Laying It On The Line

BILL CLINTON HANDED THE COUNTRY TO THE REPUBLICANS; KARL ROVE GAVE IT BACK

For all their differences it was what Bill Clinton and Karl Rove had in common that sealed their common result.

Like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, DLCers like to direct our attention to Bill Clinton’s wins in 1992 and 1996. “Pay no attention to the election behind the curtain (1994)," the one that turned the country over to conservative Republicans for 12 long years.

Yet it was the same strategy praised by the Corporate Democrats that gave the country away. After running as a populist in the 1992 election, Clinton turned on the unions and minorities who make up the base of the Democratic Party and positioned himself between the base and the Right, so-called triangulation.

DLC/Cliniton Strategy
The strategy was simple: play to Mark Penn’s ‘swing voters’ (soccer moms, office-park dads). Throw sops to the working class heart of the Party through small, incremental issues that were supposed to stand symbolically for the larger issues, but never offer voters anything that would change their lives.

This became the conventional wisdom for the national party. When the Right launched the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, he was deterred from responding because his advisors told him doing so would alienate moderate, swing voters.

2006 Populism
It wasn’t until 2006 that Democratic candidates broke free from the centrist mantra and a wave of populist candidates took both House and Senate on a populist platform attacking corporate CEO’s and defending American jobs, retirement and health care.

As described by Sherrod Brown of Ohio, for the previous 12 years Democratic candidates had positioned themselves just a few steps to the left of their Republican opponents. That way, they argued, they could appeal to everyone from there over to the left. Instead, Brown points out, doing so diminished the differences between the candidates on economic issues, leaving voters to choose on the basis of the gaping differences on social issues.

What Clinton and Rove Had in Common
On the face of it, nothing could be more different from the Rove approach: appeal to the conservative base, demonize Democrats and ‘liberals’, and slash-and-burn your way to victory. DLC revisionists will tell you he lost in the end because he failed to appeal to moderates and independents. But they predicted the same fate for the same reason in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

“Negative campaigning turns off swing voters,” they said, as they lost election after election. No. What sealed the fate of the Rove Republicans was a failure to address voters’ real world concerns.

Warring Abstractions
For over a decade voters were fed the artificial constructs of pollsters and academicians – liberals/conservatives, Republicans/Democrats, swing voters/base voters. These categories are not how people think about problems in their everyday life. Nor how they think about themselves.

If they lose their job, it’s about the damn company shipping the plant overseas, about the Indians and Chinese working so cheaply. It’s not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, but about the people and institutions they see directly affecting their lives.

When United Airlines takes away workers’ pensions, everyone who works there is angry – not just swing voters or base voters. And they are angry at the people who ‘did it’ to them – United Airlines, Wall Street and CEO’s who discard them like yesterday’s trash.

Aren’t these constructs too? Yes, but constructs that reflect the real world economy and how voters see it. There is a Wall Street driven by a hunger for profits to outsource jobs. Political parties and elected officials stand several steps removed from this economic fray.

Clinton & Rove: Different Tricks, Same Game
For over a decade voters had been presented with two choices, neither of which reflected their lives, needs or aspirations: DLC centrism v. Rovian conservatism. Politics was a game played by consultants and advisors. The chips were polls and buzz words; the battleground was the media where they fought over competing abstractions. Until 2006.

Until last year when 39 of the 42 new Democratic House members stopped looking at the issue of outsourcing jobs through the conservative-moderate-liberal frame (“oh, no…if we don’t support free trade, we’ll lose the moderates”) and talked about it as voters experienced it – the bastards are stealing our jobs! Eight of the nine new Democratic Senators ran ads on the trade issue. One who didn’t was DLC favorite Harold Ford, as in non-Senator Ford.

The winning Democrats took off after Big Oil and the Big Drug companies, talking, finally, about the things that really mattered to people. And giving people real life enemies they could understand, outlets for their fear and anger that mirrored how they were seeing the world. Even Republicans recognized the power of populism, running adds against Democratic incumbents for taking money from Big Oil.

