Andrew Hagen

While he deserves stern criticism on a number of bases, Chomsky deserves praise for others, including for his merciless refutation of postmodernism. There he was several years ago torching the pyre of postmodernism with a challenge to its adherents, so far unanswered, to

show that the principles of the “theory'’ or “philosophy'’ that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and better) grounds; these “others'’ include people lacking formal education, who typically seem to have no problem reaching these conclusions through mutual interactions that avoid the “theoretical'’ obscurities entirely, or often on their own.

(*) That highlight is just an excerpt of a missive that has Chomsky at his best. He goes right for the throat. Postmodernism under attack by a real intellectual is a highly enjoyable spectacle.

In his response to terrorism and particularly 9/11, I have criticized Chomsky for error, capriciousness, and moral relativism (†) (‡) (§) (**) After 9/11, Chomsky’s political works disappointed grievously in part because of who he was. For decades he was a bright lantern for the world’s oppressed, including those victimized by various US client regimes during the Cold War and after.

Ironically, this very War on Terrorism that Chomsky stands against is the most likely catalyst today to break up the old global system of client states, the regimes of which Chomsky has made a second career out of disparaging. Christopher Hitchens notes that the move to intervene in Iraq means that political change is afoot in one of world’s least free regions, the Middle East. (††) Furthermore, John Lewis Gaddis in Foreign Policy suggests that the maligned National Security Strategy of the Bush Administration voices support for extending political freedom throughout the world to an almost Wilsonian degree. The political enfranchisement of the tyrannized masses should dry up the recruiting pools of terrorist organizations, and so may work as realpolitik. (‡‡)

What does Noam Chomsky think of these developments? He has long been skeptical of the stated aims of American foreign policy. (§§) Mirror 1 (***) Mirror 2 (†††) Even if the intention to politically enfranchise the unfree world is not wholly genuine, however, after 9/11 the intent is nevertheless real to see international change of some kind. That presents opportunities. Chomsky should admit that the instability that must result from a breakup of the client regime system will create openings through which liberation efforts may advance. Additionally, Bush’s strategic intent to favor political enfranchisement should be presumed genuine, for there is no countering superpower today to force us to side with tyrannical client regimes for the sake of opposing it. As a critic of postmodernists for their devotion to theory without the benefit of argument, Chomsky should recognize that past observations even when true, such as those made in the context of the Cold War, may not accurately guide us indefinitely into the future, and therefore should concede the distinct possibility that benefit may accrue from not only the War on Terrorism, but also Bush’s global strategy.

While it may shock some to hear it, libertarians are philosophically opposed to both liberty and equality. Libertarianism is the philosophy espoused by the Libertarian Party. (*) Libertarians often claim that their positions are more consistent than those of liberals because libertarians support not only social and political liberty, but also economic liberty. That is a fallacious comparison. The liberal position is in fact more consistent. Dodd Harris of Ipse Dixit strongly defends libertarianism by criticizing the notion of equality of result, and attempts to hook me with that notion’s sharp, serrated barb. (†)
(more…)

The New York Times has a story about how marketers are skipping Generation X, and just focusing on the Baby Boom and Generation Y.

“Generation X is the first truly tough generation to sell to,” said Charlene Stern, a senior vice president at NewGround, a bank services firm with headquarters in Chicago. “They don’t give you more than a second to slice through and earn your keep.”

(*) Bingo. Far from being a worrisome quality, our generation’s skepticism is a great virtue. Why should we just lap up the “new and improved” product they are pushing on us now? When we hear a pitch for a product or a political message, we in Generation X scrutinize it like a brain surgeon scrutinizes an MRI. Our hardened mindset, which sometimes becomes cynicism, was fed by the age in which we grew up, when, as the Times notes, sex could kill you, corporations downsized, and all institutions from government to religion showed their negative side. We were young when crime was rampant, the mentally ill and homeless roamed the streets, and recession stalked the land. Instead of being asked why we so readily noted the dark side of life, we were unilaterally branded with the insulting term “slackers,” and our fashion sense was denigrated as “grunge.” Many have fretted of our generation ever accomplishing anything. (†)
(more…)

Should we on the Left rely on the statements of the CIA when they support our preconceived notions, but not when they do not? For the purpose of strengthening the progressive movement, I continue to criticize the errors of the Left.

