It is very disturbing to me to see so much animosity in the fight for the Democratic nomination, because every attack on the eventual Democratic nominee, particularly those that can be used as right wing talking points, has the potential or likelihood of being used to help John McCain win the Presidency. And that would be a disaster.
In pleading for Democratic Party unity it is not necessary to invoke such abstract concepts as “party loyalty”. “Party loyalty” has nothing to do with it. The purpose of the Party is to serve our interests and the interests of our country. When a party ceases to do that it no longer deserves any loyalty, regardless of what it has done for us in the past. The Republican Party
ended slavery in our country 143 years ago, against the fierce objections of the Democratic Party. Consequently, the former slaves and their succeeding generations gave their loyalty to the Republican Party for many decades. But by the time of FDR’s Presidency it was obvious that the Republican Party had changed beyond all recognition and no longer deserved their loyalty.
Many liberals believe that the Democratic Party has changed so much that it no longer deserves our loyalty. Like many other DUers I was initially
in favor of Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic nomination. When it became evident that his candidacy was not viable
I switched to Edwards. When Edwards dropped out I eventually
went over to Obama. Thus, on the good majority of issues I favor Kucinich and Edwards over Obama.
But the salient question determining our vote is not whether we think that the Democratic nominee is too far to the right on some issues. The most important question is whether we think that voting for the Democratic nominee is superior to the two alternatives: voting for McCain; or voting for some third party candidate who has no chance of winning and is likely to split the Democratic vote and hand the Presidency to McCain.
I prefer Obama over Clinton for three major reasons, in the following order: 1) Clinton’s negative campaigning, especially her ridiculous suggestion that McCain would make a more experienced Commander-in-Chief than Obama; 2) the large campaign donations she has received from Republicans, compared to Obama’s numerous donations from small donors; and 3) her vote for the Iraq War Resolution, which she has not apologized for, compared to Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War from the start.
Nevertheless I am not at all inclined to make destructive remarks against Clinton because I feel that she is a far superior choice to McCain. I don’t feel that my comments in the above paragraph count as destructive because I don’t believe that any of those comments could be used as Republican talking points if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.
I believe that much of the hostility directed against Obama and Clinton by fellow Democrats can be attributed to passionate support of their own candidate. But before Democrats or other liberals/progressives make destructive remarks about either Obama or Clinton we should seriously consider what a McCain Presidency would mean, compared with an Obama or Clinton Presidency:
WARMcCain on the Iraq (and Iran) warJohn McCain has consistently echoed the Bush administration talking points regarding our “commitments” to continue fighting the Iraq War. Perhaps the main difference between McCain’s position on the war, compared to George Bush’s is that McCain has specified various lengths of times that he expects US forces to remain in Iraq – such as
a hundred, a thousand, or a million years.
The first paragraph from John McCain’s discussion of the
Iraq War on his website begins:
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. … There are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary…
The current force structure and power vacuum persisting in many areas of the country demands a more robust counterinsurgency strategy. Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by insurgents but to stay and hold these areas…
Further down on his website discussion, McCain rationalizes our reasons for being in Iraq by trotting out the same old Bush lies that excused the invasion in the first place, while simultaneously bringing in the oil issue for those who consider
that to be important:
If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake – a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located…
Worse yet, McCain has repeatedly used the same trick,
trying to associate al Qaeda with Iran, in order to inflame American feelings towards Iran. One has to seriously question if he’s doing that in order to justify a war with Iran.
Obama and Clinton on the Iraq WarBy stark contrast, both
Obama and
Clinton plan to end the Iraq War: From their websites:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Other aspects of Obama’s plans include diplomacy inside and outside of Iraq, and commitment to our humanitarian responsibilities:
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
Clinton has a very similar approach:
If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative…
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration…
As president, Hillary would… direct aid to the entities – whether governmental or non-governmental – most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative – similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq…
In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq… The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs (and) address the needs of Iraqi refugees.