2006: Real World Issues Trump Consultants’ Abstractions
In the end neither Mark Penn's swing groups nor Karl Rove's base voters were any match for a campaign fought over the real ground that defined voters lives. In the end Clinton’s embrace of Mark Penn’s tip-toeing around the ‘swing voters’ was offset by Karl Rove’s ham-fisted appeals to conservatives.

And the country finally got a campaign fought over things voters care about. And a majority it deserved.

Finally.

HOW THE DEMOCRATS' MIXED MESSAGE KILLED IMMIGRATION

Most of the time the public doesn’t care enough to pay attention. As a result most legislation is negotiated between the various interests and beltway elites are accustomed to having their own way.

The elites are so used to this, they’ve forgotten how to behave when the public does care. With the public engaged, it’s not enough to strike a deal between Beltway interest groups – you have to forge a public consensus.

That was possible on immigration, ‘amnesty’ notwithstanding. But it rested on the majority of the public believing that immigration reform would not impact their wages and living standard.

But that message was undercut by a public orgy of corporate greed for cheap labor provisions slaked by the willingness of many Democrats to feed it.

Feeding Legitimate Fears
Large numbers of Americans believe this will mark the first generation in US history where children do not surpass their parents. They are increasingly afraid of a future characterized by rising prices, jobs sent overseas and a life-after-layoff consisting of flipping burgers.

Perhaps they are wrong to believe that immigrants exacerbate the problem. But how could they be expected to think otherwise when they see Congress’ protestations contradicted by their backroom deals.The more leadership gave in to the corporate desire for cheap labor, the more they fueled the fears and rage that drove public opposition.

Remember: the public was paying attention.

They knew that this bill included an entirely new category of temporary guest workers that served no purpose except to provide cheaper labor. Every time the bill’s proponents fought for easier standards and higher caps for the temporary guest workers (as many as 540,000 a year at one point), they undermined their own credibility that this was about something other than cheap labor.

The public knew that piled on top of the temporary guest worker program were multiple other categories of cheap labor – H(1)b visas to replace homegrown American tech workers and H(2)a visas for seasonal low wage workers, among others. (At the time the bill was killed the number of seasonal low wage workers permitted to enter the country each year was unlimited!)

Jobs No One Else Would Work – For Those Wages
Democrats only made things worse by repeating the claim that these were workers for jobs no one else wanted -- like those dangerous jobs in the meatpacking industry. Oh, wait a second! Those used to employ homegrown workers in union jobs paying upwards of $20 an hour. Then the meatpackers busted the union and cut the wages to single digits. THEN only immigrants would work them.

For the corporate Dems, the ones who support free trade, this was just business as usual. Send jobs overseas? Bring in cheap labor to work them here? Same difference.

A Devil’s Bargain
For others it was part of a calculation – they decided that the only way to pass the bill was give in to the business demand for cheap labor in return for their support for legalization of undocumented immigrants.

But it was a Devil’s Bargain. It created a bill only Mary Shelley could love -- nowhere this side of Frankenstein is there another example of such incompatible parts sewn together in a single body.

The role of the Doctor who thought he could do anything he pleased was being played by an arrogant Congress. The townspeople were played by a large swath of the American public, more frightened than anything else. As usual, torches and pitchforks trumped insider ‘genius.’

Next Time: Stick to Principles
The next time the Democrats try to pass an immigration bill, they would be better off constructing one consistent with their principles and fighting it out on the merits, Corporate America be damned.

ENOUGH FUN AND GAMES: TIME TO CALL FOR A “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR”

Dems have had plenty of fun hanging Atty. Gen. Gonzalez by his thumbs and taking turns making him spin in circles over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Nothing wrong with that, but the time has come to call for a different approach.

If ever a case cried out for the appointment a Special Prosecutor, this is it.

• The Attorney General is the head of the justice system in this country. There is no way any potential crimes can be fairly investigated by his own Department.

• Only a Special Prosecutor with Grand Jury authority could possibly penetrate the combination of denials and claims of executive privilege.

