home

Mollified? No, But Misguided

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

In a short note, Chris Bowers takes umbrage at the charge, apparently leveled at him, that he has been "mollified," which I took to mean, coopted:

I'm not "mollified" because the majority of Democrats are with us on pretty much every issue. I just don't think it is fair to argue that Democratic Party in general was in favor of torture, or any other piece of legislation where the majority of Democratic elected officials voted against it. I hate that lazy thinking that because some Democrats voted for something, somehow it is OK to say that Democrats in general were complicit with it. And I stand by that.

Well, I think it is ridiculous to argue Chris has been "mollified"/ coopted. But it is not ridiculous to argue that Chris' reaction to the Democratic performance on the atrocity known as the Detainee Bill was wrong. Of course he was not alone. At the Daily Kos community, calls to "calm down" were rampant on Thursday. And those calls were wrong too. I'll explain why I think so on the flip.

I am, as my moniker notes, a big tent Democrat, not one who is likely to have lines drawn in the sand. While pro-choice, I welcome anti-choice voters to our Party. While pro-free trade, I hope that "fair traders" will not want to drum me out of the Party. But the events of today are different. Outrage and shame for the efforts and votes of our Democratic officials strikes me as the right reaction. Remaining calm the inappropriate one. Thursday was a dark day for our nation, and to not recognize and appreciate that is not the right attitude for a committed progressive Democrat in my view.

Barack Obama said:

I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

Leader Harry Reid said

History will judge our actions here today. I am convinced that future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error. I wish to be recorded as one who voted against taking this step.

I believe Sen. Reid made a tactical mistake by not fighting in a filibuster, instead of in amendments. But I do not doubt Sen. Reid and Senator Obama would have filibustered had the votes been there.

I am ashamed and outraged that 25% of our Democratic representatives, people like Harold Ford and Sherrod Brown, Jay Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Menendez and Bill Nelson, chose politics over what was right on this monumental issue. Thursday was the most egregious day in the Bush Era. The Congress, with the support of 25% of the Democrats, voted unprecedented powers to the President, condoned state sanctioned torture and eviscerated the Constitution.

That Republicans would be a part of this is not a surprise. That 25% of Democrats were is a surprise, shameful, outrageous, shocking and hurtful. Yes, hurtful. Because we believe in the Democratic Party on the most basic level. That it believes in what is right.

Yes, as Obama notes, politics is politics. But is politics everything? Is principle nothing? Do Democrats stand for anything anymore? Not even the Constitution? The rule of law? Human decency? Do the 25% who betrayed the principles of our country and Party believe in nothing?

I am outraged and ashamed that these people are Democrats. I will let them know. Does that mean I won't support the Democratic Party anymore? Of course not, but these rogue Dems will know that if we get a chance to replace them, we will. Because they weren't Democrats today. At least not what I think Democrats are.

Of course the kicker is that these Democrats, these rogue 25%, who think they are playing smart politics are just plain dumb as well. Bob Menendez needs trouble with his base right now? Is he nuts? Sherrod Brown? The rest (maybe Harold Ford made the right political call, but who knows)?

Chris Bowers took the tack of "keep your eyes on the prize." And that was wrong. The prize, the big prize is our country, our Constitution, our values, our principles. And on that day, it behooved all progressives to speak up about the outrage of these rogue Democrats. Chris and many others wanted to brush that under the rug. That was wrong.

In a must-read post today, Digby wrote:

As I watched the torture debate unfold this week, I was acutely aware of exactly those deficiencies in the party and saw the whole ugly mess as a result of terrible partisan tactics and non-existent strategy. But something else niggled at the back of my mind. There was something tremendously meaningful happening about which Democrats of good faith were deeply concerned and it had nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with citizenship.

Citizenship is why we are Democrats, or so we thought. Chris Bowers and those like him forgot this. And he not only lost his moral way, but he made a bad political judgment, as did the Democratic Party that did not bring more pressure to bear on its rogue elements. Ben Nelson and Tim Johnson and Harold Ford can be explained away. Bob Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Sherrod Brown and Jay Rockefeller can not be explained away.

