Howard Dean and the failures of the Democratic Party
Howard Dean, as head of the Democratic Party, has stirred a lot of discussion lately over his sharp-tongued attacks of the Republican Party. Many liberals have praised him as being just what the doctor ordered to rescue a flailing party. At long last, it is argued, the Democratic Party is showing some spine.
Yes, it is certainly true that one of the problems with the Democratic Party has been its lack of will. There has often been a tendency of Democrats to "play nice" in the face of Republican ruthlessness, which gets the party absolutely nowhere. Karl Rove has shown that playing down and dirty makes for highly effective politics, and Dean's sharp tongue has served as a kind of response to this.
However, I would argue that spinelessness is really only one of the problems with the Democrats, and of less significance than its much more serious problem. The other, bigger problem has less to do with tactics and more to do with ideology. Put simply, the Democrats simply have no ideological compass. All the sharp-tongued Deanisms in the world won't make up for the fact that the party has embraced the pro-globalization, pro-neoliberalism consensus that dominates the major political parties throughout the industrialized West. And as long as the Democrats participate in this consensus, they will continue to offer nothing in the way of a real alternative voice to the American people, they will continue to lose elections, and they will continue to remain useless as an "opposition" party to the Republicans.
Many liberals describe themselves as "Dean Democrats", with the implication that Howard Dean represents a progressive, transformative force within the Democratic Party that they identify with, as a way of "rescuing" the party from its doldrums. While it is true that Dean's opposition to the Iraq war galvanized many progressives within the party, the fact is that this single issue has served to cloud Dean's overall record, leading to a lot of liberal wishful thinking.
The following highly instructive comment from Howard Dean appeared in E.J. Dionne's column last year. It is something that liberals ought to ponder as they jump on the Dean bandwagon:
Here is a statistic from the June 5 New York Times: "From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000." What is the Democratic Party proposing to do about that? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the outsourcing of our jobs in the modern globalized economy? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the Walmartization of the American economy? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the decline of organized labor in the United States? (John Kerry's platform last year didn't say a thing about repealing Taft-Hartley. Ralph Nader and some other third party platforms called for its repeal. Which of those candidates did organized labor endorse last year? Answer: the one who ignored the issue. What does that tell you?)
This same neoliberal, pro-globalization consensus has dominated politics elsewhere, and more and more we are seeing popular frustration with the political agendas of the ruling political elites. In Germany, for example, Gerhard Schroeder's supposedly "left wing" Social Democrats are largely in agreement with the right wing Christian Democrats in supporting further rollbacks of protections of workers, cuts in corporate taxes, and other elements of the neoliberal agenda. In so doing, the voters, increasingly angry with this process, defeated Schroeder's party in recent state elections. The problem in Germany, as in the United States, is that both major parties embrace the tenets of global corporate capitalism. Thus they are left without a major political force with which to express their frustration. In their elections, it is, essentially, a case of "heads you win, tails we lose."
Similarly, the recent rejection of the European constitution by French voters was another expression of that same frustration. Voters were tired of having globalism rammed down their throats by the political elite. They rightfully fear cutbacks in major social protections, including the 35-hour work week.
And, most recently, the resistance to the global capitalist corporate agenda has also taken root in Latin America, with the recent popular uprising in Bolivia being a manifestation of this process.
The steamroller of globalization is facing roadblocks around the world. More and more, people are getting fed up with what is being force fed to them by the political elites and the ruling classes of the world.
Yet, as long as the major political parties continue to ignore the true, democratic voices of the people, they will continue to prove to be irrelevant to the needs of the American people. George Bush is an unpopular president. He wasn't particularly popular last year, either, but the Democratic Party could not, would not, refused to offer a real alternative to the reactionaries in the Republican Party, and lost the election despite Bush's obvious failings. The reason is not the inherent conservatism of Americans, as some despondent Democrats suggest. The reason is simply that the Democrats offered no real, legitimate, serious, principled alternative to the Republican Party.
Some people think that the Democratic Party can be saved. Organizations like the Progressive Democrats of America hope to rescue the party, but without really explaining how they can seriously hope to do so as long as it continues to give its unqualified support to the party's candidates while it continues to push the nation's agenda rightward. The Democratic Party loves the votes of progressives--but that doesn't mean it wants to implement a progressive agenda.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean thinks that a sharp tongue is the ticket that will rescue the party. But that won't save it either.
The people, independent of the political elites, need to realize that they can save themselves by organizing outside of the existing pro-corporate, pro-ruling class, pro-globalization political elites. And it is time that those on the left of American politics consigned the Democratic Party to the dustbin of history.
Yes, it is certainly true that one of the problems with the Democratic Party has been its lack of will. There has often been a tendency of Democrats to "play nice" in the face of Republican ruthlessness, which gets the party absolutely nowhere. Karl Rove has shown that playing down and dirty makes for highly effective politics, and Dean's sharp tongue has served as a kind of response to this.
