The good news: Tom Daschle, proud appeaser and occasional whipping-boy, the man who promised Bush sixteen months ago that “he can depend on us,” and is yet to sustain serious opposition to anything on George’s wishlist – be it corpulent tax cuts for the rich, largesse and reward for oil companies drilling into our future, or the rush for devastating and unjust war – will not be running against him for President. Besides thinning the field and removing the prospect of a Daschle-Bush race, the decision carries with it the possibility – however hazy – of Daschle using his role in the Senate to construct something that could actually be construed as an opposition party. Too soon to tell. But given how little liberals have learned to expect from him, Daschle’s coupling of his decision not to run with a strongly-worded attack on the Bush “stimulus” plan as one that would damage our ability to face our challenges as a nation was, at the very least, progress.
The bad news: Can’t say this one is any kind of surprise, or even news really. But (speaking of appeasers) brace yourself for that bastion of bipartisanship, Joe Lieberman, to announce his candidacy Monday. Our most recent reminder of Lieberman’s political style came when Bill Frist, who, besides having belonged to an all-white club and joked that poor Black kids would stab him with pencils, is connected to the largest government fraud suit in US history, filed against a for-profit hospital firm whose agenda runs directly counter to those of the patients whose interests, as an MD, he’s supposedly uniquely equipped to represent, was named to the Majority Leader post. What did Joe have to offer? Nothing but praise for Frist, excitement to work with him, and concern that “these kinds of positions” often become “more partisan” than necessary. God forbid (we know Joe likes talk about God) party leadership should be partisan. In other words, perhaps Bill Frist would like to follow the model of Tom Daschle.
If anyone were to accuse Lieberman of being partisan, it certainly wouldn’t be of being a partisan Democrat. This is the man who wants the government to monitor rap music for obscenity and academia for dissent, who said that the moral degradation of our society could be measured by the height of the wall between church and state, the darling of the DLC, the poster-child for the jingoism and double-standards which claim the ironic title of “moral clarity,” the man who saw fit to flirt with social security privatization, with tort reform, with ending affirmative action – the list goes on. Much attention surrounded Lieberman in 2000 as the first Jewish candidate on a “major party” ballot. The man also had a shot at “first Jewish Republican on a Democratic ticket,” but that one doesn’t sell quite as well. Were I running the RNC (that’ll be the day), and were Lieberman to run as the Democratic candidate for President in 2004, I might just push, in the spirit of bipartisanship, for my party not to run a candidate.
Author Archives: Josh Eidelson
Laying the groundwork for the unveiling of his new new tax plan, Bush has trotted out the tired accusation of “class warfare” to fend off criticism. “Class warfare,” when used by Republicans or DLC-leaning Democrats, labels comparison of, say, a tax cut’s impact on the rich and the poor in this country, or the level of economic stratification in the US and Norway, as an attempt to pit one class against another. The vitality of the term seems directly linked to its efficacy and its elegance – it removes the need to enter the fray and address the gaping inequalities in this country, it reframes cooperation as the agreement of all people to grin at the gains of the privileged few, and it does so with just the appropriate hint of red-baiting to scare off opponents without seeming, say, “partisan.” The Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s, with equal logic, could be described as “race warfare,” insofar as it addressed injustice in racial terms. Today’s Republicans, however, are all too eager to take credit for that one – in part because it gives them the chance to portray opposition to Affirmative Action as a logical continuation of the same process. The extreme of the conservative stance on race today, in fact, is epitomized by Ward Connerly’s recent description of race as a “cancer,” we must “consign to the ash heap of history” – thus his campaign in California to forbid the government to track whether, say, Black drivers are stopped more often than White drivers, or White women on welfare are sent to vocational training programs, while Black women are sent to “dress for success” classes – solve racial injustice while ignoring it. Conservatives cannot as easily demand that the government not keep track of family income (not that none will try), but they can try to sweet-talk voters into turning away the “anachronistic,” “partisan,” “divisive” politics of “class warfare.” Only such a choice will give them a free pass to bring back that pizza napkin creation “trickle-down economics,” one of many 80’s ideas (like slap bracelets) that some just aren’t ready to give up. Public jobs are socialism, we’re told – the best way to create jobs is to flood the top with enough money that a little bit can’t help but slip on down. Never mind, for example, the role of consumer demand, rather than management budget, in determining hiring and firing… If you look left or right at what conservative-style capitalism has wrought, you won’t be looking up to notice the windfall trickling down… Bush, keep in mind, is a “compassionate conservative,” “a uniter, not a divider.” Look for a long-overdue extension of unemployment benefits and economic bail-outs for the state governments whose economic crises are most embarrassing as the proverbial canaries in the magician’s hand to distract us from the proverbial elephant behind him – generous tax breaks for the usual suspects. Welfare rolls are climbing, unemployment is climbing, and the Bush solution is…tax cuts on stock dividends. But don’t worry – Bush “understand[s] the politics of economic stimulus.” Decades ago, the Rev. King declared, “To end humiliation was a start, but to end poverty is a bigger task.” Accusations of class warfare should be rejected for what they are – baseless tarring of those of us who think solving problems tends to start with addressing them.
Here we go again
Another tragic weekend in the occupied territories – Israeli Defense Force soldiers assasinate seven Palestinians, some of them accused murderers, others, in the popular lexicon, “collateral damage,” and another participating in civil disobedience against five months of curfews; Islamic Jihad gunmen spray a communal dining hall in Otniel with automatic gunfire, killing four Israeli settlers. Western “liberal” media portrays the death of Israelis, at the end of a month including the deaths of fifty Palestinians, as an end to a period of “relative calm.” Another win for the extremists on both sides, another loss for too many others.