Refight the Nineties?

By historical standards -- or any other -- the Democrats have an excellent set of presidential candidates from which to choose this season, and I look forward to campaigning enthusiastically and without reservation for our nominee. But this does not mean that we should be suppressing the discussion of differences, and it is in this framework that I think it is important to express my discomfort with a major theme of Senator Obama's campaign.

I am referring to his denigration of "the Washington battles of the 1990's" and, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly, of those who fought them. My unease is compounded by the very explicit note of generational politics in his approach. I should note that I cannot be accused of self interest in taking exception to those who lament the baneful influence of baby boomers on our current politics, having myself been born well before the boom. Indeed, being much too young to claim membership in the greatest generation and even being a couple of years short of being a depression baby, I am reconciled to being part of a fairly large birth cohort that goes undesignated in our pop sociology. But since I do not have much intellectual respect for generational politics, I can live with this chronological anomie. I say that because generational politics presumes that I should have a different set of political values today than I had in the sixties when I began my political activity. But I cannot think of a cause that I cared deeply about then that I felt it appropriate to abandon as I aged, nor an important issue in which I had no interest then, but which now gets my attention.

This brings me to my particular concern with Senator Obama's vehement disassociation of himself and those he seeks to represent from "the fights of the nineties." I am very proud of many of the fights I engaged in in the nineties, as well as the eighties and before. Senator Obama also bemoans the "same bitter partisanship" of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it.

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

It would have been nice in the nineties not to have had to fight to defend a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and I would be very happy if that fight ended tomorrow. I was troubled when Newt Gingrich and his right wing band took over Congress after the election of 1994 and sought to put an end to programs to deal with continuing racial discrimination and the resulting inequality, and I am even more distressed that we have to continue to fight that battle against a Republican party largely opposed to all of these efforts -- consider the Bush Justice Department and its role in dealing with people's right to vote. As a gay man, additionally, I would have been delighted in the nineties if our conservative opponents had been willing to recognize our rights to be treated fairly under the law, and I would have saved a lot of time, as recently as this past year, if there was not continued strong right wing opposition to the "radical" position that people should not be denied jobs because of their fundamental nature, or that hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated less seriously than those based on racial or religious prejudice. These are three of the major fights in which I was engaged in the nineties, and I literally do not understand what Senator Obama means when he says that he does not want to keep fighting them. I know that he understands that those who were opposed to all three of those causes in which many of us deeply believe in the nineties continue their opposition, and I do not understand how we can avoid fighting those battles other than by conceding them, which I know he does not advocate.

In some cases, Senator Obama does not seem to remember what some of the fights of the nineties were. I agree that it would be a good thing to have the 2008 election be in part "about whether to...pass universal health care" but that in fact is one of the central fights we had in the nineties. The effort of many of us to pass a universal health care plan is precisely one of the battles of the nineties, and it seems to me one that we very much want to keep fighting. Again, the only alternative to fighting it is losing it by concession.

Another major fight of the nineties which seems to me essential -- not simply relevant -- to the current election is tax policy. Few fights that we had in the period when Senator Obama is denigrating our battles was more important than the successful effort to pass President Clinton's tax plan in 1993. That battle was so hotly fought that it contributed, sadly, to the Republican takeover the next year, because a number of the Democrats who had voted for a progressive tax plan which made the tax code less unfair and provided important revenues for important programs lost their seats because of it. I make no apologies for having fought that fight, and in fact I hope that whoever is the President of the United States in 2009 will take up the battle against excessive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, both as a matter of fairness and as a matter of being able to afford fundamental programs essential to the quality of our lives. I also remember fighting hard during that period for the rights of working men and women to join unions, and while we lost that once the Republicans took power in '94, we did score one victory when we were still in the majority in passing, in a "bitter partisan battle," the Family and Medical Leave Act -- the need for us to wage that battle is once again as strong if not stronger in 2008 than it was in 1995.