Digby says:

I was reminded one of one the previous times such an outrageous, hurried, ill conceived machination was presented as a fait accomplis by the Bush administration and it brought millions of people into the streets -- the Iraq war. I recall pragmatic voices saying at the time that protesting was a bad move, that it hurt our image, that we should concentrate on gaining institutional power. And I wrote at the time that I understood why people said that, but you have to give people something more than dry tactics and strategy in politics:

People need to feel part of something in order to get involved in politics. And as someone who has volunteered in many a campaign I can tell you that for the last decade it has had all the uplifting inspiration of the Bataan death march. It is work with no satisfaction in the soul or spirit and without that politics becomes nothing more than a duty.

I thought about that this week. Most people don't commit themselves to politics simply because they want to win or even because they want to stop someone else from winning (although when dealing with these modern Republicans that is a huge factor.) Most of us are interested and involved because we believe in certain things and we care about our country and our government. We band together with others who share our ideology and our values.

Indeed, if you want an energized base, to be pragmatic about it, you can not spit in their face, as 25% of the Democratic Party did last Thursday. Chris Bowers and those like him simply misunderstand this. At their peril. It is not surprising that Chris was wrongly accused of being mollified. Because his mistaken take on the events of Thursday could lead people to reasonably conclude that he has been coopted. His reaction, and those of too many, was so off key, so amoral, that it seems a bit trite to now complain about the reasonable reactions to his reactions.

Digby says:

I want to win, don't get me wrong. And I'm a pragmatist by nature so I have little patience with purity pledges or tilting at windmills. But I am explicitly liberal in orientation and I want to see this country tilt back to a more liberal politics. If I was afraid to make a point of that before this week I no longer am. I learned that even upholding the constitution is now a matter of liberal political ideology instead of simple mainstream patriotism.

I am not a liberal. I am a Centrist. I believe that the event of Thursday were a question of mainstream patriotism. If the Republican Party had stood by the Constitution on Thursday, I would have applauded them. I did not expect the Republican Party to. I did expect the Democratic Party to, to the point of near unanimity. That is why I am a Democrat. I was taught on Thursday that my belief was not based in reality. Naively, I was shocked and disgusted by 25% of our Democratic officials on Thursday. And yes, that did weaken my commitment to the Democratic Party. And I am sure I am not alone.

So, in my view, not only were the actions of 1/4 of the Democratic Party morally bereft, it was politically stupid as well. No one who favors torture will be swayed by the actions of these Democrats on Thursday. But a lot of Democrats will be moved to care less about the Democratic Party because of it.

My DD has a series they call the Ad Accountability project, where they evaluate political advertising by Democrats. Too bad a little accountability was missing on the events of Thursday.

