The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Democrats slow to fight for progress

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Kyle Szarzynski:

John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
Critics ignore Kumar's progressive strides (November 26, 2007)
Islam no defense for extremist action (November 20, 2007)

by Kyle Szarzynski

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The recent mid-term elections have been cause for much celebration among American progressives. The Democrats have achieved a majority voting bloc in both the House and Senate. Most governorships are now blue as well. Meanwhile, the characterization of President Bush's administration as a lame duck seems all the more accurate. Even better, the secretary of defense whom liberals love to hate — Donald Rumsfeld — has resigned. To die-hard Democrats, the job is over until 2008.

To be sure, the Democratic success on Nov. 7 should be welcomed by progressives. Considering the immediate relevance of the leftist issues that Democratic legislators have proven they stand up for — Roe v. Wade, global warming, opposition to free trade agreements, etc. — their victory will undoubtedly have real, tangible and positive results in the lives of Americans.

And yet we know from the Democrats' history that, at best, they have proven to be a pathetic opposition party. The Clinton years perhaps best exemplify this: Iraqi sanctions, racist welfare reform, NAFTA and the Defense of Marriage Act are just a few of the despicable hallmarks of the "liberal" presidential administration of the 1990s.

Similarly, the Democratic congressmen of today are rather dismal representatives of the left. Be it their support for the war in Iraq or their opposition to gay rights, they are all too often not on the side of progress. Thus, social justice advocates cannot rely on the Democratic Party to make progressive change in our society.

The most fundamental social change always comes from the bottom. That is, the disenfranchised majority — not the elite politicians — is the primary impetus for social justice. Political progress comes about through the fight that the oppressed put up against injustice. As Frederick Douglass put it, "Without struggle, there is no progress."

The reality is that the party that controls the chambers of congress is significantly less important than what type of political protest is going on in the streets of Washington D.C. Under the arch-conservative Nixon administration, abortion was first legalized, affirmative action was introduced, the Environmental Protection Agency was established and the United States finally withdrew from Vietnam. Obviously, this political change did not come about from the benevolence of President Nixon, but rather because millions of people were taking part in the critical mass action that forced the operators of the system to make change. Conversely, the years of the "liberal" Democratic Clinton administration was an era of neoliberal devastation and reactionary political mentalities because there was relative apathy in the 1990s.

This isn't to say that voting for the Democrats is futile. Such a premise may satisfy the political frustrations of the leftist purists, but is practically worthless. For there is no doubt that the Democrats are — simply put — not as bad as the Republicans. And in an era where a base for radical action does not exist, it would be truly immoral to advocate against voting Democrat, since there exists no other avenue for the defense of civil rights and equality.

Still, there does exist the danger that supporting the vote as one means of change could be misconstrued as the end-all of the political struggle. Indeed, many prominent liberal organizations deliberately promote this position. Fair Wisconsin, for example, tirelessly worked to get out the vote against the gay marriage amendment Nov. 7, but upon its defeat didn't bother to tap into the anger of University of Wisconsin students by calling for mass protest. Instead, all that the disheartened gay rights activists got was a pitiable message from the organization's campaign manager, Mike Tate, who said that at least "many of the same people who voted for this amendment today are the very same people who will support equality for gay families within the next five or 10 years."

The issue for progressives is how to balance the fight against the system while still working within it. This is a matter that requires a delicate political analysis and does not offer easy answers.

What is for certain, though, is that the recent Democratic victory must be embraced with the realization that the real work has just begun. It is clear that if the United States is to become a more equitable and magnanimous society, then a fight against the powers that be must descend from the realm of high-minded hypothesizing — it must become a reality.

Kyle Szarzynski (szarzynski@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in Spanish and history.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 15, 2006 @ 11:06am):

So a new group of swindlers is in power. BFD

Anonymous (November 15, 2006 @ 11:36am):

We got Tweedle-Dee now instead of Tweedle-Dum?

***

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. John Murtha for majority leader, the No. 2 position in the Democratic leaderhsip, has roiled her caucus. "She will ensure that they [Mr. Murtha and his allies] win. This is hardball politics," Rep. Jim Moran, a top Murtha ally, told the Hill, a congressional newspaper. "We are entering an era where when the speaker instructs you what to do, you do it."

But several members are privately aghast that Mr. Murtha, a pork-barreling opponent of most House ethics reforms, could become the second most visible symbol of the new Democratic rule. "We are supposed to change business as usual, not put the fox in charge of the henhouse," one Democratic member told me. "It's not just the Abscam scandal of the 1980s that he barely dodged, he's a disaster waiting to happen because of his current behavior," another told me.

Melanie Sloan, the liberal head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was cheered on by Democrats six weeks ago when she helped reveal the Mark Foley scandal. Now she says that "Ms. Pelosi"s endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, show that she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009248

Anonymous (November 15, 2006 @ 12:12pm):

Those unethical congressmen really suck when they're not in your party, huh? Maybe you should let us get a taste of the sweet, sweet unethical pie now. You had your time to soak the system, now it's ours.

You should have soaked more when you had the chance.

Anonymous (November 15, 2006 @ 12:51pm):

A Murtha victory will immediately taint the new Democratic majority with a very strong whiff of corruption plus being tied to a guy who is a past master of pork and earmarks. Is that their new image for disposing of the "culture of corruption?"

Republicans, on the other hand, should be happy with Murtha as the face of the "New" Democratic majority in Congress.

Anonymous (November 15, 2006 @ 2:55pm):

Thank goodness that "progressives" like you will never have the power to ruin our country. "racist welfare reform"? "disasters like NAFTA"? The only reason the democrats even exist as a party today is the fact that Clinton brought some sense to the party. Of course he brought a lot of other things, too.