The establishment Left stands opposed to the Iraq intervention. A recent report of the CIA on Iraq’s WMD programs is frequently cited by the Left. (*) In his Nation column of October 8, Robert Scheer cites this CIA report in order to criticize President Bush’s televised speech on October 7 advocating the Congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Scheer writes:

The CIA report makes it clear there is no plausible national security reason for pushing for war with Iraq at this time, other than the ill-advised imperial goal of directly controlling the world’s oil supplies.

(†) In fact, the CIA report does indicate that Iraq has continued its WMD development programs and would have a nuclear weapon within the decade. Scheer’s criticism is that, based on the CIA report, there is no need for war “at this time.” (emphasis added) Yet, strategically, it would be easier to prevent Saddam Hussein from producing a nuclear weapon than it would be to take one or more nuclear weapons away from him in the future once they are part of his arsenal. The fact that Iraq will eventually have nuclear weapons and other WMD provides justification for acting now.

In a column last May 7 in the Los Angeles Times, Robert Scheer makes another pronouncement on Iraq that serves to further elucidate his position.

[W]ithout the link to Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, there is little excuse for what would prove to be a very costly war, rejected by almost all of our allies as an irrational response to what remains of the Iraqi military threat.

(‡) Now Scheer’s position is better clarified, and we can see that it falls in line with standard establishment Left doctrine. The War on Terrorism should focus on Al Qaeda, and because there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, focusing on Iraq detracts from the War on Terrorism. This is the standard left-wing position. It is, however, misguided. Now that the Security Council has passed Resolution 1441, the US does have international support, if few allies. In contrast to Scheer’s position, President Bush in that October 7 speech connected Iraq and Al Qaeda.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy—the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

(§) To amplify the point, as Jim Hoagland reports for the Washington Post, the CIA had fully vetted these allegations. To wit:

“The president’s speech was cleared line by line by several levels of the CIA, including the director,” George Tenet. So says a senior, knowledgeable U.S. official. “There is no doubt about its accuracy.”

(**) In other words, the very CIA that Robert Scheer relies on to criticize the president supports the notion of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a link Scheer denies. As Scheer said in that May 7 Los Angeles Times column, such a link would be a good argument for intervention.

Robert Scheer appears to be citing to the CIA when it suits his interests, and dismissing the CIA when it does not. He relies on the CIA when it produces a report that may undermine the case for intervention, but rejects the CIA when it connects Iraq and Al Qaeda. There is no reason apparent for this but arbitrariness. Nevertheless, maybe Scheer can still maintain consistency. Maybe he would say that the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is not significant enough to justify war.

Unfortunately for Robert Scheer, even should he take that position, he still is on the edge of capriciousness. Scheer claims in another Los Angeles Times column, this one dated 17 September 2001, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by the CIA. (††) There is not a scrap of evidence for this. The supposition of such a link is based on the fact that the CIA did work with the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden also worked with the resistance. Nevertheless, there were many different resistance groups in Afghanistan, and the CIA did not work with them all. No evidence connects the CIA and Bin Laden. The assertion of this connection is another establishment Left bromide that inevitably concludes by dismissing the terrorist attack on 9/11 as “blowback”—the backfiring of a US cloak and dagger operation.

The CIA formally denies having any relationship to Osama Bin Laden. The CIA’s web site provides thus:

Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.

(‡‡) This puts Robert Scheer in a difficult situation. A typical establishment Left response to this denial of the CIA’s is to say that the CIA cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and so its denial must be a lie. I’m not aware of what Robert Scheer would say, however, so I sent a query to him by e-mail. If he responds, I will let the readers of this web site know about it.

