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

[vastleft]

Bravo! Bravo!

Please also see:

http://www.correntewire.com/i_know_why_the_caged_snuffleupagus_sings

And related articles linked therein.

[Cybesq]

Some very valid points from Congressman Frank if you ask me.

I just hope that Obama's comments about the "fights of the nineties" were simply meant to remind voters that he doesn't carry the Clinton baggage and won't have to spend energy explaining his spouse's extramarital activities.

Of course the typical Republican scumbags will be looking for new dirty tricks and I can only say that I hope Obama's comments don't suggest that he will play nice when swifboated. We already saw how that worked once and it is costing us a billion dollars a month on an illegal war.

[JoeCHI]

Bravo, Barney!

[RJ Eskow - Huffpost Blogger]

I have great respect for Rep. Frank, but it would have been appropriate for him to disclose that he has endorsed Sen. Clinton:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=16366

[neworleanslady68]

Thank you, Mr. Frank. I am an Obama supporter, but the Obama comments to which you refer have also been troubling me recently. I DON'T want to refight the same old Clinton-hating battles (just as I don't want to fight the same old Bush-hating battles), but I think Obama is painting the work of the Democrats over the years with too broad a brush when he talks about partisanship.

For some weeks now, Gore loyalists and Kerry loyalists (I belong to the latter group) have been feeling a bit insulted by Obama's comments. I can imagine that the Democrats in Congress who have fought the good fight these many years might well feel insulted by Obama's criticism that makes it sound like both sides are equally and mindlessly at fault for partisan deadlock.

John Dean's new book "Worse Than Watergate" clearly makes the case that it is wrong to assume that the partisanship is merely a matter of liberal vs. conservative. As the former Republican illustrates, the right is ruthless, authoritarian, and greedy. They seek to use government for their own enrichment, and they see themselves as completely above the law. For them, the ends always justifies the means. Democrats are NOT merely an ideological mirror image of that - and Obama makes a mistake by making it sound like they are!

[Giordano Bruno]

Barney is right in a way that Barack is ingenuous. It has been my contention all along that a more feisty approach is needed when dealing with those bastards (i.e., insurance companies, polluters, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, etc.) I guess as long as he is willing to go the distance (i.e., if concilliatory tactics prove ineffective, then he needs to resort to a more confrontational style).

What I don't accept is that the Clintons were all that wonderful. They gave us NAFTA, a corporate press, and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They also did not do enough to discourage colonization of the West Bank by the Israelis.
Come to think of it, I think they were more lucky than good. Giordy

[TRYKER]

Obama was saying he wants "to work with the Rethugs, period." Lieberman's favorite pupil. The DLC chosen one is announcing his buyoffability.

[RichLiberal]

Welcome aboard Barney. I have been waiting for the Democrats who fought these battles to finally wake up and say "wtf?". We need more of the party to wake up along with you.

Reading this HuffPo the last few weeks has shown the Obama supporters appear to be as empty-headed as he is. All any of them say is that anyone who questions Obama doesn't believe. Believe in what? There's no "there, there" as has been said in past elections.

Obama insults the baby boomers, insults anyone concerned with these issues you describe and yet the media keeps promoting this guy?

It appears that last night the fairy tale met reality.

[SilerMarriott]

Also most importantly those old fights are why Mr. Obama can run today, let's not forget our past.

[outnow]

Some issues can be the subject of compromise. Abortion is an issue that was decided by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The reaction to that decision has kept the Republicans in power by adding the family values and right-to-life issues to their political agenda. You can throw the baby out with the bath water but you cannot split the baby, unless you are King Solomon.

The answer to Marxism was the labor unions. Now, the labor unions comprise about 7.5% of the private employment sector.

The American political seen is further compromised by free trade which results in an upward shift in wealth and a net loss of jobs.

Obama cannot "reach across the aisle" on abortion. What middle ground is there in free trade? Either you have tariffs, which is called "protectionism" by some, or you don't.

Being "confrontational" is so "sixties." Or so they say. Without a draft, the college students and the workers will not take to the streets.

So we don't have effective labor unions as an important segment of the Democratic platform and we don't have socialism. We just have a bunch of self-righteous war-mongers who are flexing unjustified political muscle.

But Obama wants "Kumbaya." Hillary wants more corporate support. Edwards and Kucinich "get it." We need 60 majorities in both houses and a Democratic president. Legislation first, Supreme Court appointments alter. That will result in "change."

[Babaganoush]

Another lifetime politician that does not get it.

[walkswillhaunt]

I don't want to re-fight the battles of the '90s, which were the battles of the '80s, which were the battles of the '70s, which were the battles of the '60s. I'm done with all of that. America is done with that.

Of COURSE Rep. Frank and -- almost universally -- the Dems were on the more correct side of all of the arguments. Great. I applaud the past. But I want people who don't remember those battles because they weren't there.

Frank and the rest: You are all still Vietnam Hawks and Doves. You're all still hippies and squares. Only you're all older and more incorrigible! Much as I admire what you accomplished -- and appreciate how hard you worked -- it's time for an entirely new batch of leaders.

Your cohort is not going to fix Social Security because you caused the problem -- and because your voters are going to reap the benefits of your carelessness, then die.

You're not going to pay enough attention to college funding because your children are long since grown.

You're not going to address the predatory home lending crisis sufficiently because you're all from a generation where one steady income could net a mortgage. Ever try it on two (or three) unsteady incomes?

Barack Obama is the only person in this race who is "beyond" the rules, the grudges and the debts of the past 35 years of Baby Boom-centric politics.

[LeoMarvin]

"I personally do not think that either criticism is justified, but I know as a fact that they cannot both be true."

Congressman, respectfully, that's where I think you're wrong, and where you may have misunderstand Obama's plea. I agree with you about the 1990’s clashes, and I still get furious recalling them. I also agree that the issues are crucial, and we have to fight over them as vigorously now as ever. But that doesn't mean we have to adopt the ugliest, broad-brush tactics of the Republicans to do so. And I've never seen you do that, so you may be misperceiving Obama's criticism if you think it even applies to you. In fact, the way you exposed the outrageousness of the Republican case for impeachment, skewering them with wit, but never sinking to their level, is an example of what we need more of, and what I doubt Obama would have the slightest problem with.

But look around you, and maybe read some of the comments on these blog posts, and you'll see that we do have a cohort just as hateful and divisive as the most extreme right wingers. I'm not suggesting what I think would be a false equivalence. The purveyors of the Tom Delay, Karl Rove school of hate politics got a hell of a lot closer to the center of Republican power than they've ever managed to get with the Democrats. But that's not an argument for us becoming as bad as they are. It's what ultimately brought them down and it would do the same to us. That's all I think Obama is really talking about, and it's what reasonable people on both sides are sick of.

[JayR]

The 90's were certainly good for some people but rolling over for "welfare reform", IIRIRA, and other bills certainly devastated the lives of millions of Americans.

What battles did the Dems win that showed they did a good job back then?

[BUSHsurvivor]

Should Mr. Obama become our President he will have to work within the Washington DC political environmen­t...until it is changed!

And not before...a­s Bush, Jr. has disgustingly attempted to do.