Do we attack the problem, or fix the problem? An interesting question. Writes Steve Clemons tonight:
[In a telephone discussion] Senator Reid shared with us that just that day an unnamed Democratic Senator had come to him with a proposal on “ethics reform” ala Abramoff that could be bi-partisan. Reid told this person that this was the wrong time to be engaged in construtive “reform” proposals with the other side. He said that this was the time to draw a line and to show how “our side” differed dramatically from “their side.”
Given the 2006 elections ahead, this strategy makes sense on many levels. But this reminds me somewhat of the attitude of the AFL/CIO in 1996-1997, when I worked for a Democrat in the Senate, that “we needed to be about defining the problem, not about fixing things.”
I think that there will be more than enough problems and failed policies and brewing scandals for contrasting images to be juxtaposed to Democratic party benefit in the next elections.
However, generating constructive and positive policy proposals — that fix problems and that would appeal to “most Americans” meaning Dems, reasonable independents, and independently minded Republicans” — are vital parts of a successful political strategy, in my view.
This reminded me of Jim Lehrer’s questions of Harry Reid tonight on PBS Newshour … Reid’s emphasis throughout the interview was on the GOP’s “culture of corruption,” but Lehrer kept trying to turn the discussion to a solution-oriented, not a blame-them, approach … continued below …
JIM LEHRER: But the specifics that are involved in the current situation aside, the practices of lobbyists taking people — financing trips abroad, taking people to meals — all of that — free airplane travel — all that sort of stuff has been common practice. Democrats and Republicans have been doing that for years, correct?
SEN. HARRY REID: Well, Jim, listen. The Jack Abramoff situation where he’s flying people around to golf tournaments in Scotland and other places, I don’t think that has been — if it has, I don’t know about it, but if it has been, it’s time to stop.
I just know that this is another one of the things that I didn’t take the time to mention that has been so abused, and the American people now see this.
JIM LEHRER: Okay. But members of Congress did not see it until the Jack Abramoff case came along?
SEN. HARRY REID: Of course, we as — friends have helped us; there have been criminal indictments. I’ve listed those.
JIM LEHRER: Right.
SEN. HARRY REID: We have had ethics committees who have met, and the Democratic — I’m sorry, pardon me. Strike that from the record, the Republican leader in the House four times convicted of ethics violations. I mean, we’ve had a little help bringing this to the attention of the American public.
JIM LEHRER: What I’m getting at, I think, Senator, is it’s a little bit of an “oh, I’m so shocked” element to this that a lot of people are having trouble understanding because this kind of practice of lobbyists trying to influence legislation is part and parcel of the system.
What do you think? Which strategy plays best for ’06?
Harry Reid’s little show today, complete with background music, was exactly the kind of farce I have grown to expect out of the Democrats.
A political scandal hits Washington and what does Reid do? Create a mini series.
Corruption is rife — the Democrats may not be as corrupt as the Republicans, but they feed from the same trough. Want to clean up Washington? Get rid of the trough!
All federal elections should be federally funded — no contributions at all. After the election, no contributions at all — no money, no gifts, nada.
But Reid has his CD collection that he needs to bring out to provide the right kind of back drop for his little signing ceremony. Talk about hokey.
The Democrats have decided to cave on Alito, they will not fight the President over the war, they will not fight the President over taxes. Isn’t time we recognize that there is only one political party in this country? (Of course, that means its time to create a new one. But no Democrats would join it — there is too much money to be made within the old one.)
Why can’t we walk and chew gum at the same time? Both define the problem AND offer solutions?
And why does it have to be bipartisan (read: let the Republicans off the hook)? Our story should be: if you want business as usual, vote Republican. If you want reform, you vote Democrat.
Screw this “bipartisan” crap.
He was on GMA and Ed Schultz today talking about reform in fairly nonpointed ways as though it were a problem of mistakes and smalltime players that both sides would really like to get together and clear away.
And both sides had their problems with it.
Couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. Am I right that he is one of our main point persons on the issue?
I might have more sympathy if Clemons could ID the problem. Abramoff isn’t the problem–he’s just a symptom.
So sorry, but I have NO, zero, zilch, friggin negative zilch sympathy for rethugs and if I was in Reid’s shoes, would stick my foot up the ass of any member who’s dumb enough to even dreaming about maybe giving rethugs any cover.
