"Dems Blink" blares the front page headline on Newsday, the Long Island, New York, daily, for May 23. Since that time, the Democratic Left has been furious with, not the person and party that started and are running the endless War on Iraq, Bush and the Republicans, but with -- the Democrats! David Sirota, Cindy Sheehan, Debra (World Can't Wait) Sweet, the Daily Kos, etc. have been thundering on the Left about "betrayal," about "weak-kneed hypocrites," and worse. "You were elected to bring the war to an end, and now you are just letting it go on and on. That means," they say, "you can't trust the Democrats and we will have to do something about them." In my view, wrong analysis and a very dangerous implied remedy.

We must consider the term "The Democrats" in the context of Congress. In our time, there surely is a "The Republicans" in Congress. They are united by a common ideology of endless war, everything to the rich (and themselves) and the devil take the hindmost, racism, homophobia, and the criminalization of belief. There are a few self-styled "moderates," but when push comes to shove they almost invariably vote the party line. That line is established by CheneyBush and enforced by Karl Rove. The enforcement mechanisms, when the ideology fails, are the management of campaign contributions, access to out-and-out bribes (a dwindling option, as the worst offenders are getting caught), precious "earmarks" courtesy of the Rove-run party leadership, vigorous political arm-twisting ("you don't want to have a well-funded primary opponent, do you?"), and highly likely, a not-so-little black book of the J. Edgar Hoover variety, right there in the upper right-hand corner of Rove's desk.

To understand "why the Democrats blinked" is that there is no "The Democrats," even just in the Congress. Reflecting the Party nationally, there is a broad-based coalition ranging from the "Blue Dogs" to the Progressive Caucus, which has anything but a common ideology. There was no national slate of Democrats from which 232 representatives and 51 senators were elected, all pledged to support a common platform and program. We do not have a parliamentary system with parliamentary discipline. And there is certainly no equivalent of the Rove Enforcement Machine, a fact for which we can be very thankful, in my view. The leadership can go just far in herding this group of cats, but no further. In the Senate, the leadership simply did not have the votes to win another "in-your-face" bill to send to Bush. They might not have had them in the House either, but since they knew they wouldn't get such a bill past the Senate, the House leadership likely figured "why try"? At least Nancy Pelosi was able to cast a symbolic "no" vote to the "no-requirements on you" final bill.

The leadership certainly does not have the votes in either House to simply sit on their hands and send up no War Appropriation bill at all, that is "defunding the war." In fact, that would be truly irresponsible, much less politically suicidal. For with no funds for the military, the troops could not even be withdrawn. Yes, we have a democracy. And yes, we have a tri-partite form of government, not, as noted above, a parliamentary system. And yes, our party is not a unitary, march-in-lock-step package like the old European Communist and Fascist parties. This battle, at this time, was simply unwinnable, given who makes up the Democratic majority in both houses. There is a Democratic breadth-of-view on what needs to be done in Iraq to bring the war to an end. Most Democrats agree with that end. But they do disagree amongst themselves on how to go about achieving that end.

Then there are the "Two Words": Joseph Lieberman. He is one Democrat who thinks the war is just a great idea. And he is in the unique position of having that one vote that can turn the Senate over to the Republicans, something he has been talking about openly from time-to-time. Could Reid have pushed for another round of "we-send-you-a-bill-and-you-veto-it" like Pelosi wanted to do? He sure could have. With the same result. I would bet a good chunk of money that Lieberman walked into Reid's office one day and said words to the effect of "Harry, OK, you've had your fun. Now get on with it, that is unless you want to find yourself as Minority Leader again. My buddies at the White House have been kind enough to let you have one go at them. They are not about to give you another."

In my view, the Democratic Left has to take a deep breath here and remember two things: who the real enemy is and how easily can one of the most gung-ho supporters of the war put the Senate back in Republican hands. Wouldn't that be fun, my fellow lefties? Inhofe back at Environment, Specter back at Judiciary, McConnell as Majority Leader, and so on down the line. Yum. What a gas. Let's not do another Nader folks. The Congressional Democrats ain't perfect, but, please consider the alternative.

More on these themes next week.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies [1], and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog [2].

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash [3] | delicious [4] | digg [5] | yahoo [6] | technorati [7]