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

[Kane]

Rep Frank,

I think you're reading far too much into Sen Obama's reference towards the "fights of the nineties". It's quite obvious that Sen Obama is referring to a period in our history where the daily melodrama of petty politics split this country down the middle, and we've never been the same since. As you know, historians often refer to this era as, The Clinton Years.

Obviously, it takes two to tango, and there's enough blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle. Unfortunately, as some will never let go of their fight of the Vietnam War, there are some politicians with personal grudges so deep, they continually fight the same petty personal battles amongst themselves at the detriment to our country. We know all too well who they are.

Senator Obama, like many of us, are sick and tired of the constant fighting in Washington. Some of us actually want to move on from the petty wars, and start anew. As Senator Obama has made clear, we have far too many serious challenges ahead of us to indulge in the partisan bickering. Two foreign wars, global warming, a weak economy, the vanishing middle class, terrorism, health care, immigration, et cetera. These aren't Democratic issues or Republican issues, these are American issues. Issues that can only be addressed if we have the leadership and ability to organize and bring people together for our common cause.

[bg785]

yea frank is right. obama is talking out of his ass. on healthcare for example: does he not understand that there will be a battle? republicans will fight to the death to prevent people from having adequate healthcare. democrats want universal healthcare. there is no in between. there can be no compromise. democratic voters i thought were tired of democrats that rolled over to republicans (i.e. harry reid, pelosi) and they will get tired of obama if he pulls the same crap as president. and lastly, this talk of compromise is like blood in the water for republicans. they will eat Obama alive. and i never thought i would say this, but if obama doesn't realize that, then he really isn't experienced enough for the oval office.

[Dailyfare]

The problem with fighting is that the Democrats haven't had a knockout punch in YEARS. What Obama is saying is that maybe it's time to do something different. Try a different approach, not acquiesce, but use a scalpel instead of a machete.

[Dailyfare]

With all due respect, Rep. Frank - the battles of racial fairness, reproductive rights for women, etc. are not the battles that Senator Obama was referencing in his speech. Why did everyone seem to get that except for you?

[Stanley]

Generational politics refers to the hatreds of race, and all the political hand grenades on abortion and gay marriage we've seen overtake common sense, while the rest of the process festers in corruption. Single issue mania is a generation issue. Judgment over discernment is generational, if you base it on current leadership from both parties. Republican Revolution my ass. Partisan baiting to enrage the maddening mob is old school and change is needed and not coming from the two party system. Give me a break Barney. You don't agree because you are part of the problem and now sit in a seat of power hoping to keep things as they are. Yours is a self-serving argument at best.

Let the younger folks take over since you're going to leave us with the $9 trillion dollar tab anyway.

[MAX1]

.

Congressman Frank,
I would like to thank you for your years of service to the American people and working toward equal Rights legislation for the LGBT community. Your efforts are welcome.

I do have some concerns, however, about our future that you're not addressing.

SINCE WHEN IS WARRANTLESS, LEGAL?
SINCE WHEN IS TORTURE, LEGAL?
SINCE WHEN IS OUTING A COVERT CIA AGENT LEGAL?
SINCE WHEN IS PRESENTING FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS, THAT LEADS TO WAR, LEGAL?
SINCE WHEN LIFTING HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS OUTSIDE THE DEFINED STATUTES CONTAINED WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION, LEGAL?

The Oath of Office you affirmed to, or swore to, MUST be upheld!

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

WHEN WILL YOU COSPONSOR H.R.333?
OR SUBMIT YOUR OWN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?

A failure to act, is not just failing America, but tantamount to patriotic TREASON, compounded with your knowledge of the existing crimes makes you an accessory TO those crimes.

HOW can you fight for the Rights of minorities, yet FAIL to support and defend the Constitution, American Principles and Values our Founders died for?

HOW?

[zull2]

With all due respect, quite a few of the squabbles in the 90's ultimately were the result of chest-thumping and politicking. One party, the Republican party, set the agenda for the legislation to be passed, and the other party in Congress would propose the same bill with changes...­and then the argument would ensue, and usually end up with the President passing a new bill that more in Congress would agree on...

But ultimately, the whole thing was a matter of bragging rights. "Who got the bill passed, and who didn't?" When the real question was "Why are the Republicans able to play the system to get their way, when we should be standing up against their wholesale dismantling of our society?" A few of the more traditional Democrats in Congress raised these points, but were usually drowned out in this massive, desperate swarm of politicians attempting to please people and win voters back.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Thank you Barney Frank, well stated, as usual. Obama's trivializing and minimizing the past battles against the lawless Rethugs and suggesting the Dems are equally guilty of partisanship shows he is nearly blind to reality. We already have a pResident like that now, and look how well it works!

[army193]

Obama will not lose the Senate or Congress for Dems...But good points by Barney.

