In the continuing saga of resolutions and the 38th LD Democrats, last night (June 6) was about as amusing as it was disappointing. Some of you may recall from a previous post the resolution expressing "extreme disappointment" with Rick Larsen's vote in favor of the debt slavery bill. The vote on the resolution was "postponed until such time as the congressman or a representative was able to speak in his defense." (Keep in mind that, until the resolution was passed, there technically was nothing to defend) At last night's meeting, Rick's campaign manager and Legislative Affairs assistant were both there to speak to Rick's reasons for voting against the mainstream of the party and explain how it is not necessary to pass resolutions to speak to him. He hears us quite well without any resolutions. What followed was a rather lengthy explanation about how this resolution, if passed, would make national headlines proclaiming things like "38th LD Repudiates Larsen", "Larsen faces troubles on the home front", and "Liberals Lambast Larsen." (I just made up that last one....) Now one would think that all the talk about defending Rick from "sticks and stones" would have brought a resounding "No" vote on the resolution. But No.............It was decided instead that the resolution not even enjoy a vote. You guessed it. The motion was made and seconded and passed to TABLE INDEFINITELY the resolution expressing disappointment. But the best was yet to come.........
Knowing that it would be pointed out that I was only willing to criticize the congressman over issues where we disagree (and having been prompted by the congressman to offer resolutions recognizing "good votes") I came last night armed with a resolution of appreciation for a series of such votes and offered it up during "New Business." Need I tell you the result? Apparently it is "sometimes" necessary to speak to our congressman via the resolution.
Now this would be just an amusing antecdote if it didn't open up so many questions for me about the legislative district and my peers within the local Democratic Party. In the failure to pass the resolution about the bankruptcy reform bill, I am left wondering if, perhaps my LD is not disappointed in Rick's vote. As someone new in participatory party politics, am I misunderstanding the role of the legislative district? I mean, what is the "official" means of communications between the LD as a political organization if not the resolution? Of course individuals should communicate with their representatives but the LD is a "body" that should speak with one voice after deliberate debate and consensus. What is that form of that voice?
Finally, I am left to wonder about those who continue to express dismay with the process and yet do not themselves participate. I have now been on the losing end of too many 9-7 votes. Should I criticize those who defend their position and muster the forces necessary to prevail or remind my "good friends" who started on the journey with me that, had they not dropped out or if they would only find the time to participate in the system that they love to criticize, we might be making inroads into this system and, perhaps, be heading it down the road of change?
Chad (The Left) Shue
"Toto, maybe we never really left Kansas?"
Mike's Blog Round Up
45 minutes ago
8 comments:
Actually, in my mind anyway, a "vote to table" is just that. Not up or down, not yes or no, just "I don't want to talk about it any more." Maybe my perspective os wrong but I think if your disagree with something, you vote no, not "make it go away."
I am often wrong.
Yipes! Accidentally deleted my post, which I will try to paraphrase. I originally pointed out that a vote to table IS, in fact, a vote. It's a vote to not talk about it right now. It may not be the one that's wanted, but it is a vote.
My hunch is that the 38th was reluctant to publicly rebuke a sitting Democratic Congressman. That's fair - and if the vote had turned out the other way, what would your opinion be of those on the losing side who complained about the process? It's often a matter of point of view.
I have also been disturbed by the apparent inablility on the part of the old guard of the4 38th to understand that in a democracy, it is vital that the represented offer feedback to their elected officials if they expect to be represented as they wish to be represented. This mentality that somehow our leaders will be compromised if we voice disagreement or disappointment with their positions on certain issues is ludicrous. If Maria Cantwell were more open to listening to the needs and expectations of the people who worked to put her where she is, her chances for re-election would be considerably better. As it is, no one I've talked to recently who is politically savvy (and is in a position to be objective,) thinks she has a snowball's chance in you-know-what of being re-elected which is really too, bad since she has for the most part, provided effective leadership. Her problem is her ego. She is unwilling to admit that she was wrong to vote for the war in Iraq and she will not lead the discussion on "Peak Oil" even though she is very involved with and informed about the need for energy reform. The connection between this and your resolution is that I hope our fellow progressives are united in the belief that we owe it to our elected officials and ourselves to maintain an open dialogue. If the means of communication is the issuing of resolutions, so be it, but regardless of the vehicle used to make this happen, we need to commit ourselves to being responsible for our own democracy and voicing our opinions without being fearful that somehow our candor will provide the other side with ammo. And well done with the resolution thanking Rick for the positive things he has done. Too bad we couldn't have issued them both and kept it all balanced. How come no one brought up his vote on the Woolsey Ammendment? We could have really made Larry Vognild's evening by getting into that fray!