Finally, I do take pretty strong exception to Senator Obama's evenhanded denunciation of "the same bitter partisanship" of the nineties. It is true that American politics became much more partisan in the nineties, but that was primarily the result of the successful right wing takeover of the Republican Party, embodied at the time--he has since become a little more moderate for some tactical purpose--by Newt Gingrich. Again I do not think those of us who fought back against Gingrich's poisoning of the atmosphere should apologize for that. If anything, the apologies should come from those who were too slow to respond. It was Gingrich and his right wing allies who decided to inject a much harsher note of partisanship by explicitly rejecting the notion that the Democrats were honorable people with whom they disagreed, and instead decided, as Gingrich's own printed and taped materials argued, to portray us as treasonous, corrupt, immoral and otherwise vile. And when Gingrich was forced by his own flaws to step aside, Tom DeLay took up those cudgels with a little less rhetorical flourish but with an even heavier hand. If Senator Obama was denouncing the outrageous tactics of Gingrich and DeLay, I would be very much in support of his comments. Instead, he evenhandedly denounces the "bitter partisanship" of that period and seems to me to be distancing himself equally from the Gingrich/DeLay attack and the efforts of many of us to combat it. The comment calls to mind the marvelous words of John L. Lewis, at a point when Franklin Roosevelt pronounced a plague "on both their houses" with regard to a significant labor dispute. "It ill behooves one who has supped at labor's table and who has been sheltered in labor's house to curse with equal fervor and fine impartiality both labor and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace."

As a Democratic Member of the U.S. House of Representatives today, I close by noting that there does appear to me to be a strong contradiction between two of the criticisms we sometimes receive. One is the approach taken by Senator Obama, which I have just tried to describe, which expresses distaste for too much fighting and too much anger, with too little effort to govern in a way that bridges differences. But contrary to that, I often hear that we Democrats in the Congress have not fought hard enough, that we have not stood up enough for what we believe in, and have been too prone to conciliate. I personally do not think that either criticism is justified, but I know as a fact that they cannot both be true.

I fully agree with Senator Obama that we should be arguing for the policies we advocate and the values from which they derive in a manner that appeals to the broadest possible segment of the public. His own ability to do that is one of our great assets. But I worry when people on my side underestimate the difficulty of our most important work, and I believe that is what Senator Obama does when he dismisses our efforts to fight the right wing in an earlier period because it suggests to me that he does underestimate the difficulty of the job. I think the best way to summarize my concern is that if you tell people that we should not be willing to refight the battles of the nineties -- including many very important ones that we are far from having won -- and if you tell people to refuse partisanship, you may be inviting people to leave the battlefield to those with whom we have the biggest differences. Racial fairness, reproductive rights for women, an end to discrimination against sexual minorities, universal health care, the right of working men and women to bargain collectively with employers -- these battles we waged in the nineties remain essential to our vision today, and I do not understand why we should either be embarrassed about having fought hard for them, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, or why we should not be determined to keep fighting until we have achieved success.

Comments

[JinnRikki]

Barack may be taking tactical tips from Ali, rope-a-doping the republicans with "can't we all just get along" while preparing to deliver a devastating hay maker when in office. I can dream can't I?

[mageduley]

This article is wrong because it is making assumptions by Mr. Frank on what Obama meant by "not wanting to go back to the bitter bipartisanship of the 90's"

I think Mr. Frank is taking personal offense when I think Obama's statement was much more streamlined.

It was the fact that the republicans were violently opposed to the clintons in the 90's. There is no reason to believe they would not also be just as violently opposed to them now.

I believe this was Obama's argument. We need someone new in the White House. We need to leave the old repug vs clinton battles behind.

[MAX1]

.

Q U E S T I O N:

HOW CAN ONE VOTE TO REAUTHORIZE THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGANST IRAQ WHEN THEY CLAIM THEY NEVER AUTHORIZED THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ?

.

[martinspringfield]

Rep. Frank is absolutely on the money here with regard to needing to continue to fight. The GOP is NOT going to stop fighting for what it wants, so the idea that we are all going to hug and get along is ludicrous. The Clintons didn't initiate the hatred toward them; hell, even Alan Greenspan says the Clinton was the best GOP president ever. That is, if you take Republicans at their word when they describe what they want; I don't because all they want is power and no oversight.