< 155 Dead in Brazilian Plane Crash | The Truth Hurts: Hiatt is Right >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    BTD: I agree with you, but with a twist. I am livid about this. Because I am livid about this, I feel more than usually unwilling to let myself do things that do not actually address what I am livid about. And what I am really livid about is: what is happening to our country. I will get to those Democrats who sold this out in due course. Right now, however, the only thing I am focussed on is preventing anything like this from happening ever again. This, to me, means two things: (a) elect a Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress, preferably including people (Sestak, Webb, Duckworth) who are confident on national security, and will fight back when people try to mau-mau them; and (b) do whatever I can to fix the broken discourse in this country that allows things like this to happen. Which means that I see where the 'calm down!' people are coming from: they are terrified that others will pick up their marbles and go home, at the very moment when we need everyone. And I understand where you are coming from, since I'm not sure it's conceptually possible to be angrier about this than I am, and "calming down" is not the right response. We are completely justified in being angry. But for that very reason, we need to keep our eyes on the ball.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    Actually, there was no reason for a Democrat to vote for torture, or for gutting habeas. Nobody's going to vote for a Democrat for casting such a vote. For that matter, there wasn't any reason for a Republican to vote for it either. It's just a way to go the grave ashamed that whatever lofty ideas one might have had about being in politics as a child have become so perverted along the way as to become invisible. There's nothing "Liberal" or "Conservative", nothing "Democratic" or "Republican," about standing up for the Constitution [The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...] or the Geneva Conventions. I don't want to ever calm down about it. I think that's what a lot of Congressmen did, calm down and forget what they're there for.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#2)
    by CMike on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    Excellent post. I knew this was coming. The Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April of 2004 it seemed like the plan was to make a little political hay and show contempt for a few enlistees, then there was a lot of undernourished, tedious whining about the use of the word "quaint" in that White House memo during the Janurary 2005 Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearing and then I heard the sound of a sigh of cowardly relief from our elected Democrats when the Supreme Court belatedly stepped up and took responsiblity on the detainee matter by ruling on the Hamdan case in June of 2006. Even after we started hearing about the purchase of legal insurance by CIA agents and President Bush's call for legislation we still never heard our elected Democrats stake out a well reasoned position on the issue. At the last minute all we were left with were some pathetic and entirely problematic claims that "torture doesn't work." Our party is so, so far from standing united for anything other than getting elected.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    Hilzoy: Why I disagree - these rogue Democrats must be told that there actions are unaccepta b;, and be told now. Does that mean working for Republicans? Of course not but displeasure, Loud displeasure MUST be registered. Immediately. Registering the sting of that displeasure in the heart of a n election cycle will have much more impact than whatever we say AFTER November. It wil register now. It won't register later. And they will do it again, counting on folks like us to hold our fire. It's now or never in my view. And this issue, of all issues, demands it. More than the Bankruptcy bill and every other issue that folks have got upset about, including IWR. Why? Because this one was NOT arguable. Not one little bit. So I strongly disagree with you.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    "Sestak, Webb, Duckworth" How sad it is that when speaking of people to fight for our rights as citizens you rest our hopes upon a war criminial ( obeyed illegal orders to pursue an illegal war) whose only value was she was willing to be a carpetbagger and torpedo a progressive while just obeying the orders of another "superior" Emmanuel. A retired military apparachek and a reaganite who still glory's in addled rons near bankrupcy of the country while violating the constitution with Iran/contra and international law with the mining of Nicaraguan harbors. This is to sad for words. "Sestak, Webb, Duckworth"

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    BTD: I am furious at the Democrats, and I have made my displeasure known. That said, the main object of my fury is the group of people who set this whole policy in motion: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. And I when I ask myself how to get them back and make sure that they can't do anything else like this ever again, I just can't think of anything better than: Democrats with subpoena power.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    Ken and hilzoy illustrate the heart of the dilemma - we must look to our leaders to LEAD change, yet the best of the leaders are compromised nearly as much as the worst. To whom, then, can we turn and expect real change, real ethics, real leadership? I don't think that person exists at this moment, and if such a person did exist, she would be labeled the antiChrist. This universe was never one for ethics. Jake

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#8)
    by msobel on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    I had called Senator Salazar's office and was told that he opposed the torture bill so I was surprised at his vote. I have words of some comfort for those of you disgusted with Salazars' voting for the torture bill, I have a thesis on Ken Salazar's voting record: In general, if there is a costly (risky) vote on a matter of principle where his vote is potentially going to make the difference on the measure, he will vote the right way, if his vote doesn't matter, he votes the easy way. In other words, he doesn't do symbolic votes where there is a significant downside risk. Notice he voted the right way on the habeus corpus amendment. (48-51) but the wrong way on the overall bill (65-34) Now given a person who is trying to appear (or is) a conservative democrat, and since the wrong way these days is usually the conservative position, this makes sense. You can disagree with the validity or morality of his choice but it makes sense. I think the bankruptcy bill (74-25) was another example. None of this makes his position moral or smart, just a little understandable.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    I'm pretty sick of hearing that someone didn't do something because they 'didn't have the votes.' I'd rather see the good fight fought and lost than someone claiming victory because a bad bill isn't as bad as it would have been. Habeus is corpus delicti and as far as I'm concerned the actions that will result from these law, until/if they are overturned by the judiciary, should mean anyone who voted for it will be standing in the dock at The Hague with bush, et al.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:04:24 PM EST
    Hilzoy: You wrote "BTD: I am furious at the Democrats, and I have made my displeasure known." So you didn't calm down? Exactly my point.

    Re: Mollified? No, But Misguided (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    Actually, regarding Ford, at least among those *I* know it was a suicidally stupid move. No one I know is voting this Nov. We *were* guaranteed votes, but none will approve this move. There must be a profound shift in TN congressional politics before *any* of us reeenter those booths. If the Republican wins, it ain't like there's been a viable alternative before us. Ford is filth. Or at least willing to behave like filth to win our votes. -d