There have been thousands of words written in recent days about the Democrats’ failure to show any backbone and stand up to one of history’s least popular presidents on an issue that is vital to the health and survival of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The New York Times, for instance, called the party’s Senate leaders “feckless” today in an editorial; Glenn Greenwald offers this dissection; and Chris Floyd of Empire Burlesque offers this and this.
But none have been able to top Arthur Silber, who makes the point — a valid one I think — that the Democrats and Republicans share a basic goal, shared also by corporate America: Control.
(T)he Democrats may differ from the Republicans on matters of detail, or emphasis, or style. But with regard to the fundamental political principles involved, everything that has happened over the last six years — just as is the case with everything that has happened over the last one hundred years — is what the Democrats want, too.
It may seem a bit extreme, but an honest evaluation of Democratic presidencies — and wars, as offered by Silber — doesn’t exactly show the party to be a shining light of populism or progressive principles. State liberalism in the form of the Democratic Party has really been little more than the flip side of the old business conservatism — a system designed to keep the corporate engine humming.
They could have made a stand here, stopped the president in his tracks and forced the national GOP to stand as the paragon of repressive government the party has become.
But instead the Democrats stood down. A cowardly move, perhaps, but as Floyd says in his post, the Demcorats “cop to cowardice to cover up complicity.” (This criticism exempts Rush Holt, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold and the others who were willing to fight, but whose swords were taken from them.)
Am I sounding a tad angry? Is my natural lefty populism showing through? What do you expect when a party that has been elected to reverse six years of domestic neglect, foreign misadventure and religious pandering manages to cave on the most important of issues and refuses to truly engage the public on several others (universal health care, anyone?).
The game, of course, is rigged. We are not likely to see a viable progressive third-party presence running at the national level. The system affords just two choices — bad and dangerous. Democrats may be bad, but the current crop of Republican candidates are downright dangerous.
I may not be ready for a return of Clinton corporatism, but I can’t see how a Rudy Giuliani presidency would be good for America or for the world — and he may be the best of this ugly lot of Republican wannabes.
So I and too many others will vote for a candidate come November 2008 that we don’t like because we dislike the other major candidate more. And then we’ll complain about our lack of choices for four years and do it again.
Is this any way to run a democracy?
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 