I'm hoping Obama is just doing a rope-a-dope with the GOP and that he's not really into date rape, which is the stated Republican definition of "bipartisanship" (and exhibited by them in practice). I wish he were a little more seasoned, and more of a demonstrated leader than sermonizer (what little opportunity he's had to demonstrate leadership has not been encouraging), but I think that he is the most electable and therefore have to go with him. I don't think he's as hardworking or studious, maybe not even as bright or talented a social engineer as Hillary, and something about him seems to scream "opportunist phony" in a way that I only sense mildly with Edwards, but as the most electable I have to go with him. At this point we just have to stop the bleeding and hope that the surgeon can also restore health quickly. But stopping the bleeding comes first.

[td]

I am more bothered by Obama's calculated decisions to join w/ Lieberman on one hand, and not fight bush on the other. If either Clinton or Obama win the nomination I'll sit on my wallet and vote against the republican in the general election.

[CHGORUNR]

Congressman, your animus toward Senator Obama is misplaced. It is also disappointing to hear you whine.

Frankly, you are mischaracterizing Obama"s position and maligning his character. Over seamntics. You are off base and out of line.

Obama is not impugning your personal Congressional record, so why are you slinging mud for The Clinton"s?

What Obama is trying to do on behalf of the American electorate is to lead Congress to an alternative way to conduct government. It is akin to moving away from litigation and adopting arbitration or mediation, if you will.

It is the 21st century not the 1990s. The next president of the U.S. will inherit vastly different circumstances " domestically & internationally " than when Bill Clinton was president.

All Obama is saying is that the world and the composition of Congress is different now; the time is right to act differently.

There is no better time for change.

Basically, Obama is saying ...

WE DO NOT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE FUTURE TO ACHIEVE.

And, while you have it partly right that American politics became much more partisan in the '90s as a result of the successful right wing takeover of the Republican Party, you fail to mention why the right wing was so successful.

Let us not forget that some blame for the Republican Party"s conversion lies with Bill Clinton and his enabler Hillary Clinton.

The flames of partisanship were given life because Bill amd Hillary Clinton were preoccupied with defending themselves during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals (among others).

Bill Clinton, and to a certain extent, Hillary Clinton, were responsible for allowing the Republicans to seize control of the House of Representatives in 1990s - and the partisanship that followed.

You cannot deny the Republicans will revisit all of The Clinton"s history if Hillary prevails as the Democratic presidential nominee.

BTW: This essay is a poor smoke screen for Hillary.

Bottom line: I do not want to relive the rancor and partisanship of the 1990s again... in 2008. And, maybe, Obama is saying this, too. Don"t take it so personally!

[JayFlanders]

Greetings,
Thanks for a good read Rep. Frank. Point taken, but I remain a solid Obama supporter. I think it would be better if Obama clarified his critque of the 90s to give credit where it is due, and that the work is not done. However, for those of us out here who regularly have conversations with ordinary Independents and Republican citizens, it is obvious what Obama is offering, and that is a chance to have a conversation that doesn't become a brawl. I cannot begin to tell you how many good people cannot stand the Clintons. It is not the Newts and Delay's that Obama is talking about working with, but the Holladays and the VanDykens and the Smiths. (Regular folks) I too am from an inbetween generation...neither a boomer nor a X, just like Obama. His critique is directed at the Clintons, to be sure, but I do not think he is as naive as you think. He knows we need a sense of common purpose to create working majority in this country.
All the best,
mf.

[jsarets]

If you were a brilliant and shrewd progressive running for president in political climate that's hostile to "libruls", how would you run? Would you run as a progressive firebrand vowing to fight the conservatives and give 'em hell? No, you wouldn't stand a chance!

What you'd do is move to the center, run a "turn the page" campaign revolving around unity, and build a coalition inclusive enough to win a comfortable majority. Then you'd have the votes in Congress and the popular mandate necessary to govern as a progressive.

Democrats are looking for the next FDR, but he didn't run on the New Deal. He ran on the vague notion that Americans were fed up with the corruption and mismanagement of the Hoover administration. Then he moved significantly to the left once in office.

So if you're looking for the next FDR, you're not going to find it in the platforms of these candidates. You're going to have to decide which candidate is the most likely to abandon the campaign season centrist policy for progressive ideology as president. I see that potential for a leftward shift most prominently in Obama.

