As I’ve said before, in Parts 1 and 2 of this essay, the forgotten agenda in American politics is the advancement of human rights, at home and abroad. Domestically, it’s an agenda the Democratic party gradually abandoned after the death of LBJ’s presidency. Internationally, Democrats have have shown only an intermittent interest in promoting human rights. Presidents Carter and Clinton both spoke of it, but both failed to always live up to their own high sounding rhetoric.
But the true murderer of the American ideals of freedom and equality has been the conservative movement which first arose as a backlash to the successes of the New Deal and the civil rights movement. That conservative movement is profoundly undemocratic in nature, xenophobic, and based on hatred for those who can be portrayed as “different” (whether in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political beliefs). It has reached the apex of its power during the blighted presidency of George W. Bush. Under his leadership, the true nature of its ugly, racist, authoritarian face has come to the forefront of American politics, and worse, the policies of our federal government.
Far worse, however, has been the reaction of the Democratic Party, which has essentially abandoned the progressive and liberal agenda which led to its first majorities in Congress since the Civil War with the politically earth shattering election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.
Roosevelt’s agenda was one which placed an emphasis on the individual and sought to restrict the power that large corporations could exert to exploit those individuals, whether as workers or consumers. FDR’s policies emphasized consumer and worker protections, the right to form unions, the equality of educational opportunity and economic freedom. The rhetoric he and other “New Deal” proponents employed emphasized this point, referred to their agenda as one based on the principles of freedom and equality that all Americans are sought to cherish. In short, he was the primary American figure who both advanced, and expanded the meaning of, human rights in the last century.
Not surprisingly, the underlying goal of the conservative movement has been to roll back the gains in human rights which FDR initiated, both in terms of political rights and economic rights. And they have succeeded in many respects in taking this country back to a time in its history when individual liberty was de minimis, and corporate power (or as FDR liked to refer to it, the “Money Power”) reigned supreme. The fact that we have the greatest income inequality since the “Roaring Twenties” is evidence of that success, but it is not the only one. For example, the growth of “hate speech” talk radio, the consolidation and emasculation of the mainstream media, the recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, free speech, religion and abortion, the legal restrictions placed on unions, and the movement to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians, are all signs of its current position of the conservative movement’s political domination over our society.
My purpose today is to discuss immediate steps which the progressive movement in America can take to revitalize the forgotten agenda of America, the agenda that promotes freedom, equality and justice for all, in all the myriad ways that phrase is understood. The agenda of human rights.
(cont.)
First Principle: Working With the Democrats
If we could say only one thing about the Democratic Party over the last thirty years, that one thing in my mind would be summed up by the word “cowardice.” In the face of the well organized and well financed assault by conservatives, the Democratic Party has consistently failed to fight back, and failed to go on the offensive against the conservative agenda in any sustained and effective manner. Indeed, the party of FDR has become the spiritual heir of Eisenhower, a moderate Republican President more than that of any of the renowned Democratic presidents, such as FDR, JFK or Truman, from of the last century.
The economic policies of the Clinton administration, in advocating “free trade” like NAFTA and promoting American business interests first, before the interests of individuals at home or abroad, was little different from the policies of Eisenhower, Ford or even Nixon. The DLC, the conservative Democrats who, through Bill Clinton, gained ascendancy over the party talked a good game when it came to individual rights, but their policies favored corporations at the expense of workers rights. Clinton was more concerned with obtaining access to foreign markets for American businesses than he ever was for protecting American jobs.
The only truly “liberal” program (in the way that term was understood in FDR’s time) that Clinton proposed was he and his wife’s national health program, but even that was a mishmash of benefits for individuals balanced off against benefits for the large insurance and pharmaceutical companies who have a vested interest in preserving our present system; a system which doesn’t so much as ration health care, as deny it whenever possible. And after Clinton’s ignominious defeat over his health care plan, he never again seriously proposed any fundamental program to extend the rights of individual Americans. At best his administration delayed agenda of the Republican party for eight years; at worst, he actively worked with them to erode federal programs that assisted workers and the poor.
Yet, despite the failures of the Democratic Party, and the abandonment of those principles which first gained its greatest electoral victories and power during the middle years of the 20th Century, I truly believe that we must work from within the Democratic Party to promote progressive ideals and a progressive agenda, rather than through a third party. Part of that is due to the simple reality of our political infrastructure, which has been designed to protect and advance the interests of the two major parties. As much as I would prefer to “start over” with a new party dedicated to progressive causes, the reality is that such a step would be an exercise in futility. Unless one of the major parties were to collapse (not completely outside the bounds of our historical experience, but not exactly a common or recent occurrence either), we are stuck with pushing an progressive agenda, which seeks to advance the cause of increased human rights for all Americans, within the confines of the Democratic Party. In my opinion, of course.
However, this is not a completely bad thing. The truth of the matter is that the Democratic Party still has a large progressive faction within the party, one that has grown in number over the course of the Bush presidency. Indeed, it is fair to say that the progressive faction of the party is now larger than at any time since the mid-70’s. So we are not starting from scratch, as we would be with a new party. And in my view there are three things we can do immediately to refashion the Democratic Party into a party which stands for progressive ideals and a progressive platform.
