August 9, 2007
The Battle for the Soul and Spine of the Democratic Party (Brent Budowsky)
Howard Dean in the 2004 campaign; Al Gore as the effective leader of the Loyal Opposition; and now Barack Obama challenging the tired and decadent national security establishment — these are the first true voices of 21st century politics.
If you believe supporting the Iraq war for five years was right; that America is safer under George Bush; and that special-interest lobbyists are the heart of America who do not buy laws with money, Hillary Clinton, the leader of the old establishment, is your girl (as she said).
The old establishment is composed of the Democratic pollsters and consultants who told Democrats to support the Iraq war and, only days ago, to let Republicans gut the American Constitution. The old establishment parades to the cable networks and editorial boards on behalf of their candidate, telling the world that the Democratic nomination is over and decided.
Rubbish. Looking at polls today, it is very possible that Hillary Clinton loses Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and could even come in third in more than one of them. In this case, either one of her opponents sweeps Super Tuesday after she comes in second and third in the four preliminaries, or we are headed to a brokered convention, which is far more possible than the pundits think.
More important, the voices of the 21st century politics have common denominators that now threaten and frighten the old thinking and now fossilized establishment, from national security to national politics.
Dean in 2004, Gore, Obama and others all opposed the Iraq war, all support a new foreign policy paradigm that challenges conventional notions and speaks truth about how to truly defeat bin Laden without America excusing repression, corruption and arms sales to those who turn arms over to terrorists.
The 21st Century Democrats support integrity and trust in government and promote reforms of campaigns, elections and ethics laws in government. No 21st Century Democrat would make the proposterous claim that special-interest lobbyists are just plain old Americans who never buy legislation; no 21st Century Democrat would spend five years supporting the Iraq war; no 21st Century Democrat would say America is safer under George Bush.
For the 21st Century Democrat, killing bin Laden is not controversial; writing op-eds that escalations can win the war in Iraqi is not sound military policy or basic common sense.
The great fault line is not left versus right, it is truth versus falsehood, clarity versus illusion in national security, and courage versus fear in our politics. It is reform versus corruption in our government, and campaigning that values people as much as money, and uses the new means of communication and organizing to promote the next era of progressive patriotic reform in America.
In my view, the authentic leader of the 21st Century Democrats is Al Gore. If he does not run, Barack Obama is making a bid for this role; John Edwards and Bill Richardson could still seize this mantle.
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton, based on current polls, could lose Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Those who falsely claim she has it locked up are themselves locked into the decadent and fossilized media and political establishment, which is as old think as the equally decadent and fossilized national security establishment, embodied by Messrs. O'Hanlon and Pollack.
There is a battle for the soul and spine of the Democratic Party, to earn the right to lead the nation — which will never be done by aping Bush, but only by standing up to him now, speaking truth, showing courage, and demonstrating the clarity to make a 21st century challenge to a 21st century nation.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 18 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I've said this before, and I'm sorry that I have to say it again, but, Mr. Budowsky, you're nuts as well as a liar.
Clinton leads in every national and state polling average.
http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html
Do yourself a favor before you write your next column. DO YOUR HOMEWORK! You're mistakes wouldn't survive the most cursory scrutiny of the most-lenient high school journalism teacher.
Comment by JoeCHI — August 9, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Brent: Answer me this. If the democrats are so interested in ethics, why don't they demand that Cong. Jefferson resign immediately? Why don't they set an example and knock off the earmarks? They are just as greedy and unethical as anyone who has gone before.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 9, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
"writing op-eds that escalations can win the war in Iraqi is not sound military policy or basic common sense"? But what about this:
Visiting Iraq, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said Wednesday from Baghdad that American-led forces were "making some measurable progress, but it's slow going."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070809/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_attitudes_7
Yes, it's followed by some "but the government is no good" stuff, but still.
And speaking on CNN Mr. Durbin said this:
"We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."
Somehow I have my doubts about this being the first time, but still this is very different positioning from Mr. Durbin who on May 16th on the floor of the Senate said this:
"This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed."
I think reality is starting to interfere with the Democratic Party finding its spine, and as for the soul, let me be nice to Mr. Budowsky and not go there.
The times they are a-changin'.
Comment by Igor R. — August 9, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
You are right on Brent. It is not about dem vs repub, or liberal vs conservative; it is about integrity, right and wrong. Of course that puts all the emphasis and responsibilities on an informed and educated electorate. The prospects for that are grim I'm afraid to say. My evidence for such a pessimistic outlook is sitting in the Oval Office today. We (loosely used) American's elected the village idiot for crying out loud.