Okay, I have said enough...I will try to be more regular and brief from now on....charlene
Hmmm...I may be one of those targeted by the criticism at the end of Chad's original post. I take it willingly and understandingly. I did quit on the Democrats because, as I have said time and again before and since bailing out, that the Democratic Party structure is as culpable for the current political situation as are the neoCons or moderate Cons. The Democratic Party structure can not, will not, change from within. Howard Dean was rightly criticized by Dennis Kucinich for his stand on continuing the war, but this is how it goes - the people at the top fall in suit, so what can the people at the bottom do within the system. That's why I have chosen to work outside the system on a number of fronts, including reducing military recruiter impact in high schools. I will be happy to do what I can to present an outside-the-box perspective as an 'at large' member of DFSC, but I cannot work within the Democratic Party structure. There's too much ignorance, too much resistance to common sense, to much....politics. Anything that comes out of the other end of the meat grinder in the Democratic Party structure will be tepid and ineffective. I am interested in social change now. I can't wait, and so I must attempt to work in different avenues, more openly socialist, environmentalist, revolutionary.
I dissent.
While I have no problem at all with us citizens informing our legislators that we disagree (or, for that matter, agree) with the positions they take on various issues or pieces of legislation, I disagree with the entire notion that it is a proper function of the 38th LD PCO's to issue monthly report cards to them via resolutions.
It appears I may be a minority of one here, but I honestly believe that one reason the repugs were so long been gaining on us, and now beating us, is that they were concentrating on winning and we were and are forever and obsessively concentrating on purifying the party. The caucus process last year brought this home to me fairly dramatically--e.g., a person could be entirely excluded from being a Kucinich delegate because of his or her sex. What kind of nonsense is that? The sex of our prospective delegates trumps all consideration of skill, commitment, hours of devoted work, and so forth? I guarantee the repugs don't get mired in this foolishness. (I'll spare you the speech about how the repugs have played on this Dem tendency in order to portray us a party preoccupied with nurturing group grievances.)
You wanna tell Larson he's off base supporting the bankruptcy bill? Please do--you're right. That vote bordered on the unconscionable, in my humble opinion. But why don't we devote the efforts of the 38th LD to electing and re-electing Democrats? That means raising money, doorbelling, writing letters to the editor, educating voters, registering voters, all that brick-and-mortar stuff. The best way to get rid of these creatures who have taken over our government is to defeat them at the polls, not by requiring our candidates to pass a profusion of litmus tests.
--monty
Monty,
Thanks for speaking up. I sincerely appreciate your perspective here. You may be correct in your assesment that the LD is not about sending "report cards" but I am still curious then about how the collective "38th LD Democrats" differ from a group of Democrats who live in the 38th LD.
My intent with the resolution process was to use that as the voice of the collective or the "body" if you will. What I came away with on Monday was that this is acceptable so long as we only say nice things. Those of us who did vote against tabeling the resolution have written and phoned our congressman individually. I was hoping that the "body" might speak. You have to admit, it was a bit on the hypocritical side for those who said "we don't need to send resolutions to Rick. He hears us." to vote FOR the "nice-nice" resolution.
Chad
Chad,
Now is the time to push forward your agenda... You have Rick Larsen's attention... Now is the time to ask: "What does the Democratic Party stand for?"
We are governed by the most corrupt, irresonsible and unaccountable congress in our life time. The most immoral act of this immoral congress is the passage of the Bankruptcy Bill. Instead of cracking down on predatory lending practices, closing loopholes and strenghtening the safety net for working people, This congress passed and the President signed a bill that reads like a credit card wish list. The majority of people that file for bankruptcy are middle class folks who can't pay thier bills because they've lost thier jobs or been hit with high medical bills. The most tragic thing is that Rick Larsen not only did not fight hard enough to stop this bill, but he even voted for it...
You have Rick's attention, he is not going to be running for office again for over a year, progressives must push hard right now for a progressive agenda.
Rick recently signed onto the Woosley Legislation to have Bush come up with exit stragety in Iraq. He did this because he feels the pressure from progressives. Congress must ask now "What is the exit stragety?"
We want leadership from Rick! Send the resolution! I don't think that he would vote any differently today on the Bankruptsy Bill than he did a month ago...
Post a Comment