Moreover, it is the right move politically. As much fun as the Dems are having driving nails into the Administration’s nearly moribund carcass, their direct involvement obscures the real issue. It lends plausibility to the claim that the fight is about politics.

It is not. It is not whether the Administration played politics with the firings of eight US Attorneys. Using the judicial system to protect corrupt Republicans or push for unfounded prosecutions of Democrats is not politics. It is a felony. It is obstruction of justice.

The real question is not why eight U.S. Attorneys were removed. It is why the other 85 Attorneys were not removed.

Did one or more of them acquiesce to pressure from the Attorney General or his subordinates to engage in dubious prosecutions for political reasons?
In how many other ways did the Justice Department commit crimes?

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) had it right when he called for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. Democratic leadership should take up the call.

TERRORISM INSURANCE: CORPORATIONS WANT THE PERKS WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY

There is something to be said for the government helping to create an insurance policy to cover corporations that can’t get insurance for hugely catastrophic terrorist attacks. (Although it would be nice of them to acknowledge this as one more instance of public sector superiority to the private sector.)

But hundreds of corporations want to have it both ways. The chemical industry, for example, has fought off mandatory anti-terror protection measures in favor of voluntary guidelines. Which they generally ignore.

Bad enough. But they also want government anti-terrorism insurance to immunize them if people die because of their failure to implement defenses against terrorist attacks.

Pick a side, guys. Either implement recommended anti-terrorism measures or self insure. Don’t ask the taxpayers to pick up the check for your irresponsible greed.

Any renewal of terrorism insurance should contain a provision that prevents anyone from receiving payments under the program if they have failed to comply with all voluntary federal guidelines and mandatory requirements.

DEMOCRACY TRUMPS CORPORATE PROFITS: THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC INSPECTION OF VOTING MACHINES MUST BE WRITTEN INTO LAW

The decision by a House task force to have the GAO probe the election in Florida-13 where 18,000 votes ‘went missing’ is good as far as it goes. Which is not far enough.

Florida State officials rejected a request by attorneys for defeated candidate Christine Jennings to be able to examine the machines and the software that controlled them. Their justification: this was proprietary information belonging to the manufacturer.

The notion that this nation is going to put the profit-making of a private corporation ahead of the right of any citizen to inspect voting machines, no less the defeated candidate, is mind-boggling. But it was the phrase “proprietary information” that caught my attention. I can’t tell you how many labor negotiations and lawsuits I have been part of where the other side claimed “proprietary information.” This is so common there is a standard procedure for dealing with it:

It’s a “non-disclosure agreement.” Our side would put forward a few individuals who have to sign a legally binding agreement not to reveal the information before examining the material. It is also used routinely in U.S. trade negotiations with other countries, most recently in the “Open Skies” agreement and the U.S.-Korea trade agreement.

The absolute right to inspect any voting machine should be part of any new election law. Any manufacturer who want to sell voting machines for U.S. federal, state or local elections should be required, as a condition of receiving a contract, to open up their machines and software to representatives of all candidates.

Don’t want to allow access to your “proprietary information?” You don’t have to. Just take your machines and shove them.

DEMOCRATS NEED TO STOP ACCEPTING BUSH’S FRAME FOR THE IRAQ ISSUE

WE LOST! GET OVER IT!

Bravo to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for acknowledging the 800-lb gorilla in the room. At his meeting with President Bush on Thursday Sen. Reid told the President, “The war is lost.”

Democrats are right to take votes on the Iraq issue that they can win. That’s not the problem – losing a bunch of votes on perfect anti-war measures would only help sustain the war.

And the problem isn’t political, at least for now. Any discussion of Iraq works against the President and Republicans these days.

But they are letting the other side define the issue and there is always a price to pay for that.

Democrats continue to use language and raise issues that imply there is a legitimate chance to win the War in Iraq.

“Benchmarks”
They talk, for example, of tying war funding to “benchmarks” for the Iraqi regime, as if the Maliki regime were not totally powerless without the ability or authority to impose anything on the feuding factions. They talk of “benchmarks” on the training of Iraqi troops and police as if this training did anything more than train these militia-supporters to fight their civil war.

