Holding The Line

Well, the House just sanctioned torture by statute. It's a little unbelievable to me, but how can you be surprised these days?

The vote on the Democratic side was around 80% against. Most of them were on the right side of this, and if they were an unafraid opposition party they'd be running ads against Republicans about it. In fact some challengers to incumbents in tight races might do just that.

Chris Bowers wrote a great post today, seconded throughout the blogosphere, about how by and large the Democrats have been on the right side on most of the country's pressing issues to progressives.

Many progressives habitually argue that the Democratic Party is complicit with a wide range of right-wing legislation, even though the majority--usually the vast majority--of the Democratic Party was opposed to, worked against, and voted against that legislation. Here are some examples from the 109th Senate:

•By a vote of 25-18, Democrats in the Senate opposed the Bankruptcy bill. By a vote of 31-13, they favored a filibuster of the bill.
•By a vote of 37-7, Democrats in the Senate opposed CAFTA.
•By a vote of 42-1, Democrats opposed re-authorizaiton of the Patriot Act in its 2001 form.
•By a vote of 41-3, Democrats voted against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Democrats voted 25-18 in favor of filibustering Alito.
•Democrats voted 26-18 against restricting class action lawsuits.
•Democrats voted 40-4 in favor of a timetable for Iraq withdrawal.
•All but two Senate Democrats opposed privatizing Social Security.
•Democrats voted 24-20 against the energy bill conference report. They also voted 41-3 against drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
•In the Senate, Democrats also defeated the Bolton nomination, the repeal of the estate tax, and right-wing immigration legislation. They also passed stem cell research legislation.

I am not sure if there has been a single issue in the Senate over the past four years where the majority of Senate Democrats were did not side with the progressive position and opposed the Republican majority. Would it have been better if all Senate Democrats had stood united on all of these issues and stopped any one them from passing? Obviously, but to characterize an entire party because of the actions taken by a minority in that party is simply unfair. In fact, it is not only unfair, it is blatant stereotyping, lazy thinking, and flat un-progressive to label an entire group because of actions taken by a minority of members in the group.

That's very true, and I think a lot of progressives get hyper about this because of the learned helplessness that arises from being in the minority for the better part of six years. The House is a majoritarian institution made more majoritarian by the Republicans who shut the door on Democrats at every possible turn. The Senate is a little better, and Harry Reid has generally whipped those not named Joe Lieberman into shape.

This will be a long effort and nothing is a dealbreaker. I wish the Democrats would fight tooth and nail against this un-American assault on the Constitution (they'd probably still lose, if you look at the numbers). But they're getting a lot of this right, and I recognize there's so much work to be done before we get all the way there. So I'll continue to work for a Democratic majority because I feel that they by and large represent my ideals and values and the way I think is best to move the country forward.