You Do What You Can

It seems to me that as of one day before Election Day 2006, progressives had a solid grasp of what good things would flow from winning congressional majorities. In brief:

• No more domestic agenda for George W. Bush.
• Oversight hearings.
• Control of the agenda to rame issues in ways favorable to the Democrats for 2008.

Sometime in December, however, people seem to have gotten it into their head that something else would happen. That narrow congressional majorities were actually going to seize control of American national security policy in the face of determined opposition from the President of the United States supported nearly uniformly by his copartisans in congress. Thus, Matt Stoller includes on his list of "groups and individuals" who are "blocking real progress on Iraq," "Harry Reid, who failed to get a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate, and doesn't think his original war vote was wrong. It's Bush's fault apparently that Reid voted for the war. Like with his stance on Alito, Reid is giving the impression of action, but not the teeth."

Well, no. Look, Matt Yglesias leading a caucus of 51 Democratic Senators that includes Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and Tim Johnson couldn't get much done in these circumstances either. Nor could Matt Stoller. It's not Reid's fault that there aren't 60 votes for a non-binding resolution on Iraq in the Senate (except in the sense that the "nuclear option" fight was mishandled way back in the day, and Democrats should have tried to abolish filibusters altogether). Blame Lieberman. Blame Jeff Sessions. And, again, ask yourself: If Reid's resolution is so useless, why is the GOP so determined to defeat it? And if it's so difficult to get 60 votes for this measure, what would the point be in proposing something more far-reaching that would only fail by a larger margin? The sad reality is that what Matt and I would like to see the Democrats accomplish is, under the circumstances, very difficult to achieve. Progressives should keep the pressure on for action, but we need to understand that objective circumstances matter. This is a slow boring of hard boards kind of situation, and it's extremely frustrating, but it's also George W. Bush's fault, not Reid's.

Comments

confusing what you wish were true with what is true is a rather common problem, and not limited to the oval office (although there it's a full-time lifestyle).

i've noted several times before in this space that in 1968, most people thought they were voting for an end to vietnam, either through nixon's "secret plan" for peace or through humphrey continuing to support negotiations. it still took six years for the war to end, and a lot of people went a little crazy in the process. let's hope that doesn't recur on the left....

Posted by howard | February 18, 2007 11:53 AM

Considering that this non-binding resolution is purely symbolic, you'd think Republicans would want to just let it come up and get it over with. Sure, it's a PR hit, but every time it comes up and a majority (but not 60) votes "for" the resolution, it's a smaller but repeated PR hit. The legislative impact of the cloture vote is exactly the same as the legislative impact of the actual resolution, except the cloture vote is going to keep happening.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 18, 2007 11:54 AM

If Stoller wants to blame someone for the timidity of the Democrats, perhaps he should consider our incredibly lame and ineffective anti-war "movement," which has proven utterly incapable of translating the majority of America's manifest frustration with this war into anything like effective pressure. They've totally failed to stake out a credible position to the left of the Democratic leadership, which would (a) probably be substantively correct, at least by my lights (b) more importantly, create room for maneuver so that Democrats could push stronger resolutions but still appear moderate.

Posted by dropping by | February 18, 2007 11:56 AM

"Considering that this non-binding resolution is purely symbolic, you'd think Republicans would want to just let it come up and get it over with. Sure, it's a PR hit, but every time it comes up and a majority (but not 60) votes "for" the resolution, it's a smaller but repeated PR hit. The legislative impact of the cloture vote is exactly the same as the legislative impact of the actual resolution, except the cloture vote is going to keep happening.
Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra "

True, but only for people who pay close attention. The headline the next day is "Democratic resolution against surge defeated in Senate".

Posted by aleks | February 18, 2007 12:02 PM

"The sad reality is that what Matt and I would like to see the Democrats accomplish is, under the circumstances, very difficult to achieve."

Obviously it isn't the case that this kind of resolution only plays well with the general public if it doesn't pass and that smarter Democrats in Congress are thankful they didn't have the votes to pass it in the Senate.

