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

[EtOH]

I think Sen. Obama is just trying to highlight his candidacy as a break from the past. I don’t think he will roll over for the Republicans if elected. My hope is that he can inspire more people to get out and vote. We need to get 80 – 95 % of the country to get off their asses and vote! This is where Obama’s strength lies. If he can get people involved and engaged in the governing process, there won’t be so much partisan politics because his momentum will translate into more Democrats in the Senate and Congress. I think he is counting on that to happen. Maybe a little too much, judging the performance of our most recently elected Congress. Sorry Rep. Frank, I couldn’t resist the dig.

[TeddySalad]

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.

You are suppose to become WISER. Apparently you never got the memo.

[research]

It only takes one side to have a bad relationship, and that bad side is the rethugs. They shut the dems out when they were in power, and they obstruct the dems now that they are not.

The only way to make peace with these rethugs is to do what they say.

I say: NEVER.

[flatus]

I long for that moment of illucidation when it is noted by all that to speak like Martin Luther King is not to be Martin Luther King.

[urnumbersix]

THANK YOU Barney Frank!
School these young'un's!
Young people - get smart and LISTEN to Barney is saying (instead of defending yourself -- you are not being attacked).
Please learn, or we will have to repeat fights for past battles won. Just what the GOP wants.
Please!!

[raker]

Complaints about bad will in Congress "on both sides" are facile and juvenile. Like a kindergarten teacher, they assign blame to both sides and insist the fighting stop. Not all conflicts are 50/50 propositions.

When it comes to yielding control of our lives to corporations and the interests of the wealthy, Democrats want to go all the way AND keep their virginity. Democrats' good intentions are worth NOTHING if the interests of business and Repubs are sheperded to victory by both sides.

We don't need a peacemaker who'll continue to give Repubs everything they want. We need a tough-ass fighter, and none of our Democratic candidates is up to the job.

[rlappi]

>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<

Here is a perfect example of the circular thinking that shows just how out of touch our leaders are. Bipartisanship is the fault of the Republicans! It's as if the Republicans just popped out of nowhere, in complete isolation, and everyone just randomly decided to jump on the bandwagon. No, just as the counterculture was built on rebellion against the conformity of the 50's, the Republican machine was created on rebellion against the divisiveness and excesses of the 60's and 70's. Burning draft cards, spitting on soldiers returning home, militant feminism (rather than sacred feminism). These were all things that pissed people off more than united them. Understandably, for a time, after King's death we chose to abandon the moral spirit and inspiration that he so eloquently offered -- coalition building, inclusiveness, a spiritual foundation. And Bill Clinton fit snuggly into the charicature that the Repubicans had ALREADY painted -- loose morals, excess, etc. The Republican revolution was a foregone conclusion.

While our parents love to talk about the great things they did in the 1960's and early 70's (and I am so thankful for what they did), what about the 80's and 90's? If we have to look back 40 years to find real progress and inspiration, then that's a problem. Barack Obama not only brings back the spirit of progressive causes, but he also brings back those values that gave credibility to Dr. King.

It's the leaders who possess integrity which creates movements. Democrats haven't had the moral high ground in decades (Carter excepted, but he wasn't very inspirational), because our president was too busy getting blow jobs in the oval office. Sorry, but nothing "historic" happened in the 90's when it comes to our progressive causes. We just put a band aid on some issues, while ignoring the wound that continues to grow infected..

[TruthJusticeAmericanWay]

I support Barney Frank in what he has done in Congress in the last 17 years, but I am not--like he--invested in those efforts. What he seems to miss--while many responders here have not--is that the Clintons, for all the good they did, enabled the Neo-Cons to reach the positions of power that they have occupied now for seven years--and longer if you can appreciate what they did to weaken the last few years of Bill Clinton's administration. The Clintons' foibles and frailities were like food to the DeLays, the Armey's, the Bushes, the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys. Without that food, those people would not have been strong enough to wield the power that they did--enough power to get us into an immoral war, to enrich their military-industrial friends, to reduce the taxes of their friends, to eliminate federal regulation and assistance under OSHA, MSHA, and FEMA, to infect the federal judiciary with a cancer that will take at least a decade to run its course, to impose a Christian theocracy upon many of our governmental agencies and institutions, to turn science and evolution into dirty words, and more. Barack Obama can begin to reverse all of these tragic results. Hilary Clinton will not. We now have momentum on our side because of Bush's corruption, mediocrity, religiosity, incuriosity and ferocity. Let's not blow it.