Yes, I’m concerned about the possibility that either Clinton or Obama might find an excuse to stay in Iraq, and the violence and imperialism could continue. But compared with the McCain approach it’s like the difference between night and day.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT I’ve discussed this issue in more detail in a
previous post. The current radical conservative block of our USSC, consisting of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, are only 59, 72, 54, and 58 years old, respectively. One more addition to that block could result in a solid majority for the radical authoritarian conservatives lasting decades, especially if they get two additions instead of one. John Paul Stevens, a moderate Republican, is 87 years old, and some
question the health of 75 year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Who knows what another 4-8 years of Republican rule will bring?
The part of John McCain’s website that discusses this issue is titled “
Strict Constructionist Philosophy”, and it speaks of “his consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures…” There are many (including McCain) who refer to the current radical conservative block on the USSC as “fundamentalist” or “strict constructionist”. The phrase “strict constructionist” is a misnomer, and it implies that the radical conservatives on our current USSC have a judicial philosophy, which they do not. Rather, they act primarily as enablers of the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party. Their only “philosophy” is to make whatever rulings are necessary to protect wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals at the expense of the American people, or to pander to the religious right.
Consider, for example,
their insistence that the right of corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns is protected by the free speech clause of our First Amendment. That is quite a stretch for so-called “strict constructionists”. Or consider their insistence that it is unconstitutional for Congress to create regulatory agencies, even though our Constitution clearly gave Congress the right to enact laws. Or consider the ridiculous “
unitary executive” theory that many of them have recently promulgated, paving the way for
executive tyranny. Nowhere does our Constitution give such powers to our president. Constitutional lawyer
Cass Sunstein explains:
Mr. Sunstein shows that fundamentalists have been wildly inconsistent in applying constitutional history, referring to it only when it fits their policy goals. Too often, he says, their interpretation neatly fits only the agenda of the extreme edges of the Republican Party's right wing rather than any reasonable view of history.
Specific changes that would be highly likely to occur with a McCain Presidency and appointment of just one more radical right wing Supreme Court Justice include:
The
overturning of
Roe v. Wade The total
extinction of affirmative action
The enabling of our states to
overturn (page 68) our entire Bill of Rights without federal interference
Radical
curtailing of civil rights for women, homosexuals, and minority racial groups
The
declaring of environmental protection laws to be unconstitutional
The widespread
disappearance of habeas corpus
The virtual
creation of Christianity as a national religion
The
Dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
DOMESTIC ISSUESJohn McCain is a typical Republican with regard to the philosophy that government should do as little as possible with regard to spending on social programs that give ordinary Americans the opportunity to go through life on a somewhat level playing field. This attitude was
most recently stated in response to Clinton and Obama plans for federal intervention to help struggling homeowners. McCain
warned against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused… McCain said "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly….”
Let’s consider more specifically some of the differences between McCain and the Democrats on three critical domestic issues – taxes, education, and healthcare.
TaxesMcCain’s idea of an
economic stimulus plan is to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, claiming that such a tax cut is “essential to U.S. competitiveness”, “will expand the U.S. economy, creating jobs and opportunities for prosperity”, and “lead to higher wages”. Other
McCain ideas for tax cuts include lowering taxes on capital gains and dividends and fighting “the Democrats’ crippling plans for a tax increase in 2011.”
What McCain means by that last statement is that he will ensure that the Bush tax cuts for the rich, including the
total elimination of the inheritance tax, become permanent in 2011. Even an
article in the
Wall Street Journal estimates that McCain’s tax cut proposals will cost our government as much as $400 billion a year.
The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, though recommending tax cuts for ordinary people,
call for the reversal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich:
Clinton:
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said money from the elimination of tax cuts that were a cornerstone of President Bush's economic policies would finance universal health care for all Americans. She criticized Bush for what she called his indifference to income inequity.
Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said, "The Bush tax cuts – people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and they ought to be relaxed so we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.…”
We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same…. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.
EducationIn response to the question at a Republican primary debate, “How can we improve the quality of public schools in this country?”,
McCain gave an answer that indicates that he couldn’t care less about public schools:
Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers… I want every American parent to have a choice, a choice as to how they want their child educated…
On the surface that sounds great, and it’s consistent with what McCain says about the issue
on his website. But the platitude that “I want every American parent to have a choice…” in the absence any meaningful plan as to how they will be given a choice is highly disingenuous.
