Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

The topic below was originally posted yesterday, on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday.

Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they’re concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for.

Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase “working majority” during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.


Read More +/-

This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims.

Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode “It’s A Good Life.” Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we’re dealing with.

The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation, the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut’s “Independent” Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives.

Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama’s political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it.

Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic, senators a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear.

The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush’s insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is a delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it’s this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Is 2008 the Year Democrats Finally Realize Iraq Is An Occupation?

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree, the Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus, the Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.

In 2007, the Democratic Party was a self-gelding machine of ineptitude. Activists such as myself worked feverishly in 2006 to retake congress and end America’s occupation of Iraq. Instead the Bush Administration implemented a “surge” as Democrats retreated from flexing their constitutional muscle. They continued to fund military operations, never invoked the War Powers Act and impeachment was taken off the table.

Remarkable considering how unpopular both the Iraq occupation and President Bush had become. Cracks even appeared in the façade of GOP unity as their Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell warned the Bush Administration that congressional Republicans would not allow Iraq to harm their electoral prospects in 2008. Indeed, on June 26th the Washington Post quoted McConnell as saying,

“I anticipate that we'll probably be going in a different direction in some way in Iraq. And it'll be interesting to see what the administration chooses to do."

McConell was anticipating the September testimony of Army General David H. Petraues. Yet as 2007 ends there is no denying that the unpopular Bush Administration successfully thwarted both the Democratic majority and the will of the people. How did this happen?

One can offer all sorts of explanations. Among them is that sixty-votes are required in the Senate and a thin Democratic majority had no real shot of making a difference. Others may prefer to scapegoat Moveon.org for their controversial “Betray Us” advertisement prior to the testimony of the highly decorated General Petraeus. Finally, some may simply contend that the surge worked and the rationale for withdrawal no longer applies.

Personally, I believe Democrats never truly wanted to end our occupation in Iraq. Iraq had sapped Bush’s popularity into oblivion, debased the Republican brand and helped fill Democratic coffers. Hence, both Reid and Pelosi were content to pursue the politics of symbolism without truly forcing the Administration’s hand.

Casting symbolic votes about timetables appeared safe and had the added advantage of keeping congressional Republicans on the defensive for supporting an unpopular war. It seemed a sure way to enhance their congressional majority as well as retake the White House but changed nothing on the ground. As a result, 2007 ends with congressional Democrats appearing impotent and unprincipled. Is it any wonder their poll ratings are so low?

Tragically, Democrats failed to realize that the American public opposed the war because we were perceived as losing rather than believing toppling Saddam’s government was wrong. Furthermore, even Americans who opposed the war from the beginning are instinctively repulsed at the notion of “losing” a war. Culturally, Americans don’t accept losing a war gracefully. Most countries don’t. For example, the Vietnam War was unpopular at the end yet liberals were easily stigmatized as weak defeatists for opposing it. Hence, once the so-called surge helped establish superficial conditions of stability, casting symbolic votes about withdrawal deadlines ceased to be effective.

It is therefore imperative that in 2008 Democrats stop referring to Iraq as a war but an occupation instead. The war in Iraq was both ill conceived and immoral. Many citizens including myself took to the streets and protested in 2002-2003. We didn’t protest because we feared losing. Rather we didn’t accept the rationale for the war and feared the occupation to follow.

The war as we all know ended when President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.” Saddam’s regime was easily toppled and weapons of mass destruction were never found. The military did its job. The war was wrong but it happened and we won. We have been sustaining a brutal occupation since its conclusion. Occupations typically result in the wholesale deaths and torture of civilians. Maintaining an occupation is corrupting to the “victor.” Numerous people including bloggers and thinkers far more intelligent and eloquent than myself already reached that conclusion and the folly of buying into Bush’s framing the Iraq debate as a “war.”

As George Lakoff wrote on July 5, 2006,

“In an occupation, there are pragmatic issues: Are we welcome? Are we doing the Iraqis more harm than good? How badly are we being hurt? The question is not whether to withdraw, but when and how? What to say? You might prefer ‘End the occupation now’ or ‘End the occupation by the end of the year’ or ‘End the occupation within a year,’ but certainly Congress and most Americans should be able to agree on ‘End the occupation soon.’ In an occupation, not a war, should the president still have war powers? How, if at all, is the Supreme Court decision on military tribunals at Guantanamo affected if we are in an occupation, not a war? What high-handed actions by the President, if any, are ruled out if we are no longer at war?”

If Democrats at long last get their heads out of their ass the “surge” can be looked upon in its appropriate context. Yes, the surge reduced deaths of American GIs. Tactically it’s been a success. To deny that is to ignore reality. Even more significant are the Iraqi Sunnis resisting al Quaeda themselves. But what does any of that have to do with ending America’s immoral occupation, facilitating a political settlement inside Iraq and earning a measure of diplomatic good will in the Muslim world? As long as this occupation has a white Christian face we’ve condemned ourselves to walking on a toxic treadmill. The occupation is not beneficial to America or Iraq.

On December 4th, I interviewed talk radio’s Thom Hartmann, about his new book Cracking The Code: How To Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision. Hartmann eloquently echoes Lakoff about framing Iraq as an occupation instead of a war in his book. He noted during our interview that immediately after he and Lakoff suggested the “occupation” frame in 2006, Democrats took their advice. But they soon reverted to talking about Iraq as a war. Hartmann further observed that the corporatist media finds the war frame too profitable. Writing and broadcasting about an “occupation” doesn’t sell as well or profit companies such as General Electric who have a financial stake in the media as well as military operations. The media is not going to describe Iraq as an occupation any time soon.

So it’s up to the reality based community of citizen journalists, bloggers, activists and just plain regular people to set the record straight. Many progressive bloggers reading this thread properly realized this long ago. But as we head into 2008 a reminder is in order. I for one plead guilty of too often playing into the hands of predatory conservatives and describing Iraq as a war.

So no matter what presidential candidate you’re supporting in 2008, please let their campaigns know you want Iraqi policy referred to as an “occupation” and be assertive about it. Please telephone and write your representatives in congress as well (click here and here ). And on your blogs refer to Iraq as an occupation every time you post about it. Any street protests should also reinforce the message that we're opposing an occupation. Our 2008 New Years resolution should be to once and for all shift the terms of debate about Iraq from being a “war” to an “occupation.” At stake is the blood of our GIs, innocent Iraqi civilians and ending America’s estrangement from the civilized world.