[LunaNik]

There can be no end to partisan politics as long as the opposing viewpoints are so disparate. To extend the hand of friendship to the right wing, the Party that has decimated our country, in the fond hopes that they'll join us in a rousing version of Kumbaya is naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

As long as the right wing devalues life unless it's in the womb, we must fight.

As long as the right wing continues to try to control women's bodies, we must fight.

As long as the right wing ignores fact and logic in favor of religious myth, we must fight.

As long as the right wing believes that lining their pockets is more important than the welfare of the People, we must fight.

As long as the right wing refuses rights to anyone who is not heterosexual (while hypocritically engaging in gay sex with strangers in public restrooms), we must fight.

As long as the right wing considers itself (amid multiple marriages, drug abuse, and pedophilia) the Party of Family Values, we must fight.

As long as the right wing spews hatred toward anyone unlike them, we must fight.

Reasoned argument is useless with people who believe in the Rapture but scoff at global warming, with people who believe a fertilized ovum is life but a soldier isn't, with people who are more than happy to let living children starve as long as no embryos are aborted.

There can be no bipartisanship with people like the right wing. And there is no other option but to fight against these people. None.

And if it were not for Congressman Frank and his colleagues fighting these fights for us over the years, we would be reliving the Middle Ages.

Thank you, Congressman Frank.

[centralmnusa]

A great job of clarifying a devisive tactic employed by Obama. Mr. Frank is one of the great men of my lifetime and I am grateful for his public service and exceptional courage.

[Dunnage]

People forget:

1. Hillary Clinton lead,fought and unfortunately lost a damn close fight for a national health care system.

Which--

2. Helped turn the 90's into a decade of a Republican led Congress.

3. Leading me to feel that the hard won gains of the time were due to a Clinton administration.

[DHeil]

Barney,

Love ya bud. You are one of the gems in this corrupt political system we have today. But you must have been smoking some wacky weed when you penned this missive. You are certainly astute enough to realize Obama's reference to the politics of the 90s was not a criticism of Democrats from taking any role in divisive politics, but instead a criticism on Republicans who took advantage of Clinton faux pas along with their general hatred of all things Clinton.

Regarding the Democrats and their politics, it can only be said that Democrats have lacked credible leadership and cojones. That is true now and in the nineties. The Republicans have LONG understood that political power lies in a party's ability to keep its members together on votes. And through this time, Democrats have latched onto the long abandoned pipe dream that elected officials should cordially debate the issues and vote their conscience. How quaint!

I believe Obama, as President and leader of his party, would offer the carrot, but quickly resort to hardball politics when and as needed.

Don't be quick to assume he's all pillows and teddy bears.

[BluGrrl]

I was born in 81.

I don't remember Reagan but I remember the first Bush and his foray into Iraq.

With more clarity I remember the 90's and I recall the bullshit and the frustration of my family at the bickering partisanship and each sides inability to rise above it. Sometimes someone has got to be the bigger man and you had better not let it be the other guy.

Now I am 26 and witnessed with an adults mind the tragedy of George W. Bush. You probably think I am young, but I am old enough to know that I don't want to see another Bush or Clinton in the White House for quite some time. It's time for America to move forward not back again.

I'm an Edwards supporter, Obama is my second choice.

Political dynasties in America should not be commonplace.

At some points yes, I feel as if Obama is being to soft on Republicans. But you know what? Maybe American politics shouldn't resemble bar room brawls.

The truth of the matter is you are never going to go forward on a road that goes only left or right.

Whether people like it or not sometimes there has got to be compromise in order to get a job done. If there is not compromise on both sides then the one side is always screwed, and while you may think that is fair while your screwing Republicans you won't think it is fair when Republicans are screwing you.

There does need to be more civility in our political tone and there is a fair amount of reconciliation that needs to be done if we actually want to BALANCE the scales.

[davidly]

Unlike yourself, Congressman, I'm not a big fan of the frontrunners in this "race", so don't really have much to say about the Senator's alleged dismissal of the supposed fights of the '90s. But I gotta ask: What about now? Why aren't you impeaching before it's too late??

[MR]

Finally. Some one saying what Ive been saying and thinking every since Obama got into the race. the last thing I want snd the last thing this country needs is some pollyannish tip toe through the tuplips cant we all get along democrat who doest see the right wing neofacists for what they are and the damage they have done and the danger they are to the country.