“We Support the Troops”
They continue to use the President’s language, protesting they “support the troops”, as if that were at issue. Worse yet, Sen. Levin and others tie supporting the troops to a pledge that Democrats would “never cut off funding for the troops.” This legitimizes the White House claim that cutting off funding would actually undermine our soldiers.

I understand many Senators think they’re politically clever as all get out. They think that attacking the conduct of the war in the guise of fighting it better gives cover to their political asses. But before children start handling knives they should know which end to hold. Or they may end up cutting themselves. So what’s wrong with this approach?

Accepting the frame of how best to fight the war makes it impossible to talk about the real question:

HOW TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE FROM A WAR ALREADY LOST?
So long as Democrats talk about benchmarks and such they play right into the hands of Sen. McCain and others who refuse to acknowledge any possible outcome except victory.

It is possible to lose a war without suffering any consequences. [SeeVietnam: the only dominos to fall were Southeast Asian countries rushing to adopt capitalism.] But Iraq is not that kind of war.

Certain setbacks are inevitable:

• Iran will be stronger without Saddam Hussein to restrain their aggressiveness
• Iran will have greater access and control over southern Iraqi oil fields through their Shia brethren
• Enemies and friends will question our capabilities and will after seeing us lose yet another war
• The U.S. military will take years to recover from being “broken” (Rep. Murtha’s word) by the demands of Iraq and the Bush-Rumsfeld butchering of the Pentagon

But other damage can be contained if we openly recognize our defeat and gameplan for that reality instead of the fiction of a victory:

• The highest priority is to prevent the war in Iraq from spreading outside its borders. There is a very real threat of Sunni and Shia nations intervening in Iraq’s civil war and spreading that conflict throughout the region.

• The second priority is to stabilize Iraq itself. Forget democracy, a strong central government and other daydreams of our naivite. Those dreams are long gone if they were ever possible. We lack the material or moral resources to shape what Iraq will look like, but have at least a shot at preventing all-out civil war.

What it will take:
1) This requires, first of all, open recognition of the fact that the war is lost. Only that recognition would allow us to give priority to stabilizing the region and the country. This is impossible so long as we insist there is some way to win. Or even some way to “save face.” [Though how anyone thinks the goal of ‘saving face’ is worth the thousands more deaths is beyond me. But I digress….]

2) Stop all talk of “benchmarks” or training the Iraqis. That only encourages the McCains of the world. [Though benchmarks for rebuilding our military are another story entirely. That is worth pursuing.]

3) Put a sock in the mouth of the next Senator to say “We will never cut off funding.” Only an idiot disarms without getting anything for it. It’s like a union telling the company up front, “Oh, we’d never strike.” What do you think their contract would look like?

That’s not to say we should call for cutting off funding. There are thousands of ways to leave the door open without committing to it:

"We have no intention of cutting off funding. Our preference is to negotiate an end to the war with the President. But, if he refuses to negotiate and continues to send young men and women to their deaths without any benefit to America, he may leave us no choice."

4) Stability in Iraq and the region begins, in Sen. Jim Webb’s words, “from the outside in” -- in other words, by engaging all the major players in the region in a search for a settlement. Democrats should take the lead in demanding talks with Syria and Iran as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.

The Speaker’s trip to Syria could have been a good beginning if the message hadn’t been so garbled. We needn’t be defensive. We should openly and continually attack the Administration for refusing to talk to Syria and Iran.

They’re our “enemies?” Well who the hell else do you negotiate with for peace except the people shooting at you? You don’t need a peace treaty with your friends. It’s like FDR saying during WWII, “I’ll negotiate peace with the Britain or Canada but I won’t talk to Germany or Japan.”

We’d still be fighting! (Or is that the point?)

So kudos for Sen. Reid. Like any addiction, admitting the problem is the first step to a cure.

FORECLOSURES AND THE BANKRUPTCY BILL – GOD SAVE US FROM THE HYPOCRITES!

