This is at The Nation by William Greider, it is called the Rebels. I got interested in reading it after David Sirota's comments on it. From his email today.
As Greider points out, the Washington Democratic Establishment has loudly complained about efforts to instill the party with some semblance of ideological fire, trotting out tired arguments about such efforts supposedly "weakening the party" for the next election. But he notes that's exactly what the 1970s Republican Establishment said about its firebrands, even as it lost elections. Only until the outsiders took power did their party start winning.
And that begs the question for Democrats as 2005 comes to an end - how many elections do we have to lose under the Establishment's appeasement and split-the-difference strategy until we say enough is enough, it's time for a change? Thankfully, it looks like that's what an increasing number of citizens and groups like Moveon.org are saying outside the Beltway. They are ready and willing to seriously challenge those incumbents who regularly undermine their party and the progressive cause. And that bodes well not only for the progressive agenda, but for the Democratic Party's long-term success. This, in short, is why frontally challenging the Republicans AND demanding accountability from Democrats is important, and why we must ignore those predictable, protect-their-own-turf insiders who constantly tell those outside their cabal to shut up. It is they who should shut up - they've lost enough elections, and it's time for a change.
Here is the article by Greider. He fairly points out the risks inherent in taking stands against established party leaders, but he points out the possibilities in favor of it as well. He starts with the fact that there are grassroots groups looking into opposing Lieberman.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/greiderPossibly, this rump-group assault on the established order will come to nothing, just another angry rant from frustrated Democrats. But it could be the start of something big--a David-and-Goliath challenge that encourages other nascent insurgencies around the country. Rebellion can be fun--who doesn't enjoy upsetting the mainstream media?--but in these dispiriting times it is also good for one's mental health. Even better, rebellion could revive the Democratic Party.
Intraparty challenges are one of the most effective ways to get the attention of risk-averse politicians and force them to change their thinking. Even if the targeted politicians are not defeated, they hate intrusions from meddlesome citizens messing with their job-for-life security. And nothing upsets members of Congress like seeing a few of their colleagues abruptly taken down by outsiders with supposedly marginal issues the Washington Club didn't take seriously. Incumbents will do quite a lot to avoid the same fate.
And he goes further into the situation about Lieberman. I think he is fair on it, there are risks and good things about opposing.
The Democratic Party is never going to change substantively and again become a reform party with a serious agenda until some of its blood is spilled in the same fashion. For years, incumbent Dems have distanced themselves from fundamental convictions, confident the party's "base" wouldn't do anything about it beyond whimpering. Until now, the cynicism was well founded. Galvanized by the war, disgusted with weak-spined party leaders, the rank-and-file may at last be ready to bite back.
The fuse was lit for Lieberman a few weeks ago, when MoveOn.org let it be known that the web-savvy organization will support a challenger if that's what its Connecticut members decide to do. "Our first allegiance is to our members," explains Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director, "and they are just as frustrated with the Democrats as anybody else. So they've given us the charge to change the Dems, and we're taking that very seriously." Politicians and media learned to respect MoveOn in 2004, when it proved its ability to organize people and money.
The center-right senator, meanwhile, is practically taunting the party's loyal voters with his extreme embrace of Bush and Bush's misbegotten war. "What a colossal mistake it would be," Lieberman lamented recently, "for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will." Party leaders in DC--Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean--all took shots at him. Rumors started that Lieberman must be fishing for a job in Bush's Cabinet.
The momentum has been started. Some of it is good, some is risky. I think the Iraq War was the turning point. Once the people in the party saw that their leaders in Congress would so easily vote for a war like that, and vote against their interests and desires with no real answering to us......it changed things. People have died.
Since Jim Dean and the CT DFA delivered the letter to Lieberman, and since his letter back as much as saying he still thinks he is right....things have changed.
Not sure what is coming, but I think Greider did a good job of presenting a case for and against The Rebels. Oddly, many of these people he talks about are pretty moderate like myself. That just shows how far to the right they have gone.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
