Civil War?

Is there a civil war taking place in the Democratic Party? Oh sure there is always talk about which element of the party is going to come out ahead after the various caucuses or primaries but it seems to me that there is something much more happening across the country (and right here at home) right now; a genuine struggle for the reigns of power within the party.

During the 2004 primary, the DLC came out swinging at former Vermont governor Howard Dean as soon as he started to pick up momentum. By challenging the new "centrist Democrats" who had been willing participants to the newly appointed Bush Administration's economic, environmental, and educational "reforms" and who, on the heels of 9-11, had actually written key pieces of the USA Patriot Act and the irresponsible Iraq Use of Force (War) Resolution, Dean set himself up as the anti-DLC candidate. Soon the sides were drawn with Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun to the left and Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt to the right (leaving Bob Graham of Florida representing the true center). The ensuing debate centered not on the merits of the issues and plans but more on which candidate would sell better to middle America in "time of war". The mantra from the DLC was "America will not accept a return to Liberal anti-war candidates in the new post 9-11 era." The fact that they were actually allowing Karl Rove to set their agenda by claiming "We want Dean" in an effort to cast doubt on Dean's electability, barely entered into the conversation.

Progressives, who were still reeling from the 2000 election and were having some genuine identity issues over the Clinton years**, began to question their own convictions and started to peel away from Dean and the rest (ok, not so much from the rest) and fall into line with the "Party Leadership" who insisted that we should support "electable Democrats until we can reclaim the majority in Congress and set the stage for more Progressive candidates." By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the seeds of doubt had grown into a field of shattered dreams and launched the campaign of our "War candidate" to match up with their "War president." In Washington State, we had the added feature of watching our more Progressive senior senator and members of congress reclaim their seats rather handily and a significant Democratic pick-up in the state legislature (led by a solidly Progressive movement) while our governor's race was a real nail biter. I am certainly not alone in believing that race was kept close due mostly to the reluctance of our Democratic candidate to take any firm stands on issues that might hint that she leaned even slightly left. In the end, she eked out a victory and early indications are that Gov. Gregoire will govern effectively so long as she maintains a Democratic majority.

In 2006, we have battle lines being drawn all over the country. From Pennsylvania, where the party of civil rights and a woman's right to choose, is promoting an anti-choice candidate for US Senate over a pro-choice Democratic activist with major Progressive backing. In Illinois, the DCCC is casting aside the DFA endorsed candidate who garnered 40% against entrenched republican Henry Hyde (of Clinton Impeachment fame) and promoting an out of district Iraq Invasion Veteran with virtually unknown stands on the issues. Right here in Washington State we have the "invisible Democratic senate primary" between the incumbent, Maria Cantwell who voted for the Patriot Act -twice now- and the IWR (one of the very people Howard Dean was talking about in 2003/2004) and Marine Corp. Veteran for Peace, Mark Wilson whose crime against the Democratic Party is his former affiliations with the Libertarians and the Greens. What is the "party line" in all of these races? You guessed it: Progressives should support "electable Democrats until we can reclaim the majority in Congress and set the stage for more Progressive candidates." The argument doesn't appear to be holding well this time around.

Progressive groups from Move-on.org, to True Majority, to Progressive Democrats of America along with Progressive pundits and bloggers like Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, and William Rivers Pitt are standing firm against the status-quo, calling for courage in the Democratic Party; demanding that they promote candidates who will stand up to the neocons. Why the urgency? How the Progressives fair in 2006 may well define our position in the 2008 race for the Whitehouse. By standing solidly behind our values and the candidates who represent them, we will send the message to the party that we will not settle for a presidential candidate who has failed to defend our values every time they had the chance. If we walk away this year, we might as well "phone it in" in 2008.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

**Bill Clinton is an enigma to Progressive Democrats. On one hand we have a master politician who was able to overcome the most negative attacks in recent history and serve two terms (a feat unknown to a Democrat since FDR). His rhetoric on social issues earned him the honorary title of "The First Black President" However, on closer examination, Clinton's rhetoric was much more powerful than his actions. From "Don't ask, don't tell" to "Welfare Reform" social programs actually stood still at best and even declined in some cases. It should never escape the memories of Progressives that it was Clinton who gave us NAFTA and the WTO and many are still struggling to justify Bosnia and 8 years of sanctions and bombing in Iraq with the call for the heads of the current neocon war mongers. He gets much credit for the great economy of the 90s, yet the argument can be made that he was simply the beneficiary of the dot-com boom and was able to move on just ahead of the dot-com bust.