PUH-LEEZE, SENATOR!

Real estate analysts expect more than 1 million families to lose their homes as a result of the sub-prime debacle and other sleazy tricks banks and mortgage companies used to talk people into mortgages they could not afford.

Capitol Hill, responding to the anguished cries of the dispossessed, is denouncing the situation and promising relief. But among those crying “foul” are those, some Democrats among them, who helped create the crisis.

These are the Senators and House members who voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy bill. All-in-all 18 Democrats in the Senate and 73 Democrats in House joined with 55 and 229 Republicans, respectively, to pass this gift to the banking and credit card industries.

As a result, many people no longer qualify for the bankruptcy protection that would have saved their homes. A piece on CBS MarketWatch describes the problem. Citing a March study by Credit Suisse Group, it reports:

At least part of the blame, says the report, lies with a bankruptcy law passed in 2005. The law raised the bar for people to qualify for Chapter 7 "fresh start" bankruptcy proceedings. Chapter 7 can enable individual filers to wipe away debts such as credit-card and medical bills so they can continue to make their mortgage payments. With access limited, more subprime borrowers are forced into Chapter 13, where some can't maintain their payment schedules for more than a couple of months.

The Kings, for example, had thought about filing Chapter 7, but made too much money to pass the new bankruptcy law's means test, said Mr. King, an airline baggage handler.

"It's become harder to file for Chapter 7 to release debt burdens," said Jay Guo , a director in Credit Suisse's asset-backed securities research group in New York and the lead author of the study. "Going forward," he added, "delinquent loans are more likely to go into foreclosure directly rather than into bankruptcy," resulting in [more foreclosures].

Ignoring mountains of data showing the vast majority of those resorting to bankruptcy protection were forced into it by job loss or medical bills, Congress voted to make it far more difficult for ordinary working Americans to qualify. Instead many of these people were to be forced to carry their debt for much of the rest of their lives.

To make the pill even more bitter, these legislators offered loopholes for the wealthy: the ability to shelter tens of millions of dollars in a “home” or in complicated trusts only available to the very rich.

One leading Democratic Senator defended his vote for the Bankruptcy bill in the 109th Congress by saying he had voted for it in the 108th and had to “be consistent.” To which Senator Kennedy responded, “Anyone who can’t explain a change of position doesn’t belong in the U.S. Senate.”

Perhaps the Senator will have an easier time explaining why he voted to throw people out of their homes.

That said, it’s time to completely rewrite the Bankruptcy bill before hundreds of thousands more families lose their homes.

THE ONE THING WE ALL KNOW ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY IS WRONG!

“Social Security is in trouble because the huge baby boom generation is about to retire.”

Makes perfect sense.

Except.

Except that Social Security was last made solvent by following the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in 1983. The youngest baby boomer was already 18 years old in 1983! By definition there could have been no post-war baby boomers (1945-1965) born since then. So how could they be responsible for the Social Security shortfall that has occurred since???

What Has Changed?
What has changed since 1983 to alter the actuarial assumptions that projected a balance between Social Security revenues and expenditures for 75 years?

If the media took the time to actually read the actuaries reports of the Social Security Trust Fund, they would find that not only is demographics not the problem, but changes in demographics actually improved the Fund’s solvency (more immigrants paying into the system than projected).

It’s the Revenues, Stupid!
In fact the problem is not with increased expenditures at all. The shortfall is in revenues. A report by Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute finds that two recent economic trends are responsible for most of the revenue shortfall.

They will sound familiar to readers of this blog: growing income inequality and slower than expected growth in average (real) wages.

Lower Wages and Growing Equality to Blame
The Social Security shortfall, then, is a product of the same economic attacks that are threatening the middle class in every other part of their lives. It is not factors unique to Social Security that trouble the program, but policies intentionally designed to strengthen big corporations and weaken the middle class’s ability to defend its standard of living: free trade policies, attacks on workers’ ability to form unions, creation of a pool of cheap labor, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

Among other consequences they have reduced the wages of working people and thus the amount they pay into the fund; and, as the rich took a greater share of the economy, more of their income was above the salary cap so taxes on that money was lost the SS Trust Fund.

