>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:01:32 -0500
> From: "Chris Kromm" <ckromm at mindspring.com>
> Subject: In Democratic Party, stirrings on the left
>
> FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2001
> Christian Science Monitor
>
> In Democratic Party, stirrings on the left
>
....
> The result may be a messier, more complicated job for Democrats, especially
> leaders in Congress. If the party decides to fight Republicans, it risks
> being tagged as obstructionist. But if it follows the public's desire for
> bipartisan cooperation - and decides to deal with Republicans - some in its
> own ranks may revolt.
>
What basis is there for taking for granted "the public's desire for bipartisan cooperation"? Or is this the usual business of establishment media attributing positions to the public which the elites would like them to have-i.e. manufacturing the preferred consensus.
> Representative Waters's wing of the party scorns President-elect Bush's $1.3
> trillion tax cut, his private-school vouchers plan, and his overall approach
> that would privatize certain areas of government. The group would rather see
> smaller tax cuts and bigger government spending.
>
Are across the board "tax increases" and "increased government spending" stated positions of the Black Caucus? (My understanding is that they support tax reductions for middle and low incomes and reduced government spending on the military.) Or is the factual claim yet another straw man attributed to the left for the centrists to knock down?
> Perils of obstructionism
>
> But Democratic leaders hoping to capture the House and Senate in 2002 are
> loath to be seen as obstructionist.
Even if it means putting a KKK sympathesizer at the head of the justice department? Btw, what the hell is with Feingold and (I think) Wellstone both of whom have already come on board for Ashcroft? How deperate are they to show that Nader was right that all Dems (left, right and center) should be flushed down the toilet?
> They remember too well the 1994
> Republican class and its uncompromising conservatism. When the federal
> government shut down, the public saw Newt Gingrich and company as the cause
> for gridlock - and punished them for it in the 1996 election.
>
The tacet assumption is that opposing the far right constitutes "uncompromising leftism." Very interesting.
> "There is a limit to how far being an obstructionist can take you as a
> party," says Rep. Charles Stenholm (D) of Texas, a member of the party's
> conservative "Blue Dog" wing. "Certainly no one has that as an agenda for a
> way to take the House back."
>
When, in the last twenty years (or more) have the Democrats been obstructionists? What they've been is enablers.
> To many Democrats, how the minority party deals with Bush is more than a
> Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group of
> moderate Democrats, worries that in the next few years the party could
> swerve away from the centrist course Mr. Clinton steered.
>
God forbid. Personally, I think he's wrong to be worried, but I could be wrong.
> The wide space between the two sides might leave fertile ground for
> compromise - especially because "politicians know the public ... is tired of
> the partisan bickering," he says. "There's incentive for them to say, 'Look,
> I'll compromise if you will.' "
>
Personally, I love bipartisan bickering, i.e. debates on issues, and I think "the public" would like it to if they ever had a chance to hear it. Why not give it a try?
> "We will be sure to ask the questions they want us to ask," says top Senate
> Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota. But Mr. Daschle and others know that
> while they can voice pointed questions, actually denying Bush his cabinet
> choices would poison the air - and likely anger the public.
>
What are Daschle's grounds for believing this?
> In the end, all the current noise on Capitol Hill may just be so much
> posturing.
>
Meaning that Dems have no real objection to having a Klansman at the top of the justice department. Glad to have that spelled out.
> Expect the dealmaking to begin behind closed doors, says Professor Wayne.
> That way, he says, "they can work out the details secretly and then jointly
> announce them and both take credit for them." In fact, he says, "it's the
> quiet signs" - the early closed-door meetings - that will determine whether
> the two sides set the stage for compromise.
>
I look forward to the Dems "taking credit" for Ashcroft. I wonder why they didn't feel so good about the equal credit they deserve for Scalia and Thomas.
> But he sees dangers in posturing. "Partisan politics seems to develop a
> certain momentum that's hard to break once you get into it," he says. "If
> public positions harden," and there isn't agreement to work together in
> private, "it can start to mushroom - and get out of control."
>
So posturing means taking a principled stand against racists, toxic waste dumped into rivers, corporate criminals, insane weapons programs etc. Always good to know what the Washington consensus is on these points.
John