Posted by Linus | February 18, 2007 12:03 PM

aaron, i agree with you: i honestly don't understand the gop senate caucus strategy. why would you want headlines to say that you blocked debate on iraq? to me, that's a worse headline than one that says senate rebuffs bush on iraq policy....

Posted by howard | February 18, 2007 12:03 PM

They've totally failed to stake out a credible position to the left of the Democratic leadership, which would (a) probably be substantively correct, at least by my lights (b) more importantly, create room for maneuver so that Democrats could push stronger resolutions but still appear moderate.

The real issue, at this point, is that not enough Republicans feel pressure. The very most vulnerable GOP Senators voted "yes" but Republicans from purplish states like Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa felt that they could get away with a "no" vote. If those members felt more pressure, then the resolution would pass and then it would make sense to pressure the leadership to push for something more aggressive.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 12:03 PM

aleks, to follow up on my 12:03, written while you were writing you 12:02, where did you see that headline? every reference i've seen or heard has been that the gop blocked debate, not that the dems were defeated....

Posted by howard | February 18, 2007 12:04 PM

More importantly than failing to pass a non-binding resolution (for which they did manage the press coverage for which they hoped in general), the Democrats do control the purse strings going forward. If the non-binding resolution fails or passes, the result is much the same as far as Bush is concerned. His problem is that he needs funding for DoD, and the Democrats now control the form of that funding. Sure, the Republicans can try to block Murtha's language from becoming law, but in that case there is no funding bill at all! That is where the Democratci leverage will prove to be most important. This past week was theatre, honestly, but funding is what Congress does under the Constitution.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | February 18, 2007 12:11 PM

I'm much farther left than Matt Yglesias is, and I don't understand much of this at all. This was the best possible outcome we could have really gotten. We've embarassed a lot of Republicans up for election in 2008, and forced all of the Republican nominees to oppose even Symbolic measures to end the war.

Look, I've made this point elsewhere but it can't be said often enough. The votes just aren't there for withdrawal. The best we can do is set it up so that we can end the war in 2009 and that means forcing a lot of votes like this one. Even if it seems meaningless, it really isn't.

Posted by soullite | February 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Speaking of headlines, here's a nifty way to get a feel for how the story played on the front pages of the country's newspapers here:

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/

Oakland Tribune:
GOP thwarts resolution on troops

The Sentinel-Record,Hot Springs, Ark.:
Senate gridlocks on Iraq war resolution endorsed by House

Now you don't have to speculate how it plays in Peoria. (It didn't make the front page in Peoria. Instead, there was a retrospective on Richard Speck, the guy who killed all those student nurses.)

Thanks to TPM for pointing the way.

Posted by James, Los Angeles | February 18, 2007 12:43 PM

The PR piece is the key. The GOP seem to always make the Dems look like the losers, even when they win. If the talking points and the media slant are that the GOP blocked the Iraq resolution, then its in the Dems favor. If however the slant is that the Dems failed to get 60 votes, then it its more murky. The words Dems and failure jumps out and the reason is obscured. The New York Times plays it down the middle with "SENATE REJECTS RENEWED EFFORT TO DEBATE IRAQ", no winners there.

Posted by kingstongirl | February 18, 2007 12:46 PM

It's not Reid's fault that there aren't 60 votes for a non-binding resolution on Iraq in the Senate (except in the sense that the "nuclear option" fight was mishandled way back in the day, and Democrats should have tried to abolish filibusters altogether)

Blaming Reid for the continued existence of filibusters is equally as dumb as blaming him for the failure of the non-binding resolution.

Posted by Steve | February 18, 2007 12:51 PM

MY makes the fair point in response to my comment that the reason this vote failed is because of a lack of Republican votes, not a lack of pressure on Democrats. This is, of course, true enough, but my larger point remains that Congressional efforts to end the war (which are mainly Democratic) are severely hampered by the absence of an effective antiwar movement (note that I said "effective" rather than, say, "hippie-drenched" or "mired in the tactics of the '60s," etc). A movement that actually translated public disgust into effective action would put pressure on both parties and generally speed up this slow-moving disaster.

