David Sirota thinks that the the left doesn’t exist in this country. Depending on how you define ‘exist’ and ‘the left,’ I might agree with him. Certainly, we don’t have any viable political parties that are as far left as what you’ll see in most of Europe. The majority of the conservative parties in Europe are closer in most respects to America’s Democratic Party than its Republican Party.
But, I don’t think Sirota really knows what he’s talking about.
First, he seems to think that progressives in this country are too optimistic and trusting.
What has prevented an American Left from existing is a deeper “trust” ideology among activists. Maybe it’s because we are more optimistic, maybe because we want to see the good in everyone, or maybe it’s because we’re as innately wimpy as the Right says – but it’s clear that progressives are far more willing to “trust” celebrity politicians and others perceived to have Establishment power than pressure or even question those icons.
Yet, David Sirota and the progressive circles he runs in are about the furthest thing from optimistic and trusting. The idea that they want to see the good in everyone is belied by his own argument. For example, look at how he treats the newest senator from Massachusetts:
Two weeks ago, the Massachusetts legislature did not merely make a mockery of election law by going back and forth and then back to allowing its governor to appoint Senate replacements. Gov. Deval Patrick (D) then appointed former pharmaceutical lobbyist, insurance executive and corporate lawyer Paul Kirk to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy – right in the middle of the legislative endgame on health care. Patrick passed over the three-term former governor and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis to appoint Kirk – a person who has never held public office.
It was appalling to watch Kirk’s appointment be publicly justified by his friendship with Kennedy – as if Senate seats are something to just be passed around to buddies. But it was telling that almost voice on the Left made a peep about what this really says about American politics and the Democratic Party.
That the Kennedy family recommended Paul Kirk as the man they would like to see carry the torch for Teddy on health care reform is entirely discounted. That Kirk was the former head of the DNC is not mentioned. All that matters is that he once worked as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. Is that cause for concern? Sure. But isn’t this precisely a case of thinking the worst of someone?
Or, take this bit on Jim Messina.
As the Wall Street Journal reported this weekend, the Professional Beltway Left is now being given orders every Tuesday by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina – the same Jim Messina who was chief of staff to Max Baucus when Baucus helped President Bush ram through almost every one of the Republican’s signature initiatives (with the exception of Social Security privatization).
Actually, the Wall Street Journal did not report that the ‘Professional Beltway Left’ is ‘taking orders’ from Messina. They reported that relations between the left and the administration are improving and that one of the reasons is that Messina meets weekly with progressive activists at a ‘common purpose’ table to hear each other out. But, apparently, the fact that Messina used to work for Baucus is all that matters.
All of this leads to this amateurish diagnosis:
As I’ve written before, a party is not a movement (and neither are cable networks, magazines or think tanks that serve only to promote a party). So when you are wondering why the Democratic Party proceeds to sell out the public option or environmental policy or anything else, you have your answer: It’s because the “American Left” has made the party, not the policy, the objective. Only when that formula and outlook is reformed will we have any prayer of turning “hope” into “change.”
If he were optimistic, he wouldn’t be predicting the imminent sell-out of the public option or environmental policy or anything else. If he had any real analytical skill, he wouldn’t be blaming the limitations on progressive progress on progressives. Who voted against Rockefeller’s public option amendment in the Finance Committee? Answer: Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, and Tom Carper. Are any of them progressives? Are progressives to blame for their votes? When it comes time to debate the Climate Change Bill in the Senate, who do you think is going to water it down or kill it? It will be Democrats from energy producing states like Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, etc. The obstacles to progressive change are not coming from progressives. The obstacles are built right in to the fabric of our political system.
The make-up of the Senate (two senators per state, regardless of population) is the biggest culprit. The way the Constitution sets up federal elections, basically determining that we have a permanent two-party system is another culprit. The obscene amount of money needed to run for office, and the flood of corporate money in our electoral system is yet another.
All of these factors shift our politics far to the right of what we see in other industrialized nations. But we aren’t having difficulty passing health care or energy reform because progressives are too optimistic and trusting. We aren’t facing obstacles because progressives have been working within the two-party system. We are only able to debate these changes at all because of all the progress we’ve made over the last five years by working within the system. When we look around and see that we still can’t get what we want, it’s frustrating. It’s enough to make an activist pessimistic. But it ain’t our fault for trying. Whatever the left is in this country, the only place it is being represented in Congress is in the Democratic Party. That may be unsatisfying, but consider where we were after the 2004 elections, and compare that to where we are now.