Let’s say that a hypothetical person with the same positions as Robert Scheer says that the CIA is lying about never having a relationship with Bin Laden. That seems odd. This person is dismissive of an alleged link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but not of an alleged link between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden. Furthermore, while this person relies on the CIA when it says Iraq’s WMD program is not fully mature, this person does not rely on the CIA when it says that it never had a relationship with Bin Laden. That is arbitrary. This person could still argue that the CIA’s denial of its Bin Laden relationship is not believable because it is in the CIA’s interest to say that. The CIA would not want to be criticized for helping Osama Bin Laden, even were it true. The CIA’s skepticism toward Iraq’s immediate availability of WMD is against its interest, and thus more believable.

It just doesn’t work, however. That argument assumes the CIA has an interest in pushing war with Iraq. To the contrary, the CIA has resisted making a case for military action against the Iraqi regime for years. (§§) Thus, it is not against the CIA’s interest to produce a report that does not support military action in Iraq to the extent that other reports have. In fact, it’s expected that the CIA will not be not hawkish on Iraq. The CIA report was not against its interest. As a result, this hypothetical person still cannot claim consistency.

Would Robert Scheer respond differently than this hypothetical person? I await his response.

Establishment Left figures John Pilger and Noam Chomsky have both been derailed by a recent terrorist admission of guilt. CNN is reporting that Al Qaeda representatives have taken responsibility for the Indonesia bombings in October, the worst of which hit a tourist resort in Bali. (*) This proves wrong the initial aspersions cast by some University of California Berkeley professors that the Indonesian army was involved. (†) The Bali bombing killed over 180 people. Over 80 were Australians. (‡)

The journalist John Pilger has placed himself into a difficult position. He blames Australia for creating the conditions that led to the bombing. Furthermore, Pilger writes:

In 1999, when the people of Australia’s closest northern neighbour, East Timor, which had been invaded and annexed by the Indonesia dictatorship of General Suharto, finally had an opportunity to vote for independence and freedom, it was the government of John Howard that betrayed them. Although warned by Australia’s intelligence agencies that the Indonesian army was setting up militias to terrorise the population, Howard and his foreign minister, Alexander Downer, claimed they knew nothing; and the massacres went ahead. As leaked documents have since revealed, they did know. This was only the latest in Australia’s long complicity with state terrorism in Indonesia, which makes a mockery of the self-deluding declarations last week that Australia had “lost its innocence” in Bali. Certainly, few Australians are aware that not far from their holiday hotels are mass graves with the remains of some 80,000 people murdered in Bali in 1965-66 with the connivance of the Australian government.

(§) Pilger fingers Australia as the background cause of the Bali bombing.

Let’s step back from this and examine the issue of East Timor. After the genocidal murders of 200,000 of its people by Indonesian forces, East Timor, mostly Christian, recently established itself as independent from mostly Muslim Indonesia. This independence vexed Osama Bin Laden and his terror network. It conflicted with his expansive vision of a new Islamic caliphate that would dominate the world. In one of his videotaped diatribes last year, Bin Laden called for terrorist strikes against the countries that helped the cause of East Timorese independence, and specifically named Australia. (**) While John Pilger says that Australia should have done more to help East Timor. Osama Bin Laden was aggrieved by the support that Australia did give.

Thanks to the admission, we now know that it was Al Qaeda that was responsible for the Bali bombing. A significant number of victims of the bombing were Australian. A new report seems to cast doubt on the notion that the Bali attack was targeted at Australians, however. The head of the Indonesian investigation into the Bali attack, Major General I Made Mangku Pastika, recently talked about a suspect now in custody, identified only as Amrozi. The New York Times reports:

According to the account of Gen. I Made Mangku Pastika, the chief Indonesian investigator, Mr. Amrozi told his interrogators: “They wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. They hate Americans. They tried to find where the Americans are gathering.”

They believed that Bali was a haunt of Americans, and afterwards were “not happy because Australians were killed in big numbers,” Gen. Pastika said. The attackers sought revenge for “what Americans have done to Muslims,” General Pastika said.

