Winning in November, Defending the Constitution
The Congressional elections this fall may be a turning point in our democracy. The Republican-controlled House and Senate have done nothing to restrain, and have even abetted, the President’s lawless behavior in the War on Terror. There’s no reason to believe they will do anything differently after the elections if they win. If Bush is allowed to consolidate the gains of his recent power grabs, the nature of our government may permanently change into something more akin to a dictatorship than a nation of laws (once leaders acquire unchecked power, they are rarely motivated to give it back).
In the wake of the Abramoff corruption scandals, the Katrina debacle, Bush’s unpopularity, the incompetent execution of the Iraq war, and a variety of other issues, the Democrats seem well positioned for the upcoming elections. But through a combination of their own timidity, and the apocalyptic campaign tactics we can expect from the Republicans, my feeling is that they will find a way to lose. As many others have said, the key to a Democratic victory is to shed this timidity, but very few offer specific ideas on exactly what Democrats should do in a campaign environment that is likely to consist of scorched earth tactics from the Republicans. I’ll offer an idea here, but before I get to it, it’s important to first lay out what’s at stake, what many prominent Democrats are doing wrong, and what to expect when the campaign season peaks.
What’s at stake is the very principals of our Constitutional government. Glenn Greenwald summarizes the situation well:
…We continuously hear that the Bush administration has legal authority to do anything the President orders. Claims that he is acting illegally are just frivolous and the by-product of Bush hatred. And yet, as I detailed here, each and every time the administration has the opportunity to obtain an adjudication of the legality of its conduct from a federal court…, it does everything possible to avoid that adjudication.
This continuous evasion of judicial review by the administration is much more serious and disturbing than has been discussed and realized. By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch. But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.
With only a handful of exceptions, members of Congress have done nothing to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution from Bush’s lawless behavior. As law professor Jonathan Turley observed on Countdown the other night:
The real check and balance for this kind of thing rests with Congress, and Congress has done nothing. Do you realize that Congress has not even held a substantive investigation of the NSA operation? An operation that most of us believe was criminal – that the federal law defines quite clearly as a federal crime. Now instead of investigating that, the Congress actually gave the President a standing ovation during the State of the Union speech when he promised to continue to violate that law. He said he would continue this program, and the people who were responsible for passing the law he was violating gave him a standing ovation. It was the most bizarre thing I’ve seen in my life.
It’s one thing for members of the President’s party to behave this way. But it has been mind-boggling to read about prominent Democrats literally running away when confronted with this issue. They do this because the Republicans, as well as their own political advisors, have convinced them that national security is such a strong issue for Bush that the best thing they can do when confronted with his lawless behavior is to simply remain silent. Here’s what you can expect in General Hayden’s confirmation hearings for the CIA directorship:
Hayden’s confirmation hearings will provide a platform for renewed discussion of the [NSA's warrantless] surveillance program, a battle the White House would welcome, since battling terrorism is one of the president’s strongest areas in a landscape of issues that largely works against him. Most Democrats understand this, and will lie low, at least for now, analysts say.
“The White House would love the Democrats to take the bait on wiretaps; that would make their day,” says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. “I think the Democrats are conscious of this, and a few will make the argument, but it’s not going to be overwhelming.”
Stop to think about that for a minute. The President has repeatedly violated a number of criminal laws, and – by way of a radical, unprecedented re-interpretation of the Constitution – has claimed it is his right to do so. In response, most Senate Democrats are going to let it slide – and therefore render meaningless much of the Senate’s lawmaking and oversight responsibilities – because they don’t think it’s politically convenient to confront the President on this issue.
That is not the path to electoral success – it is the path to political oblivion. Josh Marshall made an observation about the Bush-Kerry match-up that I think applies here as well:
If you think back to the Swift Boat debacle of 2004, the surface issue was John Kerry’s honesty and bravery as a sailor in Vietnam. Far more powerful, however, was the meta-message: George Bush slaps John Kerry around and Kerry either can’t or won’t hit back. For voters concerned with security and the toughness of their leaders, that’s a devastating message — and one that has little or nothing to do with the truth of the surface charges… At the time I called it the “Republicans’ bitch-slap theory of electoral politics.”
In this case, the meta-message is similar: Bush is a powerful leader doing what it takes to fight terrorism, and he’s not going to let those who whine about legalities get in the way of his mission. Democrats meekly choose to neither confront him, nor even articulate an alternative approach that might not involve shredding the Constitution, because Bush is such a strong and commanding leader.
