewed specific legislative
proposals. Rather, for the most part it looked at principles. With
apologies to the wonderful Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun for the title of my
list (http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/ten_commitments), I put forward my
proposed Draft “Ten Commitments.”
Henceforth, the Democratic Party will be committed to:
I. A full, planned withdrawal from all military
activity in Iraq, including the construction and maintenance of bases, by a
date certain, accompanied by a reactivation of the Israel/Palestine peace
process along the lines of the proposed Geneva Accords, further accompanied by
a return to the multi-lateral foreign policy that worked so well for our
country from the time we entered the Second World War until the advent of
Georgitism, and a return to abiding by the UN Charter, which forbids
“pre-emptive war” of the Georgite type. (A specific plan for achieving
that withdrawal can be found in my column of Dec. 15, 2005.)
II. Making the protection and promotion of Constitutional
Democracy, in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution including
the Preamble, the center of the Party’s approach to governing. A return
to the Constitutional System of checks and balances and the requirement that
the President fully abide by the Constitution is essential.
The Preamble to the Constitution states: “We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
III. A vision of government that is defined by the Preamble, which
understands that big problems require big solutions, that when necessary for
the common economic good, government needs to be big, that the Norquist
Doctrine of Bathtub Government needs to be flushed down the toilet. This
vision specifically rejects Clintonian (past and future) “incrementalism.” On
the other hand, in accord with the prescriptions of the Constitution, when it
comes to such matters as belief as to when life begins, freedom of expression,
and adult personal behavior, government needs to be small. This is the
exact opposite of the Republican, anti-Constitutional view, which wants
government to be overwhelmingly big when it comes to said matters of personal
belief, rights, liberties, and freedom, and overwhelmingly small when dealing
with the economy.
IV. A return to totally free and fair elections, and a
full-scale assault on the Republican strategy of Grand Theft Elections.
(See: the recent GAO analysis, at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20051021122225-53143.pdf,
the Report of the Carter-Baker election reform commission, http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/203832.htm,
and Mark Crispin Miller’s new book, Fooled Again.)
V. A Pledge of honesty, integrity, openness, and a return to
the traditional arms-length relationship between government and the private
sector for all elected and politically-appointed government officials. A
specific pledge to which all Democratic candidates for elected office and
Democratic nominees for political appointments will be asked to subscribe will
be developed.
VI. The broad and forward projection of the most important Values
that define a civil society: pluralism in matters of religion in accordance
with the First Amendment; tolerance of difference; the promotion of compassion
and sharing the burden, leaving behind the Doctrine of Every Man for Himself
and the Devil Take the Hindmost; the full promotion of human rights at home and
abroad; the understanding that healthy sex is healthy and unhealthy sex is not
and that for adults sex is a private matter; and the end to the promotion of
the criminalization of personal belief in matters of morality and adult sexual
identity and behavior.
VII. A taxation policy designed to support Commitment III,
with the sharing of the burden in accordance with ability to pay.
VIII. Regulation of the market for goods and services
designed to insure that it is both free and fair.
IX. The development of an Energy Policy that will deal with
the potentially disastrous and very real problem of global warming, as well as
ensuring that ample energy will be available to support modern human life after
the petroleum runs out.
X. The establishment of nomination and hiring standards
for political appointees designed to ensure competence in government. A
specific list of standards will be developed.
This is where I think the Democratic Party has to go. My
only possible change now would be to, in light of the Alito nomination and the
Gore speech, flip I and II. If one begins with principles, one can then
go to develop an election campaign strategy designed to win with them. If
one tries to pick out “what issues can we win with?” first without examining
and establishing principles, one almost assures losing. Neither our
country, nor indeed the world, nor indeed in my view the human species as we
know it, could afford that.
As of the time of this revisit, it looks like Senator Obama is
following that prescription. If he is indeed, let us hope that he will
get the chance to apply it to our nation.