Kevin Drum asks a question:
The liberal blogosphere shares several widely held principles, and two of them come into conflict here:
1. As political realists, we should give some breathing room to centrist Dems in reddish districts. Ideological straitjackets don’t build majorities.
2. The Democratic Party needs to get a spine. Nobody respects a weakling.
National security is where this particular rubber hits the road most conspicuously. The reason we can’t defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they’ll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops. Ditto for FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the “General Betray-us” ad, shutting down Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other related issues.
So here’s my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don’t care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?
Here’s my answer. It depends on the issue. One of my problems with the General Betray-us advertisement was that it was not coordinated with the Democratic leadership. The leadership wanted to keep the focus on Bush (who is unpopular) and off of Petraeus (who is widely respected on the Hill). For some, the issue was one of free speech. No doubt, MoveOn.org should be able to say whatever they want without being condemned by Congress. But, at the same time, a little foresight would have told MoveOn.org that moderate Democrats would not enjoy defending an attack on Petraeus that they didn’t ask for, didn’t agree with, and went contrary to the overall media strategy. I described the ad campaign as the equivalent of pulling the pin on a grenade, handing it to Congress, and asking them to fall on it. I can fault the Democrats for not falling on the grenade, while still thinking it was wrong to present them with that choice. In this case I actually think the attack ads might have been lethal in a few districts.
But on other issues, like FISA, the Military Commissions Act, Kyl-Lieberman, and Guantanamo…I think the Democrats can weather the storm by standing strong. And, frankly, on these issues I don’t care if standing on principle costs us a couple of seats. So, my answer is that I don’t think they will cost us seats but, if they do, I guess it is accurate to say that I don’t care. Why?
On FISA:
Article One, Section Nine:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On the Military Commission Act:
Article One, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
On Guantanamo:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
On Kyl-Lieberman:
A war with Iran would be catastrophic to the nation and there is no reason to advocate for such a catastrophe (whether in veiled language, or not).
On each of these issues the Democrats have a solid argument to make in defense of our position. In all but the last, we have a solid Constitutional argument to make.
It’s true that opposing all these policies and forcing a drawdown of troops can cumulatively make the party look soft on terrorism. Each representative needs to assess their own risk factors and decide on each vote whether they are going to accomplish anything by sticking their necks out. I can forgive a few bad votes here and there. But on the really important stuff like preserving our Constitutional rights, we have to insist on good votes. And if good votes cost the Dems some seats? Yeah, I just don’t really care.
