What the Hell Are Democrats So Afraid of?

[babylonsister]

What the Hell Are Democrats So Afraid of?

By Glenn Hurowitz, Maisonneuve Press. Posted February 22, 2008.

As this excerpt from "Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" shows, if Dems want a lasting majority, they have to stop caving in.


Like many progressives, I’d heard all the explanations for Democratic failings, and they all boiled down to this: a lack of smarts or competence. But was that realistic? After all, we’re the egghead party, the party of science, the party of the PhD. Could we really just be as stupid as we say George Bush is? What I’ve seen is something quite different: a lack of courage that makes Democrats afraid of implementing the strategies that work. It’s why even when Democrats win, they lose.

After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, Republicans still manage to bully Democrats and the media into controlling their agenda. It seems like Democrats forgot James Carville's basic lesson of political summer school "It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth." Unfortunately, too often, the Democrats are the ones coughing up fingernails. What follows is an excerpt from my new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party (Maisonneuve Press), which illustrates this debilitating weakness in the Democratic Party.

****

"The senator agrees with you, but he's not sure about the politics," the senior Democratic Senate aide told me. "But if the politics changes, the senator would definitely like to vote your way -- so good luck; we're behind you." The aide was explaining to me why his boss, a Democrat who represents a rural, Republican-leaning state, hadn't supported higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks in a recent vote. The aide told me that though the senator agreed with the environmental group I was working for that increased auto mileage made sense, he was afraid that his constituents might not support his stance, especially after being bombarded with auto industry ads on the airwaves.

It was a response I would hear over and over again from Democrats as I went from leading local and state level environmental campaigns to helping direct those campaigns on the national level. When Democrats voted against us, it was rare to hear them say they didn't agree with us on the merits. Instead, they'd tell us they were afraid: afraid that their constituents wouldn't support a pro-environment position; afraid of defying President Bush and the Republican noise machine; or they'd even admit they were afraid of angering this or that corporate lobby and losing campaign contributions to the Republicans.

To be sure, on a basic level, I found their explanations infuriating: shouldn't leaders do the right thing, even when doing so might entail some political risk? But even when I put myself in their shoes and tried to see their positions from the perspective of a purely self-interested politician, these rationalizations still didn't add up: polls consistently show strong support in all parts of America for stronger environmental protections -- it's one issue that unites grassroots Republicans and Democrats. What's more, in my experience, politicians who were willing to confront powerful interests in tough battles came out of those battles more, not less, popular.

When I looked outside the environmental movement, I saw the same thing. Starting with President Clinton, through the 1990's, and down to the present, Democrats shied from a full-throated campaign for government-financed universal health care, not because they disagreed with experts' assessment that it was the best and most affordable way to provide health coverage to the greatest number of people, but because they were afraid of taking on the HMO's and insurance companies. Many Democrats supported President Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-rich, not because they thought giving billionaires a tax break while the working and middle classes were feeling economic insecurity was a good idea, but because they were afraid of opposing President Bush, no matter how worthy the cause.

more...

http://www.alternet.org/story/77371/?page=entire

[bemildred]

1. They are afraid of the public, is what they are afraid of.

Once the people get started changing things, they might not stop for a long time.

[Demeter]

2. Running Scared

Not sure they want to live in a democratic republic. That would be a real change.

Sometimes I wonder though. Remember that saying: "The guilty flee where no one pursueth!"

[AdHocSolver]

3. A more cynical explanation: They want to hold on to their cushy jobs.

Their constituents keep reelecting them even when they go back on their campaign promises. Their constituents don't complain when they take lobbyist money from the corporations.

For a long time, the Democrats claimed that they couldn't do anything because they lacked majorities. Now, they still do nothing even with majorities, and they get away with it because the voters are afraid to throw the bums out.

Until the people wise up and replace do-nothing Democrats with progressive Democrats, mothing will change.

[Cobalt-60]

4. Cash and Anthrax

Our people in Washington act like they've been bought, threatened, or both.
The administration's apparent anthrax assassination attempts on Democratic senators are probably still fresh in their minds, not to mention their two fisted abuse of the DOJ.
Add Corporate masters donors that can grant them anything they desire and its easy to understand.