By what logic does ineffective opposition engender blame equal to direct perpetuation or initiation?

[jpgray]

There's plenty of blame to go around for the Democratic delegation in Congress. I get the impression, however, that on DU the obstacles and risks endemic to a tiny, disunited majority are either not considered or willfully ignored. For whatever reason, the Democrats are getting a lot of absolute condemnation and I'm curious as to why.

It may well be that we largely agree here that the GOP is the major culprit, and therefore the issue won't generate as much debate. We are similarly united in disappointment with the lack of effective opposition. If our discussions only went that far, there wouldn't be enough disagreement to cover all major forums with anger towards the Democrats. Yet that is what we have. So at what point does the contention that generates so many threads and replies come in?

It must come down to the reasons behind the lack of effective opposition. First, what -are- the reasons, in your view?

I think the idea of "majority" warrants more careful consideration. Our "majority" contains at least 20% skittish freshmen and blue dogs (47 blue dogs in the House alone). These pols come from red states, and/or benefit from corporate-friendly policies, and/or are generally uninterested in starting any controversial fights. Given our slim majorities in both houses, this is more than enough to take the teeth out of any ambitious plan to undo administration policies, so long as the minority party is united.

And the minority party -is- united, to a far greater extent than the majority party. The GOP delegation has held fast on party line votes concerning some -extremely- unpopular Bush administration stances. While this hasn't always been enough for them to win the actual vote, given Democratic solidarity (cf. Habeas Corpus vote), it is more than enough to hold off any significant opposition when combined with the executive power of veto. Add the vacillating freshmen and blue dogs to the mix, and the challenge to leadership in the face of having such a slim margin that is far from veto-proof becomes a genuinely difficult situation.

It's fun to complain. It's fun to bitch. We all know and agree that the lack of effective opposition is completely wrong. All excuses seem hollow in light of the extreme stakes of war and infringement on fundamental civil liberties. Visible leadership figures such as Pelosi and Reid fairly bear the brunt of the blame for a disunited caucus and a lack of strong clear stances. But so too do those congresspeople who are free to undermine party unity without such visibility--those skittish freshmen and blue dog Democrats.

I can't know the inner workings of Congress, but I take notice when people such as Bernie Sanders, Al Gore or John Conyers say "the votes aren't there," "it would be a distracting failure" or "it'd be a Karl Rove wet dream" concerning something as serious as impeachment. Now, it's easy to read such as mealy-mouthed excuses, but if you give such people a tiny bit of credit (and I do), it's worth considering the problems involved with our disunited tiny majority. Let's consider impeachment.

So you're Nancy Pelosi. You've made the rounds. You don't have 281 votes for impeachment. You don't have enough Democrats who will commit their support, and all the GOP reps naturally laugh in your face. What do you do? You can carry forward anyway, to an embarrassingly impotent failure right out of the gate, or you can do nothing and try to put a good face on it.

Either way you'll be excoriated. The GOP fans will still hate you, and your progressive base will call you a do-nothing enabler or collaborator. There's no magic wand you can wave to convince the blue dogs or the skittish freshmen to hold fast. There's no threat or lever that will move them. You're stuck, impotent, and the most visible figure of blame for -both- sides of the political debate. Failing to stop GOP policies doesn't endear the GOP to your party, and the failure will make the base of your own party hate you even more. Yet if you have a tiny majority that has far too many conservative elements that fear confrontation, and the minority marches in lockstep, what do you do?

So to sum up, what do you think the reasons are for the lack of effective opposition? Are my suppositions about the state of the majority accurate? What would you do if in Pelosi's shoes to make the best of this situation?