There has never been a school voucher program that provides meaningful opportunity in education for families who struggle for financial solvency, since the amount of the voucher always falls far short of what those families need to attend a private school. As a result, those who can afford expensive private schools may benefit from a school voucher program, but the money used for the vouchers is typically drained from public education funds, thereby depressing educational opportunities for those whose financial situation requires them to use the public school system. Thus, voucher plans, if they work at all, tend to push us towards a two tier, class based education system in our country. And as for children who are fortunate enough to live in families who have enough money to use school vouchers,
the National Education Association notes that “Vouchers have failed to improve student achievement significantly or consistently for students who have moved from public to private schools.”
In marked contrast, both
Obama and
Clinton have put forth comprehensive plans, extending from pre-school through college, to make
public education both more affordable and of higher quality.
HealthcareMcCain says on his website that “We can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens”. Though that sounds like he’s advocating universal health care, the only concrete step towards that goal that he provides in his plan (not counting all the generalities about “promoting competition”, “reform”, and “reducing costs”) is tax credits of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families, which families could use towards the purchase of private health insurance. Such a plan leaves our current for-profit health insurance system fully in place without coming anywhere near achieving universal healthcare coverage.
In marked contrast, both
Obama and
Clinton offer a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” Unlike the McCain plan, these plans would make healthcare coverage affordable for everyone, prohibit discrimination based on preexisting illness or health status, and would substantially change our current private for-profit insurance company domination of the market by making available to everyone a Medicare-like, government sponsored program as an alternative.
Some DUers have criticized these plans because they leave the private for-profit insurance system intact. While it is true that private insurance companies will not be prohibited under these plans, they will be seriously wounded by the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of preexisting illness and by the competition provided by the far superior government programs. That competition would force insurance companies to either provide a product comparable to the government insurance programs or else get out of the market. In either case, these plans would be a vast improvement over our current situation, and there is every reason to believe that they would eventually morph into a single payer system as private insurance companies decided that there isn’t enough profit left in the business to encourage them to stay in it (See
Paul Krugman’s discussion of this issue).
The Democratic Party must unifyI have frequently seen both Democratic candidates referred to on DU as “corporatist” candidates. While both of them are further to the right than I would like to see, I feel that it is a mistake to refer to either one of them as “corporatist”.
In the first place, look at the
distribution of donations to the Obama campaign, which come very disproportionately from small donors and average just $109 per donor, despite the fact that Obama has
broken numerous records for fundraising:
With this distribution of funding sources, why would Obama need to please the corporate power structure at the expense of the American people?
I admit that the huge donations to the Clinton campaign from Republican donors worries me to some extent. However, I cannot see how anyone can run the kind of campaign that either Democratic candidate is running if their main objective was to please the corporate power structure. Way at the top of the list for the corporate power structure is keeping the Bush tax cuts in place or expanding them. That is precisely what McCain proposes to do. Both Democratic candidates propose to reverse them. Perhaps much of the Republican donations to the Clinton campaign are a result of their belief that she would be easy to beat.
The fighting between the Clinton and Obama campaigns is gravely hurting our chances of ending the nightmare that started more than seven years ago. A
recent Gallup poll indicated that only 72% of Obama supporters would vote for Clinton if she is nominated and only 59% of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama if he is nominated. Most of those Clinton or Obama supporters who would refuse to vote for the other candidate say they would vote for McCain. This fighting is killing our chances. Democrats must act in a civil manner to each other even if they don’t like the opposing candidate, if for no other reason than that we need their votes and the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Neither we nor the world can afford another four years of a President who is determined to continue the Iraq War indefinitely and who is likely to lead us to war against Iran. We cannot afford the addition of one more Republican appointee to the USSC, which will destroy Constitutional law in our country as we know it, and which will make our Supreme Court into little more than a rubber stamp for corporate interests and the radical Christian Right. And, we cannot afford another President who will continue the dismembering of FDR’s legacy, leading to
unprecedented levels of inequality,
increasing poverty, a
disappearing middle class, and a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
