Leadership Vacuum

In the previous post, my colleague Benediktion writes about the difference between moral high ground and action in the context of divesting from Darfur and stopping the Iraq occupation. Although I disagree with several of the things he says, I'm glad he brought it up. These are vitally important issues, and the context in which we deal with them lends itself well to Sartre's analysis of man: his identity is constructed by his actions, not his words.

Last November, Americans came out and took action en masse, giving form to their dissatisfaction by kicking the Republicans out of power in Congress. But outside of elections, the people in a representative democracy retain their ability to speak while delegating their ability to act. So, despite the fact that there are various issues on which the people demand action, the beltway politicos are content to make sure their demands stay mere words.

First case in point: Iraq. Three quarters of respondents to the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll thought things were going badly or very badly in Iraq. Iraq was clearly a major factor in the 2006 elections. Yet so far, the Democratic majority has responded by letting Bush's escalation go forward, not supporting measures with teeth to bring an end to the occupation, and letting Joe Lieberman give the weekly radio address. The Administration promised the escalation would be different because this time we were seriously going to hold the Iraqis to some benchmarks. Now that benchmarks have already been missed, no one is pressing the administration on it.

Second case in point: health care. A stunning poll was released last week that was basically ignored by most media. It turns out Americans support single payer health care. Big time. Health care is the most important issue for a majority (not just a plurality) of the respondents, 64% think the government should guarantee coverage, and 60% we would be willing to pay more in taxes so that everyone could have guaranteed coverage. A popular mandate for the best solution to the preeminent domestic policy problem of our day would seemingly translate to major action by the government, right? So why haven't the Democrats jumped at this opportunity to help people and make themselves look good?

As Michael Tomasky notes,

What we don't know about the Democrats at this point is whether the party has an interest in summoning Americans to think about the world from a broader perspective than how a given issue affects them directly.

Because that's what health care and Iraq are about. Sure some people are directly affected by the health care crisis or Iraq, but most people aren't. Or at least they don't feel like it. But people recognize that these are the important issues in America today. People want them solved. Visionaries are those who solve big issues, not those who solve easy ones.

Visionaries are what we need, and it is easier to be a visionary from the White House (or at least a presidential campaign) than it is from the halls of compromise (read: Congress). Fortunately, Democrats currently have a bumper crop of great presidential candidates, at least so goes the conventional wisdom. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are considered to be form an unusually strong field for Democrats.

Unfortunately, all these great candidates are taking equally cowardly approaches to substance. Obama, especially, has "decided to run--à la Gary Hart in 1984--on the notion of new ideas without actually offering any." Establishment Democrats clearly need more encouragement to start acting on the values they sometimes seem to have. We spent a really long time (from 1994 to present) in this defensive crouch, so I guess it's too much to expect one little election to immediately break the bad habits. But it's frustrating - our people are finally in office, so why aren't they doing the things we want? For now, all we can do is keep the pressure up on our representatives. Hopefully sooner or later one of these great candidates will emerge to make Democrats do what they must know they need to do.

The Netroots vs. The Restroots

One of the main reasons the 2006 election was so amazing is that the grassroots finally harnessed the power of the internet to wrench a small portion of political influence away from entrenched politicians, mainstream media, and megadonors.

Naturally, the powers that were are not too happy about sharing their power with the "netroots" (a lazy man's portmanteau of grass roots and internet, you see). It will always work out better for beltway insiders to scratch each other's backs than it will for them to behave as if they represented actual citizens, which is why it's crucial that the netroots maintain, and expand, their influence.

Don't get me wrong - beltway insiders have the right, nay, the obligation to look out for themselves. A basic premise of capitalism, and its ally democracy, is that people should pursue their own interests. We should no more blame insiders for their chauvinism than we should blame the Yankees for spending twice as much money as every other baseball team. As long as the system doesn't restrict you from doing something, you are free to do it.

But the justification for selfishly pursuing individual interests is having opposing interests challenging them, keeping them in check. An article today in the Washington Post, the official mouthpiece of beltway conventional wisdom, simultaneously analyzes the opposing relationship of the netroots to the establishment and participates in it. The article, titled "Woman in the Middle", is by Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald. It is about the efforts of the left/netroots to challenge Rep. Ellen Tauscher (a centrist Democrat from a very liberal district of California) in her Democratic primary in 2008.

There are several hints scattered throughout the article as to the establishment sympathies of the writers. First, the netroots is composed of rowdy bomb throwers:

• "Moderate Democrat Is New Target of Liberal Bloggers"
• "the party's left wing had already settled on their new enemy"
• "eight MoveOn.org activists were accusing her of helping President Bush".

