Prepare to dare or prepare to despair

Email conversation with Thomas Nephew about the Million Doors for Peace effort got me to pull together some thoughts I've only let myself reflect on briefly over the last few months.

There's been a divide among antiwar activists -- between those who are serious about ending the occupation of Iraq and those who’d like to do that but only if it doesn’t cost Democrats politically. Depending on the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress, and assuming an Obama administration, that divide might be less important in 2009 than it's been for the last two years.

Given that Voters for Peace (the coalition organizing Million Doors) includes both tendencies, it's an encouraging sign that their petition calls for a faster and firmer wrapup in Iraq than even the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, not to mention the probably-never "conditional engagement" plan of Colin Kahl and company, who have Obama's ear. If the Responsible Plan were the strongest demand on the Obama administration, then we'd end up with something closer to permanent bases and endless occupation. With Voters for Peace mobilizing a million petition signers this winter for something stronger, the Responsible Plan backers in Congress should be able to position their policy (accurately) as the centrist choice.

There’s a whole constellation of issues just ahead of us in which this dynamic plays out, where an insufficiently vigorous presence on the "radical" end of the spectrum could result in blown opportunities that haunt us for the next decade or more.

Health care: Health Care for America Now has more than a little in common with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (see 'divide' above). I accept that there's an imperative for Dems to pass something that concretely provides access to affordable health insurance for everyone. I also accept the political impossibility of legislating the private insurers out of the medical market in the next Congress. So I grasp the incrementalist strategy, whose goal is to get a public insurance pool into whatever's passed as the thin end of the wedge that could lead eventually to an all-public plan.

What I don’t buy is that single-payer advocates should just fold into the HCAN campaign rather than mobilizing to create the serious threat of a stronger plan from which the HCAN public-pool proposal can be urged as the compromise retreat. If HCAN’s is the starting position, then we’ll end up with less than that. In this case, anything less would mean foreclosing the chance for public health care for another generation.

Impeachment right away: Only a small minority of the American public -- even of informed, activist liberals -- understands that the Constitution provides for impeachment of officials after they've left office, not just for sitting presidents. Yet post-power impeachment hearings are the single best way to uncover just what lawbreaking was done. Not only do impeachment investigations have much stronger testimony-extracting powers than regular Congressional hearings, but post-term impeachment is much less easily characterized as a "partisan witch hunt" because it's removed from an electoral landscape.

Other excuses will be will be thrown up by compromised, fearful, lazy, and/or power-loving Democrats. The two most common are "we don't want to be seen as vindictive" and "impeachment would be a distraction from the vital work we have to get done".

The best answer to ‘vindictive’ is that this is about restoring the Constitution, pruning back these dangerously expanded executive powers that no one -- including "our" people -- should have. That’s the opposite of vindictive.

We’re going to get the ‘distraction’ line not only from politicians but from our allies, every organized progressive constituency desperate to get issues addressed by Congress after eight (or 28) years in the desert. Yet if the impeachment investigations are put off for even a year, we’ll run right up against the midterms, and by 2011 the presidential campaign will have begun. So if hearings don't begin in 2009, it’s hard to see how they could get going before 2013 -– by which time the "ancient history" charge will have more effect. So it could be 2009 or never.

We cannot wait. If there’s no serious domestic move toward accountability for torture, for which impeachment hearings are among the most practical and plausibly effective forum, then within a year there will be international legal interventions. The politics and optics of that are terrible, for anyone who cares about achieving a systemic rooting-out and reversal of this country's policy of torture. Legal threats from outside the country risk creating an effect of rallying around the old regime (however incredible such a thing seems now), and not only among Republicans. The most secure footing for international law will be created by Americans ourselves restoring the rule of law in the United States.

Likewise, only actual exposure of what went on with domestic spying under Bush-Cheney can light a big enough fire under Congress to get them to roll back the legislation that enables it, and only impeachment hearings seem to me to have the testimony-inducing force to get that exposure.

Impeachment is the key to reversing the damage of the last eight years, not simply papering it over. The time to organize for demanding it is not after the election, but now.

(The mechanics to accomplish this are for another post. Please don't wait for that; share thoughts and suggestions in comments.)
.

Get a MoveOn on impeachment

Deep in the impenetrable innards of the MoveOn website is a survey question waiting for your answer:
Do you think Congress should impeach President Bush?

The lever-pullers over there at 'Democracy in Action' apparently don't want to know what MoveOn's three million members think about impeachment badly enough to ask them by email, or to pose the question on the front page of the website. You've got to be tipped to its existence and location by word of mouth or word of blog (thanks in this case to Jonathan Schwarz of A Tiny Revolution). As with so much else at the site, there's no indication when the survey page was created, or what it's connected with. Still, the impeachment question is being asked, and you get a chance to expand on your answer in an accompanying comment box. Maybe it'll become a movement...

And when pigs fly, maybe MoveOn itself will become an organization transparent enough to make it possible for 'members' to see how many people responded and to read their own and others' comments.