Primary Challenges
We need to encourage more progressive candidates to run for office. The first thing we can do to achieve that goal is to support, with our money and our active participation, the campaigns of those progressive candidates who are challenging conservative or “centrist” incumbents or other challengers. As often as not, Democratic incumbents are as beholden to corporate lobbyists and special interests as Republicans.
Don’t forget, much of the worst anti-progressive legislation. Legislation such as the Bankruptcy reform bill, NAFTA, the Bush tax cuts, welfare reform (i.e., welfare eradication), the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act in all its permutations, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (to name but a few) were passed with the votes of many, many Democratic members of Congress in both the House and the Senate. These laws have had a disastrous effect on our society, and particularly on ordinary citizens, like you an I. Indeed, a Democratic President promoted quite a few of these measures. During the past 15 years, many Democrats have differed from their Republican brethern when it comes to protecting the interests of big business only in the hypocrisy of their rhetoric.
Thus, whenever possible, incumbents or other Democratic candidates who are moderate or conservatives Republicans in all but name should be challenged in party primaries, whether or not that challenge is successful. No one should be immune from this, regardless of their stature in the party. That’s why I supported Jonathan Tasini, the primary challenger to Hillary Clinton last year, and why I will support Cindy Sheehan should she decide to take on Nancy Pelosi in 2008.
Stop funding the DCCC and DSCC
Hat in hand with promoting progressive candidates who are challenging more conservative incumbents, we also need to stop funding the two organizations that have consistently recruited pro-business, anti-consumer and anti-labor (not to mention anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-civil liberties) candidates: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which recruits House candidates, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).
The DCCC has been chaired by Rahm Emanuel, a DLC, and general anti=progressive, Democrat if there ever was one, and he has consistently chosen centrist or even conservative candidates to run against Republicans. Even worse, he has forced these candidates to accept inside the Beltway DLC style campaign consultants, crafting their campaigns to conform to his idealized version of a middle of the road, barely to the left of conservative Republicans, candidate, thus abandoning a progressive platform (anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-labor, and pro-abortion) to which national polls show a majority of Americans would be more than receptive.
Chuck Schumer, the DSCC head, has been just as bad in the selections he made for Senatorial candidates. Indeed, it was Schumer and many of his colleagues who abandoned the Connecticut primary winner, Ned Lamont, thus helping turncoat Joe Lieberman to retain his position as the worst Bush bootlicker and non-Republican warmonger in the Senate for another six years. Schumer was also responsible for recruiting (and insuring the primary victory) of conservative Dems such as Casey in Pennsylvania and Salazar in Colorado, despite the presence of a host of other, more progressive candidates that were available in both states.
If you haven’t stopped sending donations to these organizations, please do so at once, and encourage as many of your friends to do the same. They are not your friends. Only a dyed in the wool party fanatic who believes any Democrat is a good Democrat, would believe that the job Schumer and Emanuel did last year was a good one. If you must contribute to Democrats, contribute to the campaigns of individual candidates who profess progressive values, or send your money to the DNC, where at least your money will go to improving local part organizations, and helping develop candidates which are more in touch with the American people.
Push Democrats to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
This is frankly something every progressive, whether a Democrat, a Green or an independent should support. It was the elimination of the fairness doctrine that led to the explosion of conservative voices in the media. Why? Because, surprise, surprise, conservative businessmen who own the radio and television stations across the country prefer conservative voices to liberal or progressive ones. Even today, when we know that progressive programming more than holds its own in many markets, we still see, radio station and TV owners eliminating those programs in favor of conservative talk. The “free market” doesn’t magically work to ensure that the opinions you hear over the airwaves are balances, because many of the owners of our consolidated media have chosen to keep progressive voices off the air.
The solution is a return to the Fairness Doctrine which required broadcasters, as part of their obligations to retain their government licenses, to air opposing viewpoints to those that they regularly broadcast. The abandonment of the fairness doctrine under Reagan had a much as anything to do with the sad state of our televising news programming, which despite often horrendous ratings (see, e.g, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson) continues to promote conservatives pundits at the expense of liberal ones, even those whose ratings were the highest on their network at the time (i.e., Phil Donahue and MsNBC). The Fairness doctine would also go a long way toward balancing the news panels on the Sunday morning current affairs shows, such as Face the Nation and Meet the Press, which independent studies have confirmed are still heavily biased toward conservative guests and commentators.
We’ve seen what the result of no fairness doctrine has been: a perverted, slanted and increasingly coarse political discourse which rewards and promotes bigots and hatemongers. This should be, next to ending the Iraq War and impeachment, the single most important priority for Democrats in Congress. If they want to break the conservative headlock on television and radio news and opinion, and begin to compete again on a level playing field, this is an absolute must. Call or write your Congressional representatives today demanding they vote for legislation re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine immediately.
Part four of this essay will conclude with a discussion of how to reinvigorate the debate on the progressive movement’s agenda through a change in the rhetoric we use to promote our values; that is, through the use of rhetoric calling for a the expansion of human rights in America and around the world.