Brent, your observations do however give me hope. Please continue speaking out against corporate sleeze and the fascist regime, because it is real and many of us know. How can an elctorate be 'informed' when the "media" we count on is mis-informed?
Comment by Chris in NM — August 9, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Gore? Clinton? Obama (or as Ted Kennedy has named him as Osama, maybe that's why He wants to invade Pakistan.)Edwards?
Name anything one of them did to
promote(I'm not talking about a vote) in Congress that was a great thing for the Dem's or for this country. Waiting for all to tell how they (meaning us)
will pay for social health care.
Have not heard anything about this. I guess that is not important.
Comment by NIKE IN NY — August 9, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Dead on Brent. Your detractors are dittoing the DLC/Clinton message. Those with working cerebral functions remember that Dean held a strong lead early on, only to go down in an MSM ignited fireball.
Glad to see this hopeful perspective from a seasoned vet.
Comment by rob kall — August 10, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Robert, is that the best you can do? Haven't
you noticed I've been a bit critical of the
Democrats recently, in the paper as well as
on this site? Of course Democrats have their
problems. But dont cite Jefferson on the
same planet where I am talking about Dean,
Gore and Obama, OK? Would you like me to
list the Republicans in corruption scandals
plus those who want the Republicans to be
the party that supports pardons for perjurers?
Democrats are no angels, but they are Mount
Rushmore compared to this crop of Republicans.
If you know anybody with Mitt's campaign,
tell them that for $2500 I will go to Iowa
for them, and for $7500 I will throw in New
Hampshire, Nevada, and Super Tuesday, haha.
Does Mitt pay by the vote or the caucus?
Give me a break.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — August 10, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Brent? " The 21st century democrats support trust and integrity in government". Name one. Such Bull.
Comment by Rich — August 10, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
[...] The Battle for the Soul and Spine of the Democratic Party [...]
Pingback by Make Them Accountable / We need some 21st century Democrats. — August 10, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
He named three: Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Comment by Carolyn Kay — August 10, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
This is ridiculous–while I agree with your assessment of Gore, the only consistently progressive candidate out there is Dennis Kucinich, yet no mention of him here.
Comment by Mark Farrell — August 10, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Brent: Is that the best you can do. Defend unethical behavior by simply pointing out that the Republicans have suffered from unethical behavior? That's pretty lame, even for you. As I stated, they are just as greedy and unethical as those who have gone before. I think I covered the Republicans there. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that people that are bitterly partisan don't care about ethics unless it suits their purpose. That certainly describes you.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 10, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Brent,
You unfortunately left out the single greatest visionary the Democratic Party has at this point in time.
Dennis Kucinich.
Rising from humble beginnings, Kucinich's story is the story of the "boy from the log cabin" for the 21st century. How many other Democratic leaders can speak the real truth of having experienced homelessness as a child?
How many others have put their entire adult lives into public service?
Who else besides Dennis has EVER had the guts to stand up to the big money boys, stare 'em in their beady little eyes and not blink?
How many other Democratic presidential candidates STILL carry their union card and pay dues?
Who else has the guts to talk about real Christian principles of love and compassion and to do it without blushing, without shame and with commitment to those principles Christ identified as the greatest commandments?
The quick answer? None of 'em.
I, for one, will support the man I see as the only FDR-style Democrat running in this race. I'll support a man whose values are consistent with those of about 70% of the country. I'll support the only man in this race who has been right all along about the war, the occupation, NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the Constitution and healthcare.
I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich.
Comment by Bob Kincaid — August 10, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
We cannot reclaim our nation until we reclaim the Democratic party and replace the enablers with true progressives and liberals.
Comment by Jeff Rock — August 12, 2007 @ 9:37 am
As has been said above, Americans twice allowed the village idiot to be [s]elected. What is clear now is that we have President Fossil Fuel.
Comment by John Stanley — August 12, 2007 @ 9:52 am
All three nutball neocons that frequent this site are hyperventilating. That, Brent, means you've written another factually based critique of the hypocritte fascists that occupy the WH.
When you write a great peice like this one, Brent, it always brings out the best in your neocon fan-base; Igor, Rosencran, and the wacked out Simmons.
Great piece indeed.
Comment by Lester Fields — August 12, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Lester: You're beginning to make me think that you're a secret neocon fan since you're so fixated with the concept.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 13, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Yeah Rosnecrans, you could say I'm fixated on neocons like yourself; as I'm fixated on the death, destruction, and crime you neocons have enabled. Your shallow understanding of life has resulted in the country electing an idiot. Do you not feel guilty rosencrans? I bet you don't as your ignorance is predictable. Consider staying home in the 2008 election, Rosencrans, as you and your simp;le mind have done enough damage.
Comment by Lester Fields — August 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am