We got into this mess in 1994 b/c the rethugs ran on “reform” how “special interests” (read liberals/folks of color/enviros/women/etc.) ran the Democratic party. Now you mean to tell me that we’re going to help give them cover? Are these people crazy?
Fuck that. They made their bed … yada. They can’t even follow the bullshit rules they set for themselves in 1994 when they took over. The problem is that they are absolute religio-corporate whores, and the only thing “ethics reform” will do is add PR gloss to rethug re-election efforts.
So no. Hell to the no, in fact.
How about Option 3: We attack the Republicans. It’s a Republican problem, and as long as they’re in power they’re just going to take credit for whatever reforms are put into place anyway.
The very best we could hope for is to propose some decent reforms, and have them propose their own nearly-identical package and pass that one instead. And we all know that the reality will be much more maddening: they’ll pass one of their weak-ass resolutions or whatever, and carry on with business as usual while the msm trumpets the amazing transformation in Politics as Usual.
The only solution is to strip the Repugs of power. There will be no significant reforms of any sort–positive ones, anyway; I guess we can expect more Gerrymandering and the like–while they own the ball, the court and the refs. Trying to solve things isn’t going to get us anything but kicked in the nuts.
Who said it? Screw that bipartisan crap.
I believe that there is some merit to defining the nature and scope of a problem before offering solutions for fixing it if for no other reason than that when people do have a reality-based understanding of problems they are then far more likely to recognize and be accepting of effective and clear proposals designed to fix them. Or, put another way, if we don’t understand the problem we’re far less likely to ask the right questions, and hence far less likely to recognize effective solutions for that problem.
But the Reid-Pelosi stagecraft today, while perhaps demonstrating an awareness of this dynamic, seems to miss many other factors necessary to devise an effective strategy to maximize the importance of this whole mess and advance the cause of a return to Dem power while at the same time doing a service to the country.
Reid-Pelosi, and even Barack Obama, sem to miss the fundamental point that most disappointed Dems and Independents want straight, substantive talk from those who would purport to lead us. After 5 years of relentless and unrestrained bullshit from BushCo and the congressional wingnuts and looters, people are simply sick of hearing the double talk and the artful dodging and the obfuscation. We are disgusted that there are so many elected leaders who consistently appear to place their own ambition in front of the principles they would have us believe they stand for. And we are sick of having our intelligence insulted day in and day out; sick of these politicians actually expecting us to take them at their word when they spout their idiotic, hollow and evasive rhetoric, as though we’re too stupid to see through the grandiosity of their charade.
Reid-Pelosi also don’t seem to grasp another fundamental flaw in their putative logic. Apparently they want us to trust them to be better than the Repubs currently looting the treasury and destroying our democracy from within the halls of Capitol Hill and the White House. And for most of us in the reality-based community, it’s clear that any change that removes current majority leadership is almost asuredly bound to be a major improvement over the current state of affairs. But what Reid-Pelosi don’t seem to grasp is that we want more than that! We don’t just want to throw the bums out; we also want to not just wind up putting a new bunch of bums in. They don’t understand that they can’t just expect us to “trust them” because we don’t trust the other guys.
We need real dialog real substance coming from those who want our votes and our support and our trust. Having that “D” appended to their name is not enough for those of us who’ve been betrayed too many times by the empty rhetoric of our own partisan leaders. Reid-Pelosi don’t seem to get it yet that we are inclined to place our trust in people not based on what they say with their high-falutin’ and clever rhetoric, but rather by what they do.
So I tell Reid and Pelosi and all the other hopefuls, forget about the staged lectern with the slogan “Honest Leadership” emblazoned across it. Such staging, such sloganeering is an embarrassment, a further sign of the low regard they seem to have for our intelligence. Talk is cheap, and political talk is the cheapest talk of all. Instead, take action in support of something important, some essential principle we believe in, and we will support you. Fail to do so and we will not.
Why not just state the fact that Repubs have been shutting out Dems from final comitte negotiations on bills, they have stopped Democratic legislative proposals from getting hearings and being voted upon. Democrats have demanded oversight of the executive branch with zero republican action.
The message should be, “yes, we have proposals for getting it right but our proposals are time and again ignored by the Republican leadership. The system is rigged and that rigging is the major obstacle to getting things done.
The unrigging of this system is in the hands of the Republican leadership. Until the system is unrigged it doesn’t matter what the Democrats propose. It shouldn’t be this way but, sadly, it is.”