The beginning of the piece also has an anecdote about how the party's left wing demands Tauscher show some leadership on opposing Bush's escalation in Iraq. Tauscher apparently responds that she gave a speech opposing the escalation and that she has shown leadership in bringing infrastructure pork to the district. Since the point is that the leadership be focused on Iraq, the left is left unsatisfied by the encounter. The article insinuates that we want to argue more than we want to be convinced.

The fundamental objection the netroots has to Tauscher is that she doesn't support progressive policies or politics. For instance, she echoed Republican (!) talking points before the 2006 election by accusing the netroots of dragging the party off a left cliff. She has also been pro-corporate, siding with Republicans on issues like the odious bankruptcy bill, and thus making such bills look more bipartisan than they are or should be.

But these actions don't just piss off bomb throwing bloggers, they are are also out of step with Tauscher's liberal district. As the story notes, the netroots aren't challenging conservative Democrats in conservative districts, like Heath Shuler (D-NC). But the story makes it clear that, in the minds of the writers, Tauscher is doing an awesome job of representing her district. For instance, Tauscher is described lobbying for more C-17 cargo planes, which are based in her district.

She then raced to catch the last minutes of an Armed Services Committee hearing, just in time to question Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As five women from the antiwar group Code Pink stood in protest, Tauscher asked two quick questions: Why didn't Bush's budget increase production of the C-17, a plane based at Travis? And how much would the president's troop increase cost?

Pace called the C-17 a "great aircraft" and hinted that he wouldn't be too upset if Tauscher, who chairs the subcommittee on strategic forces, stuck a few more into the budget, as she did last year.

This is not the space to argue about pork, but suffice it to say I am not impressed with Tauscher's devotion to her district as expressed by betraying its values and bribing it with a couple extra jobs. This passage also illustrates the back-scratch ménage à trois that boils the blood of any grassroots activist. Beltway insider Pace passes a wink to beltway insider Tauscher, who nods back. The beltway insider fishwrap holds up its end of the bargain by reporting this as positive evidence of Tauscher's devotion to her district. Never mind that our military budget is way out of control or that Tauscher's constituents would benefit more from balanced bankruptcy regulations and a higher minimum wage.

The WaPo's ally on this issue of protecting the establishment first turns out to be House leader Nancy Pelosi. The story goes on to explain how Pelosi and Tauscher used to have their differences, but now they're suspiciously good friends. The newfound friendliness would sound a bit more natural if the teeth expressing it were a bit less clenched.

Said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly: "We want to protect our incumbents. That's what we're about."
[...]
[Tauscher] was once the only California Democrat to oppose Pelosi's campaign for leadership, but she now marvels that the speaker's performance has been "absolutely perfect -- and she looks so beautiful doing it!"

I should note that this is actually exactly what I want to hear from the Pelosi camp, which is advancing its own interests as it is supposed to. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to vote with the Congress you want, not the Congress you have. If you're Nancy Pelosi, and you want members to vote with the caucus, one of the few bargaining chips you have is the promise to help them keep their jobs. So this is precisely how you should run a caucus, and running a caucus is precisely what I want Nancy Pelosi to do.

But this story also proves the benefit of having a third force, i.e. the netroots, wielding some influence. If it were left up to the mainstream press and the political leadership, as it always was in the past, there would be no pressure on Tauscher. And it is obvious that the pressure the netroots is putting on Tauscher is helping already: she is following Pelosi's lead in the caucus since she knows she needs Pelosi to help her with the coming challenge.

The article also mentions Rep. Jane Harman, another Democrat from California, and Sen. Joe Lieberman. Even if a primary challenge against an incumbent like Tauscher fails to unseat her, the cases of Harman and Lieberman show that putting the pressure on can still be crucial.

"I don't think [Lieberman is] a fair comparison," Tauscher said. "My colleagues look at this and say, 'If they're going after Ellen Tauscher, holy moly!' "
[...]
But Kos points to Harman as a perfect example of how the Net roots can keep Democrats in line. He said Harman used to be a constant irritant, a go-to quote for reporters looking for a Democrat to tweak liberals -- until she had to fight off a primary challenge from the left in 2006. "She's been great ever since," he said. Now Harman even writes on the liberal Huffington Post blog.

Under the old paradigm, the beltway insiders were free to collude, thereby shutting out passionate, concerned citizens who lacked only organization. Now, the concerned multitudes have the means to organize, and we should not be surprised that their concern is not welcome. The establishment interests can kick and scream all they want, I don't think the netroots are about to let up on them.