On Democrats and sucking

There's been some interesting discussion about post I wrote a few days back, including some objections from Publius at Obsidian Wings. Generally speaking, I don't object to the disagreement--specifically that, as far as SCHIP goes, Democrats are hamstrung by intransigence even they weren't expecting.

But the main point of my criticism--where Democrats really blew it--was FISA. SCHIP--much like Iraq--shows, I think, that Democrats can't count on Republicans to be practical. FISA shows they have to ramp up the partisanship to the same degree that Republicans do on Iraq. To put it in more relative terms, FISA is a winning issue for Democrats, but only if they stick together. Iraq, by contrast, is a losing issue for Republicans, and yet somehow they retain party unity every time it comes to a vote. Which is to say that Pelosi and Hoyer need to demand more from their caucus.

I wrote this up more extensively for the newly launched Guardian America, and will repost in full here. The takeaway is that--though many of us realized this months ago--the Democrats need to be more bullish in their second year in power than they have been in their first.

In the coming weeks, Democrats and Republicans are going to replay every major fight they've had since January on the floors of both houses of Congress. The difference is that, by now, most of the optimism that accompanied the Democrats as they took the reins after last year's election is gone. The majority party has barely been able to eek out victories in even their easiest battles, and their liberal constituents have definitely noticed that the picture coming into November 2007 looks much as it did going into November 2006.

Of course, it's not entirely the Democrats' fault. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Democrats for having to face, week in and week out, all of the challenges that ruling with such a narrow majority entails: the poison pill amendments, the insurmountable filibusters in the senate and the even more insurmountable presidential veto.

It's hard stuff, but, given this reality, Democrats face a choice: they can become more partisan and fight their battles more aggressively, or they can compromise to a greater extent than they have already.

But back to that in a moment. What they certainly cannot do is continue to make the same mistakes they've been making in recent weeks. They can not maintain a posture of opposition that isn't backed up by the same willingness to joust violently that the Republicans have in excess. That posture left the Democrats in tatters last week.

First, on Wednesday, Democrats in the house fled from the Restore Act - a bill meant to amend the now-infamous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to restore important civil liberties - when Republican congressman Eric Cantor exploited the rules of the house and floated a meaningless amendment that just happened to contain the invincible words "Osama bin Laden" in its text. That boogie man sent enough Democrats scrambling such that the party found itself unable to vote the amendment down. But since upholding it would have constituted an indefinite delay, House leaders pulled the bill.

The next day, after running weeks of politically charged ads but courting individual Republicans behind the scenes, Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of a bill expanding SCHIP - an incredibly popular program that provides health insurance to poor children. When the votes were tallied, it turned out that Democrats had actually less support from Republicans - by one vote - than they had had when the bill passed in the first place. Such Republican intransigence on even a broadly popular measure should signal to Democrats that it is foolhardy to attempt to win Republican support for policy initiatives.

In the days ahead, there will be major votes on SCHIP and FISA and on funding for the Iraq war. For each of these flashpoints, the Republicans speak deceptively of compromise, and, indeed, that is an option for the Democrats. They can vote to pass weaker-than-acceptable versions of the Fisa reforms and SCHIP, and to continue to fund the war in Iraq without any stipulations. But these are winning issues for the Democrats, and if they cave, nobody will be impressed.

What they should do is fight to get their way as nastily as the Republicans do -show up every day armed, ready to deploy parliamentary rules to their benefit, politeness be damned. No more poison pill amendments. It should be made clear to every Democrat in the house that a vote for an amendment like that used by Cantors will compromise their committee seniority and all the other perks that come with being in good stead with the leadership.

If the president won't accept a good children's healthcare bill, Democrats should reauthorize SCHIP one month at a time, sending the bill to the White House to be vetoed over and over again, until enough Republicans are cowed into over-riding Bush's stamp, or until we have a president who's willing to sign it.

In the senate, where Republicans have been threatening to filibuster Democratic legislation at three times the rate established in recent years, Democrats should force real filibusters. If Republican leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP decide to talk for days on end, so be it. If they cave and just send the bill off to the president for yet more vetoes, that's fine, too. The old, reprehensible FISA amendments will expire, and - with any luck - so will the war. And the world will be better for it.

Action like that is politically dangerous, and it almost certainly means a series of legislative stalemates as the 2008 elections approach. But, for Democrats, the current course of action carries with it the exact same risks and hasn't won them many fans. If they continue in this vein, they may be able to hobble back into power next November, but their legacy will be of having learned all of the wrong lessons in their return to power.