(††) The Times report is inaccurate. It gives the impression that Pastika is quoting the suspect Amrozi, and that Amrozi was using the pronoun “they” to refer to the terrorist network behind the Bali bombing. In fact, Pastika was speaking at an anti-terrorism conference in the Philippines when he made his statement, and as ABC News of Australia makes clear, Pastika was not quoting Amrozi, but instead was interpreting the information learned from Amrozi. It was Pastika that used the word “they,” not Amrozi. (‡‡) The information given by Pastika was already secondhand. Even if Amrozi did say that the Bali attack was meant at Americans, that does not mean the attack did not also target Australians.

According to the Times, Pastika additionally said that the terrorist network was sorry that so many Australians were killed. This is simply not credible. The Indonesian government has an interest in warm relations between itself and the Australian government, especially in the wake of the bombings. If Pastika were to stretch the truth, putting words of apology in the mouths of terrorists, that could soothe feelings and help relations. As the Times notes, a basic familiarity with the area would have informed the terrorists as to the presence of many Australians. They would have known that there were many Australians in the target area. Al Qaeda has never before expressed regret in any of their attacks. That they would now express regret for one is not believable. Furthermore, even if Amrozi expressed regret, Amrozi was not the mastermind of the operation, and while he perhaps did not personally want Australians killed, he may not have been informed as to just whom he was helping to kill. Finally, the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, did call for attacks against Australia last year.

The likeliest explanation of the Bali attack is that it was motivated at least in part by a desire to kill Australians in revenge for assisting with the liberation of East Timor. This puts John Pilger in a bind. Will he retract his statement that blamed Australia for creating the conditions necessary for the Bali terrorist attack, when one of those conditions was the liberation of East Timor? It’s up to Pilger.

With the admission by Al Qaeda of guilt, Noam Chomsky is himself more pressured by converging facts than I had previously described. (§§) Will Chomsky blame the West for goading the Bali terrorists into action, as he effectively did to explain the 9/11 attacks, even though part of that goading was the liberation of East Timor, a goal that Chomsky actively sought for a quarter-century? Or will he blame the Bali bombings on the terrorists themselves without retracting his attribution of the cause of the 9/11 attacks, risking inconstancy and capriciousness? It’s up to Chomsky.

Last updated 9 November 2002.

Update: 20 June 2003. Further discussion. (***)

Update: 3 December 2003. Linked by Brandeis Vanguard. (†††)

Even though the Democratic Party has again failed to take control of the House of Representatives, and has now lost control of the Senate, suffering what Aaron Brown of CNN called a “blowout,” progressives have more reason now to be optimistic than in a very long time.

We have finally reached the apex of a historical trend toward neoconservative ideology and domination of government. While progressive values remain as vital as ever, the policies that were originally designed to implement those values—the policies that Republicans tarred as “big government”—have over the decades stagnated and become less responsive to modern needs. As a result, the distance between progressive values and actual policies has become greater and greater. The Democrats were the de facto majority party since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Now that progressives no longer have the power to defend every last antique, worn out policy implementation from withering right-wing attacks, we won’t have to limit ourselves to defense. Finally progressives have a chance to get back to first principles—the best of our values. We can devise a new, modern politics that finally reinvigorates our policy proposals with our unforesworn liberal values. While staying true to our ideals, we can at long last overhaul our ideas.

After the 2000 election, the Republicans technically had control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, but that control was muddied by the Florida electoral fiasco and Bush v. Gore. It was also short-lived due to the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. It is different after the 2002 election. The Republicans will have between 51 and 53 Senate seats, pending the outcome of the likely recount in South Dakota, and the runoff election in Louisiana. Even in the best case scenario, if the Democratic Party can persuade another Republican to defect, the Republicans would still have the majority through the vote of the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney.

Let us examine with open eyes the depth of political horror where we lie today. While our great ideals remain pure, our illiberal political stances have crippled us.