Posted by dropping by | February 18, 2007 12:59 PM

dropping by, first things first: the anti-vietnam war movement had many flaws, but it was effective: what makes you think that it wasn't? things could have been much worse (the plan that lbj rejected to start the ball rolling to end the war was to go to 700K troops).

and second things second: what, in your mind, does an effective anti-war movement look like? i'd say it looks like electing people who are opposed to the continuation of the war in iraq, so our next shot isn't for 21 months....

Posted by howard | February 18, 2007 1:22 PM

I think the continued charge that it is the *anti war movement's fault* that the american people are now anti war but can't force the government to back out of Iraq fast enough is kind of odd. The one thing no anti war movement can do is make the american people *less passive* and *more active* than they are. POlls show that americans have turned against a failing war. Polls do not show that every american citizen, whether voting or non voting, wakes up every day committed to fighting for the public good and determined even to pick up the godd damn phone and call their representatives. Polls actually show that americans, as usual, hate a losing, costly, embarrassing fiasco and are upset about what they are now finding out but that they, like dropping by, still thinks that someone else (the anti war movement, that irritating neighbor (me) who talks politics all the time, or the democrats) should somehow do something about it. Well, what I now say to the republicans I talk to who are impatient for the democrats to fix their little broken wagon is--what did *you* do today to make your desires known? What politician did you call? What political party did you give money to? What protest did you attend? Because if you aren't out there doing something don't bitch to the rest of us that you are not getting what you want. Blaming the anti war movement for not remaking the american public is part of the masturbatory fantasy the republican voter has always had: somewhere someone else is responsible for thinking up good policy and implementing it and all the citizen needs to do is allow their pockets and their hatreds to be tapped and channelled in pursuit of somebody else's aims. whether its anti gay policies or bombing another country most americans are passive participants in their own politics. And no anti war movement is going to change that. You might as well call it a 'pushing back the tide' movement.

aimai

Posted by aimai | February 18, 2007 1:30 PM

I wish Matt Stoller would get hired by some campaign somewhere.

Posted by MNPundit | February 18, 2007 2:31 PM

aimai, i think you've misunderstood my comments, or at least what i intended for them. it seems like you have a particular target in mind, and i inadvertently got in the way. I blamed the anti-war movement for not being as effective as they could be in pressuring politicians; part of that is figuring out how to organize more effectively. i do not blame them for the essentially passivity of Americans. rather, i blame them for how they've made use of those Americans who are active. The anti-war movement has sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to protests that have been largely ignored, except isofar as they feature Jane Fonda.

I believe that a more effective strategy would be to highlight the costs of the war to individuals, both to soldiers and also in terms of opportunity costs given the billions that have been spent on this folly. That is part of what Cindy Sheehan's initial efforts so effective. Relatedly, it is pernicious to think, as Howard suggests, that our capacity as citizens to influence policy is limited to the times we are permitted into the voting booth.

relatedly, howard, my point about hippies was that what made the 60's anti-war movement effective is not the same as what can/would make an anti-war movement effective today. Circumstances, cultures, technologies have changed, and those things need to be adapated to. Whether or not the 60's anti-war movement was effective, the fact that today's anti-war movement (exemplified by United for Peace & Justice) is run by many of the same people from and in the same fashion as the anti-Vietnam war movement is cause for distress.

Posted by dropping by | February 18, 2007 2:33 PM

Thank you, Matt. I find it ridiculous when progressive bloggers ask the Democratic leadership to do things which they cannot do. In no way is it a failure of Reid's that he cannot get enough Republicans to vote for cloture. And since we can't even get a tiny 97-word resolution through the Senate how does anyone suggest we cut funding? It's impossible and so we should target, as Murtha is doing, specific instances where we can have an effect. It is absurd to ask for things that cannot happen and is in fact irresponsible to rile up the online community over issues that cannot be addressed.

