So, here we are:
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats’ failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
We had hoped to be in a better place, but we are not. Where should a progressive focus their energies?
We could get involved in presidential politics, but every voter in Iowa has ten times more influence over the outcome of that contest than we do. Moreover, whomever emerges as the eventual Democratic nominee will be the presumptive favorite to win the presidency. Most importantly, no president will be able to do much more than they are already promising unless there is a fundamental shift in power within Congress.
No, the presidential contest is not the most promising arena to focus our attentions. We could focus our efforts on the House races. There are dozens of promising races that could use our help. But we already have a majority in the House. If all the bills the House passed had become law, we would be quite pleased with the direction of the party and the nation. No…the House is not the problem. The problem is the Senate.
Our problem in the Senate is twofold. First, we don’t have enough senators and, second, many of our senators are quite conservative. If you are looking for the most bang for the buck, put your focus on electing Democratic senators. We have an opportunity to elect some pretty decent senators. We have the Udall cousins, Tom and Mark, in New Mexico and Colorado, respectively. They are strong on environmental issues. We have Jeff Merkley in Oregon (or, possibly, Steve Novick). They are both strong progressives. We have Al Franken (or, possibly, Mike Ciresi) in Minnesota. Both would be solid additions to the left-wing of the party. We have moderate New Democratic choices in Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Tom Allen of Maine. We won’t always agree with their decisions, but they all have strengths and commonalities of interest.
Rick Noriega of Texas and Andrew Horne of Kentucky are both anti-war veterans that would probably wind up in the center of the Democratic caucus…conservative on some issues, surprisingly progressive on others (think Tester and Webb).
There’s Andrew Rice in Oklahoma, Larry LaRocco of Idaho, and (possibly) Mark Begich of Alaska, who would bring certain strengths to the caucus and would replace very flawed Republicans.
In North Carolina, we have Kay Hagan and Jim Neal running. Neal is an out of the closet homosexual, Hagan is the niece of former Florida governor Lawton Chiles.
In Alabama, we have an African-American woman, Vivian Figures, waging a long-shot campaign against Jeff Sessions.
We’ll see what comes of the races in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee. Maybe no one will emerge with a chance in hell. Alaska could become interesting if Ted Stevens refuses to retire.
The more of these races we win, the better chance we’ll have to break out of the current paradigm and start thinking about the unthinkable…like single-payer health care. If we can get a Democrat elected president, with a majority in the House and 60 or more Democratic senators, we’ll be able to do all kinds of things that no one is even bothering to campaign on because they are currently unrealistic.
We have a decent crop of senatorial candidates. If you are looking for some way to help the country, pick one or two of these races and get involved. President Obama or Clinton or Edwards won’t be able to do shit if the Republican senate can block or dictate their agenda.
