Although the new Democratic Congress completed its "first hundred hours" with some important successes, such as voting to raise the minimum wage, the rest of its agenda - and specifically how much Democrats will challenge President Bush - remains very much up in the air.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have repeatedly promised to work "from the middle." They've declined to make clear how far they'll push to undo the Republicans' tax cuts for the rich, to pass aggressive legislation to combat environmental crises such as global warming, or to use their power of the purse to chart a new course in Iraq. It seems clear that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are convinced that undoing the Bush agenda would be good for America, but they are worried that pursuing a confrontational agenda could turn off the independent voters who split in their direction just enough in 2006 to give them their narrow majorities.
Although pursuing only modest goals comports well with conventional Democratic political strategy, it's not a good strategy for maintaining and expanding independents' support - and it runs the risk of turning off the progressive organizations and activists who increasingly provide money and volunteer power for Democratic campaigns.
<snip>
While Democrats have very little to gain from shifting issue positions, doing so could cause considerable damage. If they're seen to be shifting their agenda out of political expediency and not out of conviction, it could hurt them when voters are considering whether or not Democrats are "strong leaders" or "have integrity," two measures that matter to voters far more than a candidate's issue positions.
<snip>
If the Democrats are going to pander, they should at least pander to the progressives who care about their policies.
More:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0128-22.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
