Glenn Hurowitz, who runs the website www.democraticcourage.com, is the author of the forthcoming book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.
You can almost hear the triumphant cackling at the White House. Despite almost six months at the helm in Congress, Democrats have almost completely failed to affect President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq or his ability to deliver legislative goodies to his corporate backers. Indeed, the Democratic leadership's agreement to pass an Iraq funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal is only the latest in a string of White House wins.
The surrenders started mid-month when top Democrats signed off on one of President Bush's top priority agenda items: free trade agreements for Panama and Peru. Then, Senate Democrats okayed a White House proposal for a "Grand Bargain" on immigration.
Meanwhile, many of the top items on the Democratic agenda languish unpassed in the face of vehement Republican opposition and the threat of President Bush's veto pen. But while the president and his still-loyal congressional backers are holding up everything Democrats ran on, does it really make sense for Democrats to start giving President Bush and the GOP victories on Republican priorities?
Democrats could have said, "Let us make it easier to join a union, pass global warming legislation and expand health care—then we can talk about deals on trade, immigration and Iraq." But instead, they said, "Hey—you're blocking our entire agenda? No problem. Let's put that aside and cut the deals on the issues that matter to you."
That would have been bad enough if the trade, immigration and Iraq deals were what the Democrats said they were: marginal improvements over the status quo. But it turns out that almost all those improvements are just empty window dressing. President Bush will be able to decide for himself whether the Iraqi government is meeting the benchmarks required in the Iraq deal (though Republicans did have to agree to a minimum wage hike). It now looks like the environmental and labor standards promised for the trade agreements could be shunted into unenforceable side agreements.
And by denying "guest workers" meaningful rights to become citizens, the immigration deal will create an underclass of workers that could drive down wages and benefits—hardly the progressive campaign agenda Democrats ran on.
Because the Democrats have gotten so little for their trouble, the leadership is facing a backlash that is tearing the party into pieces.
Worker advocates and environmentalists are fighting pro-business centrists on the trade deal. The immigration deal has divided the caucus about six ways. And this week, congressional Democrats will face furious constituents crestfallen that Democrats can't—or won't—deliver an end to the war in Iraq.
Those kinds of intramural battles are usually the ones that divide the minority party, not the majority. Perhaps the biggest benefit of congressional control is that the majority has the power to set the agenda and force votes that will split the opposition. Republicans mastered the tactic during their years in power and relished compelling Democrats to split their caucus on wedge issues like gay marriage, gun control and taxes.
But forcing votes like that—and doing it over and over again—requires a taste for confrontation that Democrats seem to have lost.
Indeed, on Iraq, one reason Democrats decided to sign off on a deal now is that they were nervous that Republican senators Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith would no longer support a timeline for withdrawal, meaning the timeline would no longer be able to muster a majority of Senate votes. It's true that losing a vote on a timeline would have been a setback, but what's worse is passing up the opportunity to force Smith and other GOP senators facing reelection in antiwar states to either endorse Bush's war management or betray their party leadership.
With missed opportunities like that, progressives in particular are beginning to wonder aloud if the 2006 elections made any difference at all. That's hardly a valid argument: There's no comparison between the acquiescent Republican Congress and Democrats who are providing aggressive oversight and, however tentatively, at least trying for positive change. But, valid or not, it's starting to get traction among the activists who provided the time, cash and enthusiasm that helped Democrats win in 2006. This weekend, antiwar mom Cindy Sheehan said she was so disillusioned by the Democratic surrender on Iraq that she's left the Democratic party and resigned her informal leadership of the peace movement.
While few are likely to follow Sheehan and abandon the party and the struggle entirely, most activists are now excoriating the Democratic leadership, rather than aiming their fire at Republicans.
And it's not like Democrats are picking up much independent support from the deals. The media is portraying the Iraq deal in particular as a complete capitulation, hardly attractive for a public still hungry for strong leadership. That's a worrisome development for Democrats who will need both a unified and enthusiastic base as well as independent support if they're going to maintain their congressional majorities and take back the White House in 2008.
