Next Moves

Okay, I have spent the best part of a week revising and reviewing what has happened. I've also read a number of the "What do we do next?" articles. And, there are some good ideas, some crap ideas and a lot of shirt rending and hair pulling. I've thought and thought some more. There are a lot of good thoughts about what the Democratic Party stands for. I think this sort of introspection is useful, whether in victory or defeat. But, while we sit and think, events are moving forward. And while it would be useful to develop a complete ideological framework and then place world events into that framework, the pace of world events is not going to give us the leisure to do that.

So, I have thought some more and come up with a list of soon to be coming issues that we should be preparing to confront as well as my thoughts on how to go after them. I'm not going to bother with the minutiae of various policy moves afoot by the Republicans. There's precious little that can be done to stop/change any bills the Republicans come up with, and I think the nuclear option of filibuster should be held back unless the issue at stake is a judicial nomination. No, the things I think Democrats and Progressives (hereafter referred to as the opposition) should focus on are broad sweep sorts of issues, nothing that has yet got a bill attached to it, but rather longer term issues that are clearly upcoming on the agenda, if not quite enunciated yet. Enough prevarication - here is my list.

• War in Iran - Maybe the Iranians will decide to play ball, maybe not. If not, I think it safe to assume we will find the government issuing ultimatums to Tehran. Once those ultimatums are issued, the government will feel obliged to act on them. So, I think that the opposition should begin now to sow seeds of doubt about a third war in the mideast. We must hammer at this on all fronts: is war the right course? where will troops come from (draft)? what will a third anti-Muslim war do to our world standing? We must marshal connections with our erstwhile foreign allies to put pressure on the government. We must marshal our forces in this country by recognizing the long-term effects of this widening conflict. We must present alternatives to this conflict. We must make the case that not only is war bad, but that our ideas are better and safer.



• Gay Marriage Amendment - It is time, I think, for Democrats to embrace the gay community fully. If we do stand for equality in all ways, then we must stand by the LBGT community now. I still maintain that religious denominations may choose to discriminate as they wish (if they wish) as to whom they will marry, but as long as the government is in the business of sanctioning unions between two people, then we must insist that the government allow such unions between any two consenting adults, be they same sex or different. It is no longer right (as if it ever was) that we do a little do-si-do around our support for gays. They are deserving of full, unconditional support as members of our party and our nation. If we think that much of the country will not tolerate homosexuals, we must do all we can not only to recognize gays, but to make it clear that we are not ashamed of them but proud to have them as members of our party. It was very telling that most of the country saw John Kerry's acknowledgement of the Cheney's gay daughter as a serious breach of ettiquette. We have to be in the vanguard of the movement that doesn't quietly acknowledge that gay people exist, but celebrates the right of people to love other people. We have to make people see that being gay isn't something to be ashamed of or to keep only in the family. Gay people make good parents - make that very clear. Gay people can be moral paragons as much as any breeder. Damn it, gay people are people just like any of us. We need to make it clear that we aren't ashamed of our gay friends. This "nod and wink" disregard is teaching people that despite what we advocate, we Democrats aren't comfortable with gay people. Small wonder our positions are rejected. We lack even the nerve to stand proudly for a vibrant part of our party.



• Social Security Privatization - Social Security was not instituted as a reward for making it to retirement, nor is it an acceptable substitute for adequate retirement planning. It was, however, a reaction to the fact of thousands on thousands of homeless or utterly impoverished older adults during the Depression. It was decided that as a country, we had a solemn duty to make sure that our older citizens never faced their later years without some sort of safety net. It was the one thing, if all else failed, would be there for older Americans. That mission has remained unchanged despite the intervening years. As Democrats, we must point out and make VERY clear the fact that any plan that puts even the smallest risk into that safety net is not acceptable. Social Security is one of the lasting legacies of FDR, one of the heroes of the Democratic Party. There should be an unquestioned commitment to ensure the covenant made between the government and its citizens is never abrogated.

These are three of the larger issues for the Bush presidency. I think our national die has been cast in Iraq. I think the desire of the citizenry for more panacea tax cuts is clear. Between holding the line on the radical judciary and stating a strong moral case for the above three items, I think the Democratic party will have an effective battle order for the next two years. In 2006 we try again to make our case. With a strong vision on the above issues, we can make ourselves Democrats, not anti-Republicans.