However, I would argue that spinelessness is really only one of the problems with the Democrats, and of less significance than its much more serious problem. The other, bigger problem has less to do with tactics and more to do with ideology. Put simply, the Democrats simply have no ideological compass. All the sharp-tongued Deanisms in the world won't make up for the fact that the party has embraced the pro-globalization, pro-neoliberalism consensus that dominates the major political parties throughout the industrialized West. And as long as the Democrats participate in this consensus, they will continue to offer nothing in the way of a real alternative voice to the American people, they will continue to lose elections, and they will continue to remain useless as an "opposition" party to the Republicans.
Many liberals describe themselves as "Dean Democrats", with the implication that Howard Dean represents a progressive, transformative force within the Democratic Party that they identify with, as a way of "rescuing" the party from its doldrums. While it is true that Dean's opposition to the Iraq war galvanized many progressives within the party, the fact is that this single issue has served to cloud Dean's overall record, leading to a lot of liberal wishful thinking.
The following highly instructive comment from Howard Dean appeared in E.J. Dionne's column last year. It is something that liberals ought to ponder as they jump on the Dean bandwagon:
Richard Nixon has sometimes been called the last liberal President. Given what has happened to American politics over the last 35 years, this makes a certain amount of sense. As a conservative, he did things that would be unthinkable now in the current political climate. He signed into law OSHA, the EPA, and the Clean Air Act. He once proposed a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans--a proposal that now would be derided by everyone as "socialistic". I am not suggesting that Nixon was a good President, of course. He was a warmonger, an imperialist, and a crook, among other things. The point is that, in 1970, he stood to the left of where Al Gore was in the 2000 election. Some Democratic Party loyalists don't get why so many people were drawn to people like Ralph Nader in the last two Presidential elections. The answer is quite simple--there is a gaping void in American politics, a void resulting as both parties continually march to the right. And Howard Dean isn't going to change this process one bit, sharp tongue or not.
"I've balanced budgets, I've supported the death penalty in some instances, I got an A from the NRA -- and I'm the most left- wing Democrat?" Dean laughs. The labeling, he says, is a mark of how the nation's political discussion has been pulled to the right. "What passes now for 'moderate,' '' he says, "used to be called 'conservative.' ''
Here is a statistic from the June 5 New York Times: "From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000." What is the Democratic Party proposing to do about that? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the outsourcing of our jobs in the modern globalized economy? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the Walmartization of the American economy? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the decline of organized labor in the United States? (John Kerry's platform last year didn't say a thing about repealing Taft-Hartley. Ralph Nader and some other third party platforms called for its repeal. Which of those candidates did organized labor endorse last year? Answer: the one who ignored the issue. What does that tell you?)
This same neoliberal, pro-globalization consensus has dominated politics elsewhere, and more and more we are seeing popular frustration with the political agendas of the ruling political elites. In Germany, for example, Gerhard Schroeder's supposedly "left wing" Social Democrats are largely in agreement with the right wing Christian Democrats in supporting further rollbacks of protections of workers, cuts in corporate taxes, and other elements of the neoliberal agenda. In so doing, the voters, increasingly angry with this process, defeated Schroeder's party in recent state elections. The problem in Germany, as in the United States, is that both major parties embrace the tenets of global corporate capitalism. Thus they are left without a major political force with which to express their frustration. In their elections, it is, essentially, a case of "heads you win, tails we lose."
Similarly, the recent rejection of the European constitution by French voters was another expression of that same frustration. Voters were tired of having globalism rammed down their throats by the political elite. They rightfully fear cutbacks in major social protections, including the 35-hour work week.
And, most recently, the resistance to the global capitalist corporate agenda has also taken root in Latin America, with the recent popular uprising in Bolivia being a manifestation of this process.
The steamroller of globalization is facing roadblocks around the world. More and more, people are getting fed up with what is being force fed to them by the political elites and the ruling classes of the world.
Yet, as long as the major political parties continue to ignore the true, democratic voices of the people, they will continue to prove to be irrelevant to the needs of the American people. George Bush is an unpopular president. He wasn't particularly popular last year, either, but the Democratic Party could not, would not, refused to offer a real alternative to the reactionaries in the Republican Party, and lost the election despite Bush's obvious failings. The reason is not the inherent conservatism of Americans, as some despondent Democrats suggest. The reason is simply that the Democrats offered no real, legitimate, serious, principled alternative to the Republican Party.
Some people think that the Democratic Party can be saved. Organizations like the Progressive Democrats of America hope to rescue the party, but without really explaining how they can seriously hope to do so as long as it continues to give its unqualified support to the party's candidates while it continues to push the nation's agenda rightward. The Democratic Party loves the votes of progressives--but that doesn't mean it wants to implement a progressive agenda.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean thinks that a sharp tongue is the ticket that will rescue the party. But that won't save it either.
The people, independent of the political elites, need to realize that they can save themselves by organizing outside of the existing pro-corporate, pro-ruling class, pro-globalization political elites. And it is time that those on the left of American politics consigned the Democratic Party to the dustbin of history.
Yikes! Did he really say he supported the death penalty?
Posted by
Missouri Mule |
10:45 PM
Post a Comment