George W. Bush ran on a fairly moderate "compassionate conservative" platform calling for modest foreign policy and even mandatory caps on carbon emissions. Then he made a mad dash to the right upon winning the election. The comparison between Bush and Obama is apt, but this time it's going to work in our favor as progressives.

[MichaelJames]

The battles of the 90's were often fought, not on policy grounds, but because the Republicans simply couldn't stand the thought of the Clintons occupying the White House.

It all started with the infidelity stories during the primary season, Whitewater, Hillary's unlikely commodities investment prowess and so on and so on. With so many on the opposite side of the aisle convinced that Clinton and his wife were crooks and liars, is it any wonder these same conservative people had a hard time taking the Clintons seriously or giving them the benefit of the doubt? For example, if you knew or thought you knew that a friend of yours had embezzled money from his employer, would you want to go into business with him? Would you trust him?

That's also why so many Republicans pushed so hard for impeachment, i.e. much like it was tax law violations that took down Al Capone, the GOP just wanted Clinton gone any way they could find. They saw their chance and jumped at it. If Clinton didn't have all the ethical problems to begin with, Monica-gate would have passed by after the appropriate apologies were issued.

It's the duplicity, stupid!

Why Clinton supporters fail to understand this is hard to explain.

We should certainly be willing to fight to pass healthcare reform and other important legislation but it will be much easier if the opposition isn't digging in their heels because they don't think the party they are dealing with has enough character and integrity.

[FrankFurter]

You couldn't fill a thimble with the amount of integrity to be found in DC.

Let's face it, the system is broken and has been broken for a long long time.

It does not matter who is president any more.
What matters most now is who can afford to scream the loudest the longest.

This destabilizing course has been planned for decades by the PNACer's, they have set the agenda for the next decade with the help of do many of our elected officials and we the people have no choice but to grin and pay for it for the next 100 years or more with a worthless dollar and a collapsed economy.

These days most politicians are nothing more than highly successful white collar criminals.

Barney is one of the few good ones left.

Barney, I don't know how you can stand to swim in the DC cesspool while speaking truth to power. Most Dems just keeping their mouths shut while the boat sinks.

[wsayscoupgood]

Thank you Barney! Once again you make us see what we knew was true just didn't think of it that way. The watch word of freedom is VIGILENCE! The ninties were a critical time for america and we did lose some ground and it would have been worse if we had not fought back! Thank you Barney. I am not ashamed of the ninties it was a critical moment that would have been easy to succumb to (SEE A*%HOLE LIEBERMAN) but those of us who knew fought the good fight!

[Kane]

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - First Inaugural Address

[TommyMcCarthy]

This eloquent and timely essay is a breath of fresh air at a time when it is sorely needed and I agree with every word of it.

Speaking of bipartisanship, you can like or dislike Rep. Frank, and you can agree or disagree (and on rare occasions I have disagreed with him), but Barney Frank is one of only a handful of legislators in my lifetime whose intelligence, integrity, and commitment has remained beyond question by Democrats OR Republicans throughout his career. It's easy to see why the voters in his district continue to re-elect him......and the rest of us are lucky to have him in congress.................................tm

[KarenZipdrive]

I liked the 90's and I liked President Clinton.
Obama is reaching out to the Gen X voters because he's young and realizes they have an innate gullibility without much reference to recent history.
Obama is definitely a cool dude, but I believe we need a no-nonsense bitch in office who can start to undo the wreckage caused by Bush and his criminal cronies.

Before all the peace, love and understanding that Obama promises takes place, someone's got to get in there and backhoe all the shit out of the barn.

Pretty boys are nice, but we need a hard working professional more than we need someone with a halo who talks with the cadence of a Southern Black preacher.

Any of the Democratic frontrunners would be just fine, but I think Hillary's the right bitch for the job.

[mjjcpa]

I think Obama is referring to the tone of those tussles. I watch CSPAN and the floor of the two houses are very cordial the majority of the time. It appears to me that the media, especially those 'talk shows' have increased attention to the negative things that occur. This has always been an issue in Washington, but it may have grown to an insurmountable point when the three network news organizations jumped off the neutrality cliff and openly allowed their liberal bias to seep into and through their reportage.

Why can't we all get along.

Viva Bush!