The Democratic candidates, the Democratic party, the netroots - all claim that while the Republican party does not provide the policies that most people want, that the Democratic party does. That voters are switching to the Democratic party because of what we offer.
Except not. The actions of our candidates, the actions of our party - both scream out that they believe that the voters do not want what we represent. And actions speak much louder than words. We crucify the Republicans for saying one thing and then doing something different - but we are guilty of the same sin.
Exhibit 1: We are told repeatedly that the Democratic Congress cannot attempt many of our goals until we get more Democrats elected. That the act of trying to get certain bills passed will hurt our chances in November. This argument only makes sense if what we want to see passed is not popular with the majority of the voters. Because if our elected officials believed that these policies will be popular, then bringing up bills to implement them would improve our chances in November, not hurt them.
Exhibit 2: Yes there are limits to what can be done with the present balance of power. To pass a bill requires a bi-partisan effort, crafting something that either George Bush or a lot of Republican congress people find acceptable. But there is much that can be done in the present environment.
James Madison gave congress the power of the purse and gave the house, as the people's body, the exclusive power to initiate budget bills, for one over-riding reason. Because the power of the purse is the power to wage war. Remove funding and you remove the ability of the King President to wage war. This is not some convoluted dubious rationalization, this is a fundamental part of our separation of powers and is clearly discussed in The Federalist Papers.
With a Democratic majority in the House we can end the war today. We could have ended it a year ago. All that was required was to not put any bill forward to continue funding the war. Yes there would need to be funding for a staged withdrawal, but all of that could have been done if the House had refused to fund the war.
If the Democratic leadership truly believed that the country wants us to exit Iraq, this would have been a political winner. The actions of the Democratic leadership make it clear that they do not think this policy is what the voters want.
Exhibit 3: The recent craven capitulation by the House on the issue of FISA. Again, the Democratic party claims that protecting our constitutional rights and protecting the rule of law are critical. But again, if the party leaders believed that this policy was popular with the voters, why did they choose to give George Bush everything he wanted in this bill? Only if the leadership believes that George Bush's policies are more popular than the ones our party espouses does their action make sense.
Exhibit 4: The Congress was clearly given the authority to investigate the executive branch. This is clear in the constitution itself as inherent contempt was written in to give the Congress absolute authority to compel testimony. And again, from the Federalist Papers, it was clear that it was expected that the Congress would investigate the executive and by definition that this investigation would not be welcome by the President.
So what has this Congress done when members of the executive have refused to even show up when served a subpoena? They've asked the Attorney General, who pre-announced he would take no action, to take those individuals to court. In short, they choose to do nothing.
We have ongoing corruption. We have clear evidence of lawbreaking on the part of the executive. We have a Democratic leadership that says they will aggressively investigate this. They have the tools to compel testimony. But they choose to not do it. Again, the only explanation that makes sense is that they believe the voters do not want to see this happen.
Exhibit 5: Where's a real comprehensive energy/climate change bill? For the past year this has been a "top priority" for the Democratic party. We have had everyone saying we need a "Manhatten Project" to address this. Yet we have no bill. Not we don't have one Bush will sign. Not we don't have one that can pass the Senate (and a good bill would pass the Senate). We've got bukus, nada, nothing. Again, if the party believed that the voters wanted to see action here, they would have moved on this. If nothing else, they would have a bill totally marked up and ready to be voted on in January 2009.
I can go on, and on, and on. (Guantanamo could have been shut down by defunding it.) But that's not the point. The point is our party leadership, and many of our congress people, clearly believe that many of the fundamential policies of the Democratic party are political losers.
I personally don't think that is true. I think if we proudly legislate as we talk, and we then loudly speak to why we did what we did and why that was the right thing to do, that the voters will embrace that. That it is a political winner, as well as the right thing to do.
And if it's false? If the voters don't want what we're selling? Then lets not be a bunch of hypocritical liars like the Republicans. Lets own up to what we say and at a minimum be the party that acts as it speaks. Because voters will respect integrity.