Most of the Senate Democrats are acting this way because they are trying to apply what political scientist Ruy Teixeira calls “the politics of inoculation,” which may have worked in the Clinton era, but will fail now:
…the politics of inoculation elevates issues like national security to the top of the progressive agenda but then offers solutions that make progressives indistinguishable from the other side. Thus, the strategic recommendations coming out of this camp end up reinforcing our core vulnerability as a party and movement with no known identity, conviction, or vision.
Many activists in the Democratic Party are now working on what Teixeira’s calls “the politics of definition” – that is, a way to make it clear to voters what the party’s principals and goals are. I’d like to suggest that part of this definition be defending the Constitution.
After I saw Glenn Greenwald debate Robert Turner (a proponent of the radical theory that the President has unchecked power in the realm of national security) on C-SPAN, something that stuck with me was a comment a caller to the show made. Turner, in an attempt to puff up his gravitas, said that he had written a 1,000 page dissertation to prove his argument. The caller responded with something along the lines of, I don’t care if you wrote a 10,000 page dissertation – you’re wrong. A wonderful aspect of our Constitution is that it’s short and written in relatively plain language, so you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the basic principals of government that it lays down. So the caller was not a know-nothing: Americans, through our grade school education in civics, have a gut level understanding of the principals of our democracy. Our nation was founded on the promise of those principals, and we cherish them. And there’s nothing wrong with feeling angry when you see those principals violated. As Greenwald argues:
The “Angry Left” cartoon has forever been a favorite tactic of those models of Civility and Rhetorical Restraint on the Right …And many Democrats have internalized it, too. Anger is a bad, bad thing and must be avoided at all costs…
This argument is false — dangerously so — for so many reasons. Most successful political movements need passion. Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action.
Conversely, those who are entirely devoid of anger are often lifeless, limp, uninspiring figures who seem to be drained of soul and purpose. An anger-less political movement is embodied by a plodding, bespecled, muttering Jay Rockefeller. Or John Kerry’s non-response to the Swift Boat attacks. Or the Democrats’ often ponderous, half-hearted, overly-rational mutterings on all too many issues or in response to all too many corruption and lawbreaking scandals. Or craven, eager-to-please “liberals” who are more interested in convincing Fox News and other Bush followers how balanced and reasonable they are than they are than in fighting for any actual political ideals…
Democrats need to get away — as far away and as quickly as possible — from that bland, mushy, sonorous, overly calculating and painfully restrained, passion-free dead zone. And in that regard, a much bigger problem for Democrats has been a lack of anger — and most other human passions — not an excess of it.
The Democrats cannot expect to win in November by simply hoping that the Republicans are weighed down by all their recent debacles. The Republicans will go on the attack like never before, and from what I can see right now, the Democrats are not ready for the assault. Howard Fineman:
This fall’s election season is going to make the past three look like episodes of “Barney.”
…The way I read the recent moves of Karl Rove & Co., they are preparing to wage war the only way open to them: not by touting George Bush, Lord knows, but by waging a national campaign to paint a nightmarish picture of what a Democratic Congress would look like, and to portray that possibility, in turn, as prelude to the even more nightmarish scenario: the return of a Democrat (Hillary) to the White House.
Rather than defend Bush, Rove will seek to rally the Republicans’ conservative grass roots by painting Democrats as the party of tax increases, gay marriage, secularism and military weakness. That’s where the national message money is going to be spent.
…the White House will try to survive by driving down the ratings of the other side. Right now, an impressive 55 percent of voters say they have a favorable view of the Democrats, one of the party’s best ratings in years. But the favorables of leading national Democrats are weak: 34 percent for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton; 26 percent for Sen. John Kerry; 28 percent for former vice president Al Gore. The bottom line: as long as the Democrats remain a generic, faceless alternative, they win; Rove’s aim is to paint his version of their portrait.
The Republicans are very good at playing offense, and the Democrats need to learn to do the same. But we don’t need to stoop to dishonest claims, as a very real and potentially very powerful issue is the fate of our Constitutional government. This is an issue that could resonate in a very compelling and personal way with voters, if only Democrats can find the courage to call the Republicans out on it. Since the Republicans in Congress have done nothing about Bush aggressively violating the laws passed by those very same Republicans, they have quite glaringly failed to uphold their sworn oath to defend the Constitution.
Can you imagine the effectiveness of this issue if the Democratic candidates got behind it, and they all hammered Republican incumbents with the question: once Bush’s lawbreaking came to light, and his administration proudly proclaimed the unprecedented, radical, dictatorial notion that it’s ok for the President to violate Federal criminal laws, why did you disregard your oath to defend the Constitution?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
