The “Way Forward” for Democrats

Posted on January 5, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

The Daily Kos presents yet another report of a Bush signing statement, this one only a few weeks ago, on Dec 20. If a right-wing court were to rule that the President can actually legislate this way, Bush fabricated the right for the executive branch to examine postal mail without a warrant.

The new leaders in Congress seem to have no inclination to pursue even censure, which is a fairly mild rebuke given the severity of the crimes involved. A few brave members, notably Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. John Conyers, have stepped up to offer censure resolutions, but the ideas have gotten little play.

For some, Impeachment of the President would seem to be the minimum remedy for the administration’s misdeeds. Congressional leaders will not publicly entertain the idea, appearing a bit cowardly and a bit noble at the same time. They’re cowardly because the actions of the administration really do rise to at least the level that warrants the kind of investigation that might lead to impeachment. Noble only because in the interest of holding on to power (here comes the noble part) and maintaining stability, they will avoid the necessary confrontations.

A Third Way Forward
I, for one, am not ready to let all the past sins of the Republicans in Congress and the administration slide. For one thing, we need to review the great harms that have been done in order to gain the broad consensus needed to change course. Majorities are too thin to push through reforms without some Republicans crossing over, especially when Bush continues to rule as if he had a mandate.

After the end of apartheid in South Africa, came the question of how to move forward with such divisions and acrimony in the country. Protesting against apartheid was the beginning of my own political awakening. I was impressed by how the South Africans went about resolving their differences.

What they created was a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to deal with past grievences without tearing the country apart. I see the process, whatever its success, as one of the grandest exercises in ethics and morality in the 20th century. To my mind it was an exercise in forgiveness more than one in justice. It may not have been satisfying to all parties, but it did demonstrate that a nation can move forward after a time of trauma.

I don’t think that the U.S. could do quite the same thing, but honestly, while the crimes are serious, they don’t rise to the kind of trauma that South Africa had to overcome. Even in the cases of real human rights abuses and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the shock to Americans is not the same as if atrocities had been committed in our own streets, as happened in South Africa.

What does have to happen is hearings. The hearings have to be comprehensive with the goal of achieving a national consensus on the errors that have been committed and with an acknowledgment by administration officials of their wrongs.

The outcome I hope for is not necessarily prosecution of crimes or even impeachment but to reach a much broader consensus that values human rights, civil rights, privacy, a reasonable separation of church and state, an accountability to individual voters that exceeds accountability to corporations, electoral reform that assures all votes are counted and verifiable, and that money does not provide undue influence. We need to learn to value broad definitions of diversity so that none is oppressed as long as they neither harm nor seek to oppress others.

Legislative changes would not have to be made immediately, especially given the thin majorities in both houses, but Americans need to work toward agreement on a set of values. The hope is that long-needed change will result from greater consensus.

Many new committee chairs are already planning hearings. Each will do so, one expects, to the extent that they don’t interfere with the Democratic Party agenda. But priority needs to be given to the hearings, not holding onto power. If consensus building is done well, holding onto power will not be as difficult. Further, future losses to Republicans should not be as damaging if we truly agree on our values.

Such an initiative would need a name. It will never satisfy the left of the party unless it’s clear that the effort is a coordinated one and has the backing of the leadership. Nancy Pelosi’s “First 100 hours” is a start. What that initiative really seeks to accomplish is a demonstration of effectiveness. Now we need a named (or “branded” in our market-driven world) initiative that seeks to address the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of the last 6 years.