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

[NABNYC]

The author may be missing Obama's point. The fact is that during the 1990s, Clinton stole the biggest Republican points, moving the Democratic party to the right, turning the Democratic leadership into Republicans. And everyone knows it. Except perhaps Barney Frank.

Remember, before Reagan the Republican party could legitimately be considered conservative --not crazed neo-fascist lunatics like they are today. And Bill Clinton was a Republican too, except he called himself a Democrat. And he decided to steal all the Republican party platforms to change the Democrats into Republicans.

Look how Clinton and Terry McCauliffe assisted in convincing the Democrats to completely abandon unions and working people, women's rights, abortion, anti-war, job security -- everything Democrats stood for was changed by Clinton during the 1990s. Terry McCauliffe convinced the Democrats that they too should solicit bribes from the major corporations and sell out the working people.

The "battles" of the 90s were therefore Clinton slashing welfare for single moms vs. Republicans demanding welfare cuts. Clinton executing prisoners on his coffee breaks to show how tough he was vs. Republicans demanding the death penalty for criminals. The battles were largely bologna -- faux wars between the conservatives and the neocons. And all the working people lost, then lost some more.

So I think Obamaand Edwards got it right. Battles over Bill Clinton's sex life and George Bush's cocaine habits are of the National Enquirer level to distract the people while both parties rob them blind.

A new political system, being advocated mostly by Edwards, tells people to wake up, reject the gossip-rag level of politics associated with the Clintons, and get real. Where do we hear any discussion of job creation? There is none from Hillary. Only love for outsourcing and for unrestricted immigration.

A real change in politics would be one in which the politicians acknowledged their responsibility to work for us, the people.

[nlightenup]

Thanks, Rep. Frank. There's a lot of rhetorical knee-jerking going on, and we need just such information and analysis as you offer to be able to think our way through this election, and not just react.

[knosiswar]

Mr Frank, he's talking to those of us who want out of the triangulating legacy of the Clintons. Hillary waltzed in on Bill's coattails and inserted herself into the middle of Healthcare, polarizing Washington who was asking the same question we were asking, who the hell does she think she is. We elected Bill to the White House, and Hillary get's an office in the West Wing. And not only did she fail, she failed miserably, and was the uniting factor for the Republicans and Gingrich who took Congress due to it. Hillary's part in the Bill Clinton Whitehouse was nothing but a failure, and it reflected poorly on the party.

[lovethesinner]

Obama isn't implictly, or explicitly attacking any parts of our progressive struggle. He's just suggesting that the partisanship of it has caused a paralysis that keeps it from achieving it's real potential.

He's suggesting that we create a new framework for PROGESSING forward, not dismantling anything that GOT US HERE. We have become more than hair-dressers or gym teachers. And none of us is getting any younger.

It isn't time to drop the torch, or throw it away. It's time to pass it on to a new breed of leadership that can keep it shining on America.

Obama in '08

[Boston1775]

Barney Frank,
Thank you for stating the obvious.
Does he have any idea what is being planned for him?
And if his answer is, Of course I understand, then how does Barak Obama plan to deal with Republicans who have attacked our own government?
The Department of Justice: nearly dead.
The Armed Forces: broken and ailing.
The Office of the Vice President: delusional and deadly.
Our country is on emergency life support because it has been savaged from within.

THANKS FOR KEEPING HOPE ALIVE, BARNEY.

I will not vote for someone who disparages the battles fought for us, here and abroad, because a vicious cabal got hold of the United States.

[cheshyre]

All I can say is, "Hear! Hear!"

As I've said before, Obama is not a dreamer but its opposite: a wishful thinker. So he wishes we all could get along. So what? There are predators in this world - many of them elected - and closing your eyes to that is not a solution, it's a disaster.

