Going on Defense

Discuss this on our boards!

Going on Defense
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

November 21, 2002

"Leaning Left"

James Hall In politics as in sports, the goal is won by playing defense as well as offense. Democrats must now defend their ideals and articulate them clearly to a largely apathetic populace in order to recapture Congress and the White House. Meanwhile, they should actively oppose a party that controls the White House, Congress, and the courts. They can do this because Republicans lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and while in both the Senate and the House Democrats can and should find occasional alliances on the issues among Republicans who represent moderate and liberal districts in New England, California and other locales.

An encouraging sign during this week's lame duck session was moderate Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins holding up a flawed Department of Homeland Security bill laden containing so many corporate perks it could have been renamed the Department of Corporate Security. The Maine senators insisted that they would vote with Democrats against the bill unless several of its corporate-friendly provisions were revisited early in the next term. They received prompt promises from Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert that this would indeed happen. It now seems apparent that these senators, along with moderate Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, will exert a major influence as potential swing voters.

For Democrats, success in this new, more difficult political climate will depend on being for something positive, not in just opposing the plans of Republicans. And there are numerous differences between the potential platforms of Republicans and Democrats. Some of these differences include:

Health Care: Al Gore's recent call for a single payer system of health care points out the increasing problem of our current private health care system --- it's a system that many private companies and individual Americans can no longer afford. Rising unemployment and health insurance prices have lead to fewer Americans being covered by insurance. And lack of employment is no longer the primary reason for a lack of insurance --- fully 80% of Americans uncovered are working or are from working families. These uninsured Americans get little preventive health care and are subject to major illnesses which shorten their lives and cost insured Americans and our health care system billions of dollars annually. Republicans have largely ignored this issue; it's time for Democrats to move it forward.

The Environment: The Bush Energy Bill will be front and center soon. The president argues that it's vital for America's energy self-sufficiency for oil companies to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But to help brother Jeb's reelection, he exempted drilling off of Florida's coast and in the Everglades. Democrats should argue that we can save 10 ANWR's worth of gas by adopting the same fuel efficiency standards to trucks and SUVs that sedans currently have. As a byproduct, we'd also have cleaner air.

Workers' Rights: Bush's plans to impose the power to fire or transfer employees "at will" on the new Department of Homeland Security were just the tip of the iceberg. The president has already announced new plans to contract out as many as 850,000 public sector jobs to private industry, switching jobs now held by civil servants and military officers to nonunion, low-wage employees. Republicans continue to destroy good jobs either by downsizing them or sending them overseas. Democrats must fight for good-paying jobs wherever they exist and make it plain that Republicans are out to turn us into a nation of minimum wage employees.

Education: The education of our children ought to be this country's top priority, not "education with a tin cup," as the late Senator Paul Wellstone has described our current system. The Bush proposal to commit nationally to a system of high-stakes testing to grade schools is flawed, as its use in Texas and Florida has shown. Democrats ought to push for smaller classrooms and more money for more and better teachers. Our future depends on well-educated children.

Social Security: President Bush promised to fix Social Security. The cost of creating private accounts out of part of the Social Security revenues will be at least $1 trillion dollars, money that has to come from regular revenues or an increase in payroll taxes. With the national budget already in a deficit situation, where is the money for this? That's a question Democrats need to ask loud and long.

Fiscal Responsibility: Republicans have called the Democrats "tax and spenders," but it's clear from their own behavior that Republicans are "red-ink spenders," spending for programs without the revenue to pay for it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, at least a third of today's budget deficit is directly due to the Bush tax cuts, and Bush has added additional spending to the Department of Defense and to create the Department of Homeland Security---but without paying for it by raising taxes. If Bush fixes Social Security, he'll need at least an additional $1 trillion dollars. Add in between $75 and $500 billion for the war with Iraq plus the postwar occupation. Where does all the money come from if Bush continues to cut taxes or make his cut permanent? Again, it ought to be Democrats, who successfully balanced the federal budget in the 1990s, raising these questions.

The Economy: Congress has yet to renew jobless benefits for nearly a million unemployed Americans that expire three days after Christmas. Gateway, Veritas, and AOL have just joined the list of major corporations under SEC investigation. Confidence in the recent stock market reforms (e.g., the Sarbanes bill) is being undermined by rumors that the GOP will roll them back. Increased government spending increases government borrowing, which only makes long-term borrowing harder for US companies. Democrats have argued that righting the economy is their number one concern and must not lose focus on this issue.

Democrats should not stand in Mr. Bush's way for the sake of politics alone --- any opposition must reflect their values. That might mean helping put through a prescription drug benefit for seniors favorable to the drug companies, as Republicans wish, but one that also helps poor seniors pay their medicine bills in the meantime.

Conducting a vigorous defense leads to offense, and if Democrats are vigorous in outlining their differences with Republicans, the voters will recognize it in 2004. ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files