Bad faith and bitterness

It's been clear for a long time now that the Pentagon supplemental funding bill would be a tough call for almost everyone involved. Unfortunately, as too often happens when there are genuine policy and strategy disagreements, the leadership is trying to paper over them instead of allowing an honest discussion, and that ends up just deepening the division.

There's a perfectly respectable case to be made for the leadership proposal; Thomas Nephew makes it well. But to be able to settle for the half-loaf that the Pelosi bill represents, genuinely anti-occupation members need to get a shot at the whole loaf. Barbara Lee's fully funded withdrawal bill is the alternative.

If the Dem leadership were to allow a vote on that actual withdrawal bill (which is also 'clean' in the sense of not containing a bunch of domestic spending lures that no Pentagon supplemental should have), it would probably get close to 100 votes. If Pelosi and co. had enough guts/integrity to allow that vote before the vote on the leadership version, they'd probably end up getting all but three or so of those votes on the leadership bill, too.

As it is, the leadership is forcing antiwar Dems to take their bill or nothing (unless the Rules Committee chooses this moment to defy the Speaker; I'm not holding my breath). That could cost them as many as 15 Out of Iraq votes. Whether it does or not, that approach is definitely costing goodwill both within the caucus and at the grassroots. And the bitterness will only be escalated by the kind of strong-arming and threats Pelosi is using.

Meanwhile, conservative Dems and Republicans are being lured with honey: every compromise made has been in their direction. This double standard is what's made the Out of Iraq caucus members resentful to begin with; if the sweet talk doesn't attract enough votes to give the Pelosi proposal a chance, then things are only going to get uglier.

Speaking of dishonest, manipulative treatment of "the grassroots", MoveOn's email member poll on Sunday is infuriating on several grounds. If there'd been any intent to be transparent and actually express the will of their members, they'd have:

mentioned the existence of the Lee 'fund withdrawal' bill,

let members know the deadline for having poll votes counted, and

committed to reporting back as soon as possible after that with a vote count.

Instead, just over 24 hours after putting out the poll, Tom Matzzie told reporters that MoveOn is backing the leadership proposal, and that it got over 80 percent support in the poll -- while declining to quote any numbers. A Daily Kos poll on Sunday, which only allowed a 'support' vs.'oppose' choice, came in at 51%-48% (7500 votes). MoveOn's report-back to its members hours after they talked to the press gave percentages, but no information on how many votes were received. Reviews ranged from harsh to balanced and sympathetic.

Update: 21 March, 4:30 pm - John Stauber got MoveOn to admit that only 126,000 members voted in the poll, and has more harsh words for the organization's tactics. One of his points should be added to my criticisms above: In addition to there being no deadline given for voting, the subject line of the email, 'Important decision on Iraq', gave no hint that the reader's participation was urgently required.
End update

TrueMajority's poll of its members included the Lee bill as a choice, and resulted in their urging a 'no' vote on the leadership proposal. Potentially awkward, since TM is one of the sponsors of StandUpCongress, but that just increases my respect for them. The site, first announced by Tom Andrews at the United for Peace and Justice lobby day in late January, was clearly intended from the get-go to organize support for Murtha's original proposal, but that got off on the wrong foot.

To put it mildly. That snake John Harris (closet Republican operative, former Washington Post editor, now co-founder of the Albritton-owned Politico, filling the Fox News niche for Capitol Hill) inserted the phrase 'slow bleed' as a characterization of the Murtha proposal in the first paragraph of his reporter's story on Feb. 15. The RNC picked it up and ran with it within an hour of the story appearing (grim details via ThinkProgress). Pelosi and company backed off immediately, and it's been all acrimony all the time ever since.

Last week's charade in the Senate did nothing to curb suspicions that Democrats want to distinguish themselves from Republicans far more than they want to end the occupation of Iraq.

Harry Reid's H.J.Res.9, a binding resolution to start troop withdrawal within 120 days and complete it by March 2008, was only announced late the week before. But it unexpectedly came to the floor on Wednesday, March 14, after a deal between the Majority and Minority leaders late Tuesday night. Evidence of bad faith:

Majority Leader Reid agreed to rules requiring 60 votes for passage.

There was no effort to involve grassroots antiwar organizations in pressuring possible swing Republican senators. Two Senate offices and an antiwar lobbyist were as surprised as I was by the sudden floor action. All assured me on Wednesday when I called that the debate would go on for a while, and there'd be no vote until sometime this week.

Yet the final vote on the resolution came just over 24 hours from the beginning of debate. Had there been any intention to gather the votes of any Republicans wavering on the issue, it would have been delayed until after the events marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion, filled with news and editorial coverage of antiwar activities and reflections on the issues surrounding the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Democratic leaders expressed great satisfaction with the outcome, failing 48-50 on a vote almost completely along party lines. It couldn't be clearer that they didn't want more Republican votes, and that they were relieved not to be in danger of actually ending the occupation.

Democratic leaders have failed to treat antiwar members of Congress and activists with respect by backing off of agreements immediately in the face of conservative opposition, not enlisting the help of grassroots organizations early in the process to move swingable Republicans and conservative Democrats, and not offering anything but threats to bring antiwar members back onside. Then they're going to blame us when the vote fails.

It didn't have to happen this way.