[greensuiter]

Bravo Congressman. I hate it when people condemn the Democrats as a whole--forgetting that there are still many good ones who are fighting for change against not only the Republicans but Blue Dogs and Corporatists in their own party.
I have many "liberal" friends who just don't believe how vehemently the right-wing machine despises us and what we long for. They will do anything--lie, cheat, steal, even kill--to get their way. This happy go lucky attitude will be our demise because even after all that has happened in the past 7 years, by the time people wake up--it will be too late.
I too am worried about Obama's and anyone else's generalized statements against partisanship. Perhaps he is just trying to gain the votes of unaware but cynical people who want to see some sort of change. But change won't come about through ending the partisanship. It will end when we remove from office the President and congressionals--be they Republican or Democrat--that are working against change.
Hope is Obama's keyword. If he's elected I hope that he is mature enough to realize this fight right away and build a progressive majority. If Clinton is elected I hope she has the integrity to resist her corporate donors.
There is always room for negotiation but as Congressman Frank says, it is impossible when one side demonizes and demeans you--calling you a traitor and a communist. It is like negotiating with a schizophrenic or a petulant child.

[meileen]

All excellent points, sir. And the fact that BO does not readily admit that some of these fights still exist is what frightens me about his candidacy. Additionally, how could he not know that the right will swiftboat him if he became the nominee? Will he then just stand and say "Present" or will he actually find his voice? He gives good speech, but how well will he work in the trenches?

Hillary proves that she can take the heat - even here she gets no support, yet she still stands strong. That says a lot to me, and in some ways, I'm feeling pushed to support her because of the treatment she receives from the MSM and here at HuffPo. (I also have to wonder if I am not alone in this phenomenon. Witness the NH primary.)

I would be happy with either candidate (or even Edwards) as the nominee, but my fear is BO is too green to go up against the right wing machine. The same machine he seems to think does not exist.

[piezoid]

Brilliant as usual, Congressman Franks.

I think voters last night started weighing Obama's words in much the same light you shed on them here.

The battles of the 90's were fallout from the preposterous "Reagan Revolution".
Let's deregulate everything, laissez-faire, yeah right!

His pals hate to be regulated but can't be trusted when they are not. The savings and loan crisis and now this beauty of a mortgage meltdown are 2 prime examples.

Jim

[xcrunner77]

Obama is not saying not to fight battles. It's more about not creating battles where they don't need to be. The Clintons are like that "drama girl" that you knew in high school who wasn't happy unless she had some drama in her life. If none existed, she'd create it.

By way of major contrast, Obama has observed taht people on both sides are tired of fighting battles and want to try working together for a change. It won't all be perfect. But it will be a darn sight better than Hillary.

If Hillary were President we would have non-stop attacks from the right beginning on Day 1, for the next four years. You thought the "nuclear option" in the Senate was brazen. Heck, you aint seen nothing yet.

The rightwing would love nothing better than to tear and claw at a Clinton again. They're hungry for it. If they can't win the Presidency, bashing Hillary Clinton for four years is almost as good. Therefore a Hillary vs. any Republican election is one in which Republicans can't lose.

If four years of battle is what you want, by all means vote for Hillary Clinton.

If you're tired of that, vote for Barack Obama.

[KimberlyFla]

Once Obama sees the vicious attacks that will be leveled against him by the right, if he becomes the democratic candidate, then he will "get it". I also believe we need a fighter. John Edwards has my vote.

[DrPaulProteus]

Maybe Obama diminishes it because the 90s are the last time Democrats fought anyone on anything.

[borderorder]

Do you think Obama was referring to you, Rep. Frank? We all know he was talking about the EXTREME diviseness of the CLINTONS versus the Right. We all sat through that double feature and while some wax nostalgic many others are ready to turn the page. You're proud of your efforts and so you should be, but this isn't about you or your cohorts, it is about Bill and Hillary and whether enough of the nation can stomach another 4 years of their show.

[UltraClassic]

Well Mr. Frank, you are correct. I think the senator is just attempting to cast a wide net and bring in those who have become disgusted with the political rhetoric of the time.

Newt could be a real S.O.B. when he had to be but look at the words that have tossed against G. W. I would not call them civil.

It's all wearing thin and Obama is simply trolling for those voters who feel that way.

[philjames]

Thank you for your illuminating critique. I could not agree with you more about the near emptiness of Obama's soothing rhetoric which boils down to the hackneyed cry "Why can't we all just get along?" His strategy completely dismisses the power of the right wing, as though it has somehow, within the last few months, become a thing of the past that the rest of the country has as if by magic grown out of and no longer need be bothered with. I think Edwards has a far more compelling message, and far closer to MLK's as well, in explicitly calling on everyone to join with him in a fight for fairness in America.