Posted by Paul | February 18, 2007 2:40 PM

Matt Stoller can't give Senator Reid any slack because doing so would undermine his argument against Senator Clinton. His primary goal is to block Senator Clinton's presidential run; attacking her Iraq position and conflating it with Bush and the Republican position is his best tool for doing so. He cannot permit the idea that her approach may be a more effective way to end the Iraq war to gain any legitimacy because then he would loose that tool. The same goes for the point that the Iraq war is George Bush's fault, not the fault of the Democrats in congress, regardless of whether firmly fixing blame on Bush is more likely to force Bush to change policy. The goal of ending the Iraq war is secondary to stopping Senator Clinton.

Posted by tib | February 18, 2007 2:48 PM

Re: the filibuster.

Back during the "nuclear option" debate, the argument (specious as it was) was that it was unconstitutional not to allow a vote on the President's judicial nominees. Therefore, the "nuclear option" was to have an up or down vote on whether the tactic was constitutional. This is a far cry from eliminating the filibuster altogether. The nuclear option would not have eliminated the filibuster, generally speaking, but only for the purpose of blocking judicial nominees.

Posted by 3pointshooter | February 18, 2007 3:08 PM

Excellent post, Matt.

Now, where are those oversight committees?

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 18, 2007 3:43 PM

I wish 'droppingby' had been in the auditorium with the 1000 of us on January 28 preparing for UfPJ's lobby day. It was the beginning of an effort that will go on as long as it takes to end this occupation (which costs $10 million every hour that it continues).

The coalition of those focusing on legislative action to get the troops out isn't completely unified, exactly because one end of it is more closely tied to the Dems than the other. Iraq Vets Against the War and Military Families Speak Out are hard-liners on the question of cutting off funding, including the supplemental. The liberals are ready to promote the Murtha and other conditioning schemes. But what struck me in that room was the scale and seriousness with which the many groups involved were working to present a unified position to the left of Congressional Dem leadership.

For those who want to be part of that work, one resource is the antiwar libs' one-stop-shop site:
http://movecongress.org

UfPJ's not above criticism. If I'd been organizing the program for the Jan. 27 march, I'd have given the MFSO military mom from Sioux City, Iowa the spot Jane Fonda had. Her speech was short, powerful, and on point: "You can't oppose this war and fund it at the same time."

But 'droppingby' is simply not aware of or mistaken about what UfPJ and its many component and allied groups are doing.

Posted by Nell | February 18, 2007 4:10 PM

Matt,

I am pretty sure you have Ben Nelson of Nebraska in mind, not Bill Nelson, who is from Florida. In 2006, Ben had an ADA rating of 35 (Perfect liberal = 100.) Bill's score was 60, which is not bad for a Southerner.

Posted by Vadranor | February 18, 2007 4:52 PM

What Vadranor said. 26 minutes earlier and I would have scooped him.

Not to mention the Baucus Caucus, which is as reliably unreliable as half of the Nelsons.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | February 18, 2007 5:19 PM

Nobody serious in the anti-war camp would fault Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi if they tried to get a real bill passed opposing the war and failed. To date, neither has done so.

If by 2008 the Dems have made no real effort to end the war, I don't see why they should expect to clean up on the antiwar vote. Talk is cheap.

Posted by faux facsimile | February 18, 2007 6:17 PM

Nell, if you think a single lobby day 4 years into the war is a satisfactory accomplishment, then I may suggest you have your sights set too low -- even if it is the far-too-late "beginning" of a longer push, as you promise (although I would note that UFPJ does have a disconcerting tendency to announce and drop initiatives with some frequency).

And yes, I have been involved in anti-war organizing ever since 9/11, when I believed that the US intervention in Afghanistan would do more harm than good. Since then, I have been involved in local anti-war work and have attending what must have been every major march UFPJ has called for, with perhaps one or two exceptions. I even went to some of the ones ANSWER called for without UFPJ, way back when.