The recent antiwar marches in Iraq were portrayed, errantly, on the Left and in the media, as a mainstream left-wing event. In truth, they were attended by mostly good, honest people; but run by unreconstructed communists. David Corn gently criticizes the march for its excesses. (*) Michelle Goldberg also provides an informative article. (†) Had the march been more successful in garnering attention, it would only have served the purposes of the right-wing all the more, in much the same way that it served Eric S. Raymond in a recent web log entry, in which he wrote:

[T]he American Left seems bent on fulfilling every red-meat right-winger’s most perfervid fantasies about it. All those earnest anti-war demonstrators were actual communist dupes! [sic] Oh, mama. Somewhere. [sic] Tailgunner Joe McCarthy is smiling.

(‡) It was a terrible mistake of the establishment Left to hitch its wagons to the mule train of Smoky Joe Stalin. A strategic mistake of this sort has the effect of preventing onlookers from hearing the important criticism we have to make of conservatives, including of Eric Raymond. Raymond is a freethinker and a “libertarian,” meaning he supports liberty but not equality. He also has a peculiar hatred of organized religion. In Raymond’s recent so-called “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” with its pathetic titular neologism, “idiotarian,” held up like a captured battle flag, Raymond intends to make a statement that stands for the views of all non-idiots, but in fact presents undeserved criticism of the Left. Unfortunately, while Eric Raymond’s manifesto eloquently clarifies parts of the War on Terrorism, in the end it insupportably attacks the Left and Islam. The relevant clause states:

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left — the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, ‘honor killings’, and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.

(§) (alternative) The clear implication is that Islam is a “stultifying religion.” Islam is, of course, more than a religion. It is a political system, a social system, and, indeed, an entire civilization. Thanks to Islam, we have the works of Aristotle; for Christian churches did not save them. Thanks to Islam, we have many advances in the sciences, not least of which is that of Ibn Khaldun, who pioneered the field of economics before the world had heard of Adam Smith. To say that Islam is stultifying is to indicate one’s ignorance of the subject. As has been noted, Islam today does not enjoy the intellectual fecundity of its storied past, yet it is not per se stultifying. Furthermore, to assert that the Left does not recognize the value of “free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science,” not to the exclusion of the freedom of religion, is to deprive the Left of its historical origin in the Enlightenment, where all these were championed as never before. To conclude, this is an illustration of how the political mess of Stalinists leading the Left around by the nose forces the Left into a position not only contrary to its own values, but also vulnerable to unjustified right-wing mischaracterizations and attacks.

Even stripped of its sectarian leadership, the antiwar movement is misguided. Progressives have neglected foreign and defense policy to their detriment. The reality is that our country has been met on the battlefield by an opponent employing fourth generation warfare (4GW), waged by non-state entities. (**) This 4GW is not limited to terrorism, but it is the method that Al Qaeda has used in the 9/11 and other attacks. The War on Terrorism is not, emphatically not a permanent state of warfare, or a war on a technique as so many have fallaciously claimed. It is a war like all others—with a beginning and an end. The War on Terrorism is, in the immediate sense, a war on Al Qaeda. It is, in the long-term sense, a very real war that challenges the existence not only of nation-states such as the USA and our allies, but of the nation-state system itself. Philip Bobbitt has written in his recent book, The Shield of Achilles, that in response to this new age of warfare that has befallen us, a new form of state must emerge to bring the age to its close. Bobbitt terms this new state form the market state, though it is too early to foresee quite what will be the distinguishing features of this state form. All that is assured is that the new form of state will replace the nation-state, and be able to secure its citizens from the onslaught of warfare, even from 4GW.

Though we are fighting a war, there is a place for progressive advocacy. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, decorated war hero, and Vietnam War protest leader John Kerry has argued that we progressives cannot be silent while this war rages, and has criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. (††)

Key in the War on Terrorism is homeland security. Yet, the Democrats have done little to advance the issue. This likely cost Democratic Senator from Georgia and war hero Max Cleland his job on Tuesday. The Republican challenger made homeland security a top issue, and the voters of Georgia responded. (‡‡)

The lack of focus on national defense has also carried over to Iraq. Joshua Micah Marshall reviews The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack, which makes the liberal case for regime change. (§§) Few left-wingers have braved the gauntlet to argue that intervention in Iraq is justified. Admirably, Lowell Field has been in their number. (***)

The Iraq issue is symptomatic of progressives’ overall lack of willingness to address foreign policy issues in a realistic manner. Heather Hurlburt nails it in a brilliant Washington Monthly article.

