Who would have guessed that running on the politics of hope was a smart move
after all?
From 2000 to 2006, Democrats enjoyed unprecedented party unity. Their
combined outrage over the Florida recount, Ralph Nader's spoiler role and
the Iraq war, along with their omnibus Bush hatred, forced left-wing
activists to rally around the Democratic banner. They believed that they
constituted a broad "movement," that they embodied the authentic voice of
the people, that they would "take back" America and, once in power,
transform it. If only Democrats ran things, there'd be no war, our allies
would love us, global warming would be brought to heel, and we would have
universal health care, happily married gay neighbors and embryonic stem
cells for everybody.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, this was the perfect environment for
Hillary Clinton. Any Democrat would deliver a New Politics, she argued, so
why not vote for the most experienced one with the best chance in the
general election?
Meanwhile, Barack Obama's airy rhetoric about hope inspired people, but
voting for him seemed like a luxury, a self-indulgence. Meanwhile, Hillary
could win, and winning was all Democrats needed.
Now the climate has changed. Twice since the Democrats took over Congress
with a much-trumpeted "mandate" to end the war, they've ended up voting to
fund it, and it looks like it will happen again. The Bush and Maliki
administrations have announced a long-term partnership that will permit
military bases in Iraq for years, if not generations, to come. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's antiwar point man, Rep. Jack Murtha, accidentally admitted
last week that the surge was working. And we've now learned that Pelosi and
other leading Democrats have known about CIA waterboarding since 2002 and
were apparently fine with it then.
If I were a Nader-ite, I would be mad enough to drive my Prius over the
family cat.
Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the myth that the Democrats' 2006 victory
represented some sort of tidal wave of good-government reform is laying on
the ground in a battered heap of implausibility. Senate Democrats recently
abandoned the canard of "paygo" - a budgeting gimmick that requires paying
for tax cuts or spending increases with spending cuts or tax increases
elsewhere. Pork-barrel spending - the GOP's Achilles' heel in '06 - is now
the Democrats' problem.
Three stories from Monday of this week tell the tale. The headline of a
front-page Washington Post article on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
"Hoyer Is Proof of Earmarks' Endurance." And there's the Los Angeles Times'
front-pager on Hillary: "Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel." And Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid said it best himself in Monday's Roll Call: "Have
we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we
improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've
done a lot of things."
If I were a netrooter, I'd be so frustrated that I might post a really,
really angry comment on a blog in ALL CAPS.
The re-emergence of traditional rifts on the left was inevitable. Years of
powerlessness obscured the divides between, for example, liberal
internationalists, left-leaning realists and ideological opponents of
American "empire." Continued... |