1) To quote the report,

“In 1983, the SSA Trustees forecast that real-wage growth in the far future of the U.S. economy would be 1.5% per year. By 2005 they have ratcheted down their real wage forecast to 1.1%.”

This accounts for more than 20% of the shortfall.

2) Likewise, in 1983 the earnings cap on Social Security taxes (and benefits) [the level above which earnings are not subject to the payroll tax] was set at a level that covered 90% of all earnings. By design, the cap has risen in tandem with average wages throughout the economy. [$92,500 in 2006]

But everyone has not risen together. The rich got richer, reaping most of the economic gains of the past six years, and the middle class got squeezed. Over the years 2000-2004 the cap covered only 85% of earnings. It is projected to eventually cover only 83.2% of earnings.

Raise the Cap: Capture More Income From the Wealthy
If the cap were reset today to maintain coverage of 90% of labor earnings, it would eliminate another 40% of the shortfall. Removing the cap entirely eliminates the funding gap entirely.

So the solution to the Social Security shortfall is part and parcel of the solution to the pattern of growing inequality of wealth and income. Not an easy problem to solve, but one that cannot be avoided in any case.

Greenspan the Ideologue
But I can’t sign off without a word about Alan Greenspan. The former Fed Chairman and economic guru so loved on Wall Street knows the Social Security problem intimately. It was his recommendation to raise payroll taxes on lower and middle income Americans and to cut benefits that brought the system to solvency in 1983. So he knows where the money in the Trust Fund came from.

Yet on March 15, 2005, he told Congress that “the mounting financial pressure of a wave of retiring baby boomers is so great that cuts in future government retirement benefits are all but inevitable.” [http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/commentary/column_hays/greenspan_socialsecurity/index.htm]

Greenspan: Reverse Robin Hood
So get this: workers build up a trust fund by deductions from their paycheck. George W. uses the money to give tax breaks to the wealthy. But instead of taking this money back and using it to fund Social Security like it was intended, ol’ Al’s “solution” is to let the wealthy keep the workers money and cut the workers benefits to make up for it.

This is the kind of advice Congress has been getting from the Greenspans of the world. It’s time to stop the lies and stop the hemorrhaging of middle class living standards.

STEM CELL INITIATIVE HELPED REPUBLICANS IN MISSOURI ELECTION

The Dems, bless their hearts, are still struggling to learn the lessons of 2006.

For several cycles post-election results have showed that elections fought on social issues benefited Republicans while family economic issues benefited Democrats.

Dems Drawn to Social Issues Like a Moth to the Flame
The Dems have come a long way since being burned by guns and gay marriage. But, like an addict who substitutes the less lethal but still dangerous methadone for heroin, they just can’t stay away from the kind of divisive social issues that play into the Republicans’ hands.

This year Dems thought they had one that worked for them. Stem cell research, we were told, polls well and splits suburban female and business Republicans from the social conservatives. They were so pleased with their own cleverness they even made it one of their central ‘100-hours’ issues.

The Difference Between Numbers and Intensity
But recent polling shows Dems still haven’t learned the difference between polling numbers and intensity.

Gun control polled (and continues to poll) well. But the opponents had all the intensity. Result: NRA-types turn out in increased numbers and numerous Dems went down to defeat. Dems learned to avoid this particular third rail.

An increasing majority believe that gays should not be discriminated against. But, again, the intensity is all on the other side.

Celinda Lake/BISC Poll
Now come polling numbers from Celinda Lake and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) that show Stem Cell research is the same old story – the issue moves the minority opposition more than the majority who support it, even if the impact is less than guns and gays.

BISC with a heavy lift from labor put minimum wage initiatives on the ballot in six states. Worthwhile in its own right, the initiative was also seen as a way to drive up turnout among economically disenfranchised voters who often don’t vote.

In one state, Missouri, other Dems supported a pro-Stem Cell initiative on the ballot to move suburban Republicans to the Democratic column.