Democrats are in this position precisely because we respond to matters of war politically, tactically. We worry about how to position ourselves so as not to look weak, rather than thinking through realistic, sensible Democratic principles on how and when to employ military force, and arguing particular cases, such as Iraq, from those principles. There are a lot of reasons for this failure, including the long-time split within the party between hawks and doves. But we will never resolve that split, nor regain credibility with voters on national security, until we learn to think straight about war. And we will never learn to think straight about war until this generation of professional Democrats overcomes its ignorance of and indifference to military affairs.

(†††) That’s exactly right. If we are to be successful, foreign policy and defense policy must become staples of progressive politics.

On economic policy, the outlook is much brighter. Much of what needs to be said is said already, better, and elsewhere. What should not be left out, however, is the possible need for not less, but more tax cuts. Economic growth and inflation have sunk so low that deflation is a possibility. That would be catastrophic. The only way out may be deficit spending; that is, fiscal policy along the lines of what Keynes suggested. In the current political climate, tax reductions are far more possible than increased government expenditures. In a recent speech, Dick Gephardt called for a fiscal stimulus, and highlighted short-term tax cuts. (‡‡‡) Progressives can argue for tax cuts that affect the broad strata of society, as opposed to the Bush tax cut that primarily went to the wealthy.

Wynne Godley of the Levy Institute has also been focusing on the need for a fiscal response to the economic situation, but has also emphasized the need for a trade policy adjustment. (§§§) Economic policy has been a strong suit of progressives, but will only remain such if they have something relevant to say.

Foreign policy, defense policy, and economic policy are only three of the policy areas that need to be re-examined by progressives. Unfortunately, some progressives are in denial of the need to rethink.

Harold Meyerson has a poorly considered article in American Prospect. (****) At first he says that the Democrats have no message, and no economic plan, but by the end he is back to saying that Democrats should be Democrats. If only Democrats had a plan, then they would have won. Meyerson fails to explain how one can be a Democrat if there is no form or substance to the term. The problem is that, while our core values are still rightful, our plans, to the extent they exist, are showing their age.

Nicholas Confessore recently noted in a truly disturbing and important article that in the 2002 election, the New Deal itself was at stake. (††††) Now we see that he was right.

In the wake of bloody Tuesday, the DLC is arguing for a new, centrist Democratic Party. (‡‡‡‡) I’m arguing that instead of abandoning our first principles in pursuit of immediate electoral satisfaction, we should take this opportunity to enscribe anew our values into our politics. What we need is not a reversion to centrism, but a recasting and updating of our politics in accord with our old, solid principles.

Fellow progressives, hang not your heads, but hold them up, for our ideals are sound, and thanks to the Republican control of government, we have a nearly unique opportunity to rethink and update our entire platform of practical ideas. The Republicans were on the defensive for seventy years after the election of FDR. If we are industrious and get our house in order as quickly as we can, we can put them back on the defensive in two. If we fail to reconsider our ideas in light of our ideals, we will be consigned to an eternal minority. Let us commence overhaul immediately.

Last updated: 15 February 2003. Added alternative link for the “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.”

Some Senate races are still too close to call: SD, MN, MO, CO, and TX. Louisiana will have a runoff election December 7. In any case, the Senate will remain nearly 50-50. The Democrats could lose the Senate outright. (*) This is a blow to the Democrats, who should have been able to net at least 2–3 new Senate seats.

The pundits are describing this election as a disaster for the Democrats. There were pickups in governors’ races, but those were fought over local issues. It’s when the issues became nationalized that the Democrats staggered.

