1115.org

As I’ve made clear over the last few weeks, I believe that the Democratic leaders in Congress have fallen down on the job. We’ve given credit where credit has been due, but the sluggish reaction to the Roberts nomination kicked off a string of botched decisions and bad mistakes culminating with the passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in the House.

It’s rather ironic that though I write about politics here every day, most readers would have a very hard time accurately placing me on a political spectrum (outside of “thinks president is ruining the country,” believes Congress is corrupt,” or “resents the power held by the religious right.”) It’s unfortunate that the last four years (and really the 11 since the Republican takeover in Congress) have forced many people into battling against what they abhor rather than fighting for their principles. But no one can choose their times, so we play the game that is on now.

As it happens, I fall much more on the “free” side of the trade debate because I believe that tariffs and other barriers are counterproductive and will harm the world economy in the long run. But like most free trade Democrats, I would rather be having this debate with someone else in the White House. George W. Bush pushed hard for CAFTA, but his free trade record has largely been a debacle. Massive farm subsidies, on-again-off-again steel tariffs, and stalling the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round are just a few examples of the President’s selective protectionism that rewarded key swing states in advance of his reelection campaign. And to make the situation even more muddled and hypocritical, CAFTA (which passed by only two votes) was nudged over the top by promises of future protectionism including textile tariffs and sugar subsidies. Bush and his allies are interested in free trade to the same extent that they are interested in anything: How many votes or campaign contributions does it win or lose them?

Am I being hypocritical for opposing passage of a bill that supports one of my core principles? I choose to look at it as a strategic decision that would have increased the odds of success in the near term, but CAFTA in the hands of a President who isn’t committed to free trade will cause more harm than good. More importantly, free trade is not more important to me than the fight for things like abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights and others, so I wouldn’t mind delaying things like CAFTA if it meant a black eye for the President and a victory for Democrats in Congress. With such a high profile personal lobbying effort by the President, a loss on CAFTA would have been a major blow. But instead of seeing more stories about the President as lame duck, the headlines read:

Bush victories delay lame-duck status
On Capitol Hill, A Flurry of GOP Victories
Despite Problems, Bush Continues to Make Advances on His Agenda
DeLay’s Week to Reassert Command

It didn’t have to be like this. In fact, 20 Republicans in the House voted against CAFTA because they knew they would be in trouble back home. But 15 Democrats sided with big business campaign contributors and handed the President a win rather than standing with their party and large majorities of their constituents. David Sirota, who has been warning about this has a list of the 15 Democrats, and more importantly, the 9 of them that voted for the atrocious bankruptcy bill and the equally bad class action lawsuit bill. These Democrats, in addition to enabling Republican legislation that rolls back citizen’s rights, are depriving their party of badly needed wins, solidarity, and issues for the ‘06 and ‘08 campaigns.

What’s causing this breakdown? Ineffective leadership and outmoded advice.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, despite fawning support from many (”go get ‘em Nancy,” “Ooooo, Nancy writes letters,” “future Speaker of the House Pelosi,” etc), isn’t getting it done. Of course it’s difficult to lead a weakened party in the majority-rules House, but Pelosi has proven incapable of even enforcing party loyalty, and is badly overmatched against Tom DeLay. No one is surprised that CAFTA passed; any bill that produces the kind of full-court press witnessed on Thursday is going to pass given the current imbalance of power. But Pelosi was spotted 20 votes by Republicans, and still found a way to lose. Her day late / dollar short threats to punish the 15 Democratic defectors comes about four votes after any chance of working. If Pelosi can’t convince rank-and-file Democrats to do the right thing by opposing a President with a 44% approval rating and a Republican majority with a 37% approval rating, there is little hope that she will ever lead us back to a majority in the House. It’s time to start identifying candidates to replace her unless she can turn it around before the ‘06 elections. Rahm Emanuel, never one to shy away from a fight, should be getting a look.

The loss on CAFTA can’t be pinned on Congressional Dems alone. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been pushing CAFTA as if it was their own invention rather than a bill written wholly by Republicans, exclusive of Democratic input. The DLC, no stranger to blog-based criticism, has been eating for a long time off of one Presidential victory (Bill Clinton in 1992) and some House and Senate wins. Their in-house bloggers and flagship magazine seem to enjoy attacking and belittling other Democrats who don’t happen to agree with their “New Democrat” ideas. Now I don’t know anyone in the DLC, so I’ll refrain from speculating about whether they are misguided or actually out to shatter the current Democratic coalition, but it’s one of the two. It’s hard to say why so many beltway Dems think that compromise is a viable option, when for years leading Republicans like Grover Norquist have been spouting quotes like:

“We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”

“Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.”

Yet the DLC, for whatever reason, still aims to push an agenda that, rather than starting from a position in line with mainstream Democrats and negotiating a compromise, starts by splitting the difference between Democrats and Republicans and then allows that position to get split once again when the ruling Republicans end up writing the legislation. The old white men of the DLC remind me of the old white men on The X-Files who sought compromise with the aliens who intended to colonize the earth:

State Department staff members have learned that the aliens encountered at Roswell are planning to colonize Earth in a process that will kill all humans. For reasons that are not completely clear, the Colonists negotiate to delay the colonization while the members of the Project develop both a means of distributing the alien Black Oil virus, as well as develop a race of human-alien hybrids that is immune to the Black Oil.
[…]
As time goes by, and no vaccine is developed, some members of the Consortium come to believe that slavery for the human race is better than death. They become more interested in their personal futures and gaining preferred status from the Colonists.

People outside of D.C. know that Norquist, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay aren’t joking around when they say they want to eliminate their opposition and build a permanent Republican majority. But the DLC and some in Congress continue to negotiate assuming that Republicans are bargaining in good faith and that a “third way” or “triangulated” solution is still possible, even given the choke-hold under which Washington operates. I back the DLC in their support of free trade, but their timing couldn’t be worse. Instead of being patient on CAFTA until Democrats held any power in Congress, they, like those who crossed the aisle, enabled a crucial win for the other side, and lengthened the odds we face in 2006.

Myopia is starting to become a pattern in Democratic-leaning organizations. The trainwreck in Rhode Island over the 2006 Senatorial election is another example: While no one expected NARAL to endorse the pro-life Democrat Jim Langevin, their support of Lincoln Chafee makes it more likely that Republicans will continue to set the agenda in the Senate, an outcome at odds with their mission. Republicans don’t have these sorts of problems, and it’s why they keep winning.

Watching the bad losses and bad advice accumulate on a daily basis is getting old. The same corporate money that buys Republicans and the DLC has rented some Congressional Dems. Real campaign finance reform should be a part of nationalizing the ‘06 mid-term elections, complete with DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and others as poster children for “government for sale.” In the interim, I can do without worthless leadership in the House and counterproductive strategy from DLC employee blogs which don’t find it necessary to defend DLC actions and fantasize of a John McCain-Bob Kerrey Presidential ticket.

It’s time to stand up or lean back.