In short, I'm quite aware of what UFPJ is up to. And my view is that, so long as its leadership looks like this -- that is, dominated by old retreads -- it won't develop a successful strategy. And, actually, that list makes UFPJ look way more diverse and interesting than it is, since the real leadership (which is the staff and the administrative committee) consists almost entirely alums of the 60's.

Posted by dropping by | February 18, 2007 6:40 PM

I'm not saying Reid can end the war, I'm saying he's not trying.

Why did he let the Senate go into recess? That was a point of leverage he didn't use.

Posted by Matt Stoller | February 19, 2007 12:56 AM

I'm surprised it's taken this far into the thread to mention that what separated the Iraq and Vietnam wars was the draft, which helped to motivate the Vietnam War protesters.

Posted by Reality Man | February 19, 2007 1:25 AM

Before I clicked James's link, I had forgotten how crappy the majority of American newspapers are.

Posted by Reality Man | February 19, 2007 1:28 AM

Look, as long as Bush is running a step ahead of political accountability (doing things he doesn't have a mandate for, but *can* do, and daring anyone to stop him), and as long as Democrats run a step *behind* the majority of the country (waiting until they're *sure* they're supported by well over half the country), Bush will continue to get what he wants (for the most part), Democrats will continue to shy away from confronting Bush because they're two steps behind him, and people will wonder why Democrats aren't even willing to go as far as *they* are in opposing/rejecting Bush.

Posted by Chris | February 19, 2007 2:07 AM

@droppingby: We're peas in a pod in our activity, then, who disagree on perceptions and emphasis.

The lobby day is not UfPJ's first, by the way; there was a previous effort, about half this size, in September 2005 (the Monday following the demo).

There's a lot of room for improvement, sure. But, somewhat uncharacteristically for me, I take more of a glass-half-full view of things. I'm heartened by the Occupation Project, uniting pacifist Voices for Creative Nonviolence (formerly Voices from the Wilderness) and the antiwar military groups IVAW and MFSO. I think it has a lot of potential as a source for new leadership.

I'm impressed by the way in which the various organizations feeding into the legislative effort are working together where they can despite their differences, without a lot of polarizing public sniping.

Will the widespread recoiling from ANSWER marginalize their planned Pentagon demo on March 17? They weren't exactly an attractive presence on Jan. 27, with their giant '911 Was an Inside Job' signs... (Another UfPJ gaffe: not having a background banner at the rear of the rally stage, so that the off-message big sign bearers could butt into the C-SPAN and other visual coverage.)

It just seems like a waste of time and energy to come down so hard on the UfPJ apparatchiks, when the factors weighing against a militant-yet-somehow-miraculously-united antiwar movement are big and structural.

Posted by Nell | February 19, 2007 2:30 PM

Matt Stoller: "Why did he let the Senate go into recess? That was a point of leverage he didn't use."

Because the four (more?) Senate presidential candidates had crucial fundraising and campaign appearances planned for the recess? I'm guessing.

Posted by Nell | February 19, 2007 2:34 PM

Nell, I don't think criticizing UFPJ is a waste of time if done constructively. There's very little informed discussion about how the anti-war movement works, much less what it's "strategy" is; everyone benefits from a little friendly give-and-take, particularly if they're in a very small bubble like the UFPJ folks. As you point out, the failures of UFPJ leadership are not the primary cause of the war's continuation. Nevertheless, a vibrant, successful, and contemporary anti-war movement could contribute lots of thing to progressive movement building which UFPJ has not.

Posted by dropping by | February 19, 2007 5:11 PM

Its funny to me to see far-left anti-war people blaming Senators and other people blaming the anti-war movement for inaction.

Enough with this bickering. Blame Bush and the American people who previously voted these people into office. We haven't even been in power in the Congress for 2 full months and we've already reverted back to our own loathing selves. Jesus.

Posted by Adrock | February 20, 2007 9:04 AM