Gerrymandering has made all but a handful of US House races noncompetitive. As a result, House incumbents have become nearly invulnerable. The Republicans may actually extend their majority in the House. While it may be disappointing that the Democrats didn’t pickup 40 House seats or so, as in 1982, the fact is that George W. Bush didn’t have any coattails to lose. Retaking the House has turned into a long-term project for the Democratic Party.

The Democrats were going into the Senate race as incumbents. This made the situation different than in 1994, when one party had control of the presidency and Congress. The Senate Democrats have been able to block most of Bush’s legislative agenda, from religious vouchers to government religious welfare, to extremist corporate tax giveaways, to other boondoggles. As a result, however, the Democratic base was not as annoyed as the Republican base was in 1994. There are reports that Republicans were highly motivated going into election day, partly as a result of George W. Bush’s get out the vote message.

The Republicans brilliantly feinted in South Dakota, drawing the full attention of Democratic resources, especially that of Tom Daschle. The Republicans were able to distract the Democrats in South Dakota with a relatively small amount of money and time, while putting their heaviest resources into races like Missouri, Georgia, and New Hampshire. Tom Daschle spent a lot of time in his home state, and didn’t stump much for Democrats in other states.

The Senate Democrats are suffering from a backlash against a variety of their political missteps. The most immediate was the Wellstone rally. While it may have been right to mourn Wellstone in a fiery, political way, it was very poor political strategy. The problem was that it fired up the Republican base much more than it fired up the Democratic base.

The Democrats failed to use their best issue, corporate corruption. Green Party activists are saying that it is because they are too tied to corporate money.

The Democrats failed to challenge the Republican issue of tax cuts. There was no coherent counterstrategy. The Democrats should done more than attack them as unfair. They should have called for either their repeal or for a second round of tax cuts that would actually deliver for the middle class.

The Senate Democrats failed to develop a good homeland security strategy. Republicans have tarred the Democrats for opposing the homeland security bill. Regardless of whether the new department should retain civil service protections, the Democrats failed to effectively explain how they were very strongly in favor of homeland defense, if not the president’s version of it. The reality is that when combined with their waffling and griping about Iraq (it took a very courageous stand by Richard Gephardt to get the resolution moving), the Democrats have made the appearance of looking weak on national defense at exactly the wrong moment. Despite all the antiwar talk, 60% the American public supports the planned Iraq intervention, and just about all support stronger homeland security. This issue was particularly important in the devastating defeat of Georgia Democratic Senator Max Cleland.

Until they come up with a coherent strategy on national security and homeland security, the Democrats will continue to fail at the polls. The irony is that the Bush Administration isn’t coherent themselves on these issues, but because they are Republican, they get the benefit of the doubt with many voters.

Today’s election has been a bitter pill for the Democratic Party. If the Democrats do lose the Senate, however, the biggest loser may be Jim Jeffords, who would be totally isolated and have almost no hope of reaching his goal of full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Interesting possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 are Richard Gephardt, Gart Hart, Joe Biden, and John Kerry. All are strong on defense.

Originally posted to Democratic Left

Soon the Republican Party will take formal control of the Senate. They will then have control over the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, to go with a judicial branch that is unlikely to challenge the neoconservative agenda. With this change will come a new perceived responsibility to be borne by the Republicans alone.

The legacy of Bill Clinton has terminated with the 2002 elections. (*) No longer can Bill Clinton be blamed for any problems in the economy, with national security, or for anything else. No longer can the Republicans blame Tom Daschle for disrupting their agenda. No longer can Republicans point their finger at the Democrats for anything that goes wrong or fails to live up to expectations. In return, the Republicans will also get the credit for that which goes right.

This is a change that will be very difficult for the Republicans to handle. They have based their ideology on scapegoating their enemies for the common problems of the country. Without anyone to blame, how will they go on?

With Jean Carnahan’s concession of defeat to Jim Talent in the Missouri, the Republicans are assured of taking control of the Senate. (*) This is a terrible stroke of fortune for the Democratic Party.

With Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura’s appointment of an independent to fill the remainder of Paul Wellstone’s term, control could shift back to the Republicans sooner than January.