All right, everyone, knock on wood. This post is working under the assumption that Senator Obama will win this election. Of course, there is a strong chance that he won't, so don't stop volunteering, donating, and voting on my account. So, knock on wood, throw salt over your shoulder, spit. Do whatever you need to do to keep that bad mojo away, then read on, dear reader(s); read on.
There is an entire generation of liberal voters, and an entirely new progressive infrastructure, that has never been tested against a government controlled by Democrats. All those young voters, and newly-engaged youngish voters that Obama has mobilized weren't active in the Clinton years. What's more, the Clinton years were marked by an extremely powerful and belligerent Republican congress. You'd have to go even further back to find a time when there was an honest-to-God Democratically controlled government. Furthermore, the lefty blogosphere wasn't around--or at least powerful--until the Bush years. And it has only started coming into its own since 2004. This progressive infrastructure simply wasn't in place last time Democrats were in charge.
And now, with the distinct possibility of a Democratic president and a Democratically controlled House and Senate, these new groups will come face to face with the inevitable shortcomings of Democratic governing. Of course, it will be better than Bush, better than McCain, better, indeed, that Republican governing. But, if our leadership is spineless and tepid, if our leader ship is unwilling to fight the good fight, will these groups be ready to push against these people that we've all worked so hard to put into office?
There are good examples of progressives railing against Pelosi and Reid and the so-often pathetic, hapless reactions to Republican wrangling. There have been primary challenges--think Lamont v. Leiberman. There have been serious policy discussions that run counter to the centrist inclinations of much of the Democratic establishment. Let's not forget Howard Dean's rise to power, and the rise of the 50-state strategy. Progressives, often led by the blogosphere, have shown that they are willing to take on the party leadership. But these were all cases of wanting the Democrats to stop enabling Republicans. Now, we're looking at the possibility that we will have commanding majorities in the House and Senate, and a president elected with a clear mandate. We will be in a position to govern.
So, the question is, will the blogosphere and all these young voters (myself included) be willing to fight the party centrists--even, potentially President Obama--for liberal policies?
The current economic crisis has brought out a special kind of stupid in the pundit class: the idea that the government should drastically cut back. This idiocy is brought into even sharper relief considering that, all too often, these same pundits advocated for the "bailout" (read: nationalization) of our financial system. Of course, this is massive government intervention. My point is, when confronting an economic downturn, we ought not to cut government spending. Rather, we ought to spend more.
Let's look at the case of Donna Brazile, who wants "to constrain a potential Democratic Administration by suggesting we have to tighten our belts in the middle of a recession, which is nothing short of economic suicide" (via Digby). She is a Democratic party insider, and she is arguing, essentially, that we should just give up on progressive programs for the near future.
Well, our job is to fight this kind of neo-Hooverism within our party. Our job is to make sure that Obama and the Congressional leadership actually sticks to progressive principles in crafting legislation. That means we should use our electoral victory to shove as much progressive legislation in as we can. Rick Perlstein says it best. He writes:
Does [Obama] grasp that unless all the monuments of lasting, structural change in the American state -- banking regulation, public-power generation, Social Security, the minimum wage, the right to join a union, federal funding of education, Medicare, desegregation, Southern voting rights -- had happened fast, they wouldn't have happened at all?
I hope so. Because if Barack Obama is elected president with a significant popular mandate, a number of Democrats riding his coattails to the House, and enough senators to scuttle the filibuster of his legislative agenda -- all of which seem entirely possible -- he will inherit a historical opportunity to civilize the United States in ways not seen in a generation. To achieve the change he seeks -- the monumental trio of universal health care, a sustainable energy policy, and a sane and secure internationalism -- he has to completely reverse the way Democrats have habituated themselves to doing business. If they want true progress, they have to be juggernauts. American precedent gives them no other way.
This kind of progressive governing is not just to get my pet policies enacted. It's also to get this country on track again. We need the government to spearhead, in a very Keynesian way, a rebuilding (and sometimes just building) of our infrastructure.
|