While Missouri is only one state, here is BISC’s post-election polling on the comparison:

MYTH:
The Missouri stem cell initiative turned out voters who helped Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill win her campaign.

FACT:
BISC post-election research shows that the stem cell battle was more motivating to conservative voters and increased the likelihood of casting their ballots for Senator Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent and vocal opponent of stem cell research.

On the other hand, the Missouri minimum wage initiative drew targeted voters to the polls and spurred them to vote for Claire McCaskill. This progressive mobilizing effect compensated for the stem cell initiative’s drag on McCaskill’s campaign, and helped her achieve a close victory on Election Night.

Attempt at Clever Politics Gone Awry
What makes these numbers more ironic is that stem cell research was never the moral crusade that pro-Choice or anti-Gay Discrimination is. It was seized on as a vehicle calculated to help Democrats as those other social issues had helped Republicans.

Let’s try to learn the lesson for good this time: the social wars play to the Republican strengths. It’s populist economics that plays to Democratic strengths.

Dems: Stick to What Works
In 2006, 8 of 9 new Democratic Senators ran on the trade issue. 39 of 42 new Democratic House members just signed a letter to Charlie Rangel calling for the party to supplant Free Trade Rubinomics with Fair Trade policies. They believe that, along with Iraq, is why they were sent to Congress. Economic populism is the perfect instrument to define the Democratic Party.

This doesn’t mean candidates should abandon their social values. Remember, we are not talking about legislation now, but what issues to raise in a campaign. Issues like stem cell research work in some districts but not in others. The decision to raise stem cells and other social issues should be left to individual candidates who can best assess their own situation. They are not the banner under which our entire party should march into battle.

BEWARE THE GULF OF TONKIN/PERSIAN GULF RESOLUTION!

Who says we can’t learn from history? Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid demonstrated awareness and leadership in firing a warning shot across the White House lawn over the prospect of going to war with Iran.

They were echoed by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) who asserted Thursday the president cannot attack Iran without express authorization from Congress.

These remarks were driven by the president’s words and actions.

The President’s Words
For his words look to the comments of Tim Russert on a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan 10. At the briefing the president and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming. Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, Russert said,

“there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”

Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing.

The President’s Actions
For his actions look no further than the two carrier groups already in the Persian Gulf with another steaming in that direction.

It is possible the Administration is hoping to provoke Iran into doing something that will give it an excuse to go to war.

It is equally possible they will manufacture the excuse if none is offered.

False Premises: Faking America to War
Paranoia? Conspiracy theory? We need look back no further in our history than the Vietnam War. Only this last summer CIA documents made available for the first time established conclusively that the supposed precipitating incident for U.S. escalation in Vietnam never happened. North Vietnam never attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorizing the war was based on a fabrication that makes WMD look like an honest mistake.

America has a history of using provocations, real and false, to rally its citizens behind a war. Many historians believe that Franklin Roosevelt intentionally left our forces exposed on Pearl Harbor to entice Japan to give us a rationale for entering World War II. There is likewise plenty of historical doubt that the Spanish were responsible for blowing up the Maine and setting off the Spanish-American War.

Leading the Public to War
Why is this worth discussing when Democratic are leaders already on the job of opposing war with Iran? Because it’s one thing to oppose a war in the current environment, quite another to oppose it after Iran has allegedly fired on American ships and killed American sailors.

If that is the path the president takes, rest assured the fake attacks will be followed immediately by a very real public relations campaign aimed at whipping Americans up to a new level of hysteria. In that event it will take every ounce of courage our leaders possess to slow things down enough for reason and doubt to pierce the hysteria.

The Pre-buttal
Reid and Pelosi proved adept at prebutting the president’s speech by attacking his arguments in advance.

This would be a good time to prebut a faked incident by:

• holding hearings on why the US has all this fire power in the Gulf, the most since 2003
• condemning this attempt to provoke an attack; and
• reminding the public over and over again of the lies used to justify the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

Getting out in front may blunt the edge of any phantom incident.