[jayne]

How does the adage go: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;" bravo, Barney!

[UNCLEJOE]

HR Barney Frank, the Democratic Congress after Kennedy allowed Johnson to create a Unified Budget, placing the SS S together with Income Tax, and to surreptitiously steal from the Social Security Surplus fund and wasted it on the Vietnam War; they allowed Reagan to destroy the Unions and deregulate all the Regulations controlling our environment, all our anti monopoly regulations and leave us with an added Three Trillion dollar dept on Reagan's Buck Roger projects like Fusion, Star Wars, building 400 navel ships that never were needed, and billions on a magnetic field that was supposed to contain nuclear power.

And then Carter appointed Paul Volker Chairman of The Federal Reserve who raised the Home Loan rates from 7% to 21.5 % in 8 months and wiped out million of home owners and millions of member of the middle class causing the first Stagnation in our history.

And last but not least, Bill Clinton supported Nafta and the WTO that shifted the US trade balance to China and eliminated millions of good paying jobs in America. I don't know why I still voted for Democrats. It looks like the Democratic Congresswo/men are Republican collaborators. And your obvious endorsement for Hillary, the paradigm warmonger of the 21 century puts you in the back row of my political economics class.
How your type of ignorant historians every get elected past a dog catcher's job is the Great American mystery.

Unfortunately a Black American is unelectable and I will never vote for Stigmata warmonger Hillary.
Give me John Edwards or I will vote for any Independent candidate. I am 70% of the Kucinich anti-war chorts.

[rusdr61]

This last year has been prime example of the kinds of obstruction that the Republicans will always participate. While I do not think that this last years has been a vile as the 90's, I also do not think just because Mr Obama asks nice will the Republicans fall in line.
Many of our difficult problems of today are things that have needed to be fixed since the 90's, but most 18-25 yr olds do not remember that we have been fighting the republicans to get it done.
Take health care reform, Clinton tried to get something done but was savaged by the Republicans and special interests in the early 90's. Much of the negitives about her come from the Republican attack machine of the time, which is alive and well now.
The the change of the last congressional election was about ending the WAR, but who has obstructed that from happening. Democrates have tried a dozen time in various was to end it, but you need the Republicans to have it happen.
Hope without actions are just dreams.
I actually think that the best solution for America right now is to have a Democratic ticket of Experiance and Hope.
Clinton/Obama 08. The Dream and Action Team
Now thats a coalition the Republican might have to listen to.

[elkabong]

Congressman Frank,

I'm guessing that (like me) the majority of Democrats would rather have someone besides Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I don't think she's representative.

If you're calling for a fight and support weak leadership, aren't you asking us to follow you on a suicide mission?

P.S. Why Clinton and not Edwards?

[WoollyB]

I'm missing the point? Wow.
I didn't say that Republicans want to change the political dialogue. I didn't say that they don't want to win.
I think I made it clear that THE VOTERS want to listen to a changed political dialogue.
And the way for progressives to WIN is to get votes from the voters. Duh? Not to continue to engage in polemic because it just feels good. Slowly but surely, this is the strategy that is winning. The national Republican party is imploding and the voters know it. There will soon be a vacuum in American politics. My personal opinion is that the progressive movement is better off with a true "uniter" rather than an abject corporatist like Clinton or a personally compromised (29,000 square feet) class warrior like Edwards.

[texanna]

Well said, Rep. Frank. I am to the point with Sen. Obama that I am with Shrub -- I just can't listen to him anymore because it makes me too angry. His Pollyanna view of creating a new age of bipartisanship without any fights presumes that the NeoNut Republicans are interested in that same new world. Get a grip! They are not. While the House can be overwhelmingly voted Democratic, not everyone in the Senate is up for re-election, so the potential exists to have a continuation of all those awful, really cross words and stuff that Mr. O and his followers just can't stand to hear. I am not interested in playing nice with the aholes that currently control our country and BTW, they are not all in the government. In fact, most of them are the multi-nationals, the Big Biz people and the Military-I­ndustrial-­Media complex. Seriously, who thinks any of those players is going to give up one scintilla of what they are currently in control of just because Obama and his devotees talk really, really nicely to them? The fights of the 90's -- they are alive and well and sitting on the Supreme Court! And we are going to pay for their tenure there for a long, long time to come. I am fuming that right now, when the Democratic Party really could take control of the government and steer it back to the course we were on before Nixon, before Reagan, before those really mean things from the 90's such as the "Contract for America" and impeachment for a BJ we might end up with someone who just really is not into that, thank you very much. And, guess what, Boomers didn't do this to this country, okay. So, quit blaming anyone over 50 for the mess we're in. Oh, and how is it that we're angry with Nancy and Harry for going the bipartisan route and not getting done what we wanted,but think we're going to love it next year?