Goodbye Neo Cons. Hello Neo Dems.

The recent Democratic win in the mid-term elections has had a strange, dampening effect on my desire to blog about political matters.  It is almost as if the chief impetus to write is gone and that it is now time to wait and see. In the past week, serious considerations of closing down A.B. has crossed my mind a few times. (Look now for more cultural and literary commentary.)  I didn't realize how deep my anger with the Bush administration was and how much it was fueling my blogging energy.  It is a bit scary!

It is also funny because this is more or less what I was waiting for - for six long years.  To see the worst and the most dangerous administration in recent American history defanged and brought under control. Yet, I look at the new Democrat controlled Congress with some trepidation and anxiety. Not all newly elected members come bearing the message I wish to hear. The Bush 43 administration too will now be under new management which is really the old management of the Bush 41 administration. So on the whole, it looks like we took two steps ahead and at least one backwards. 

Let us first examine the changes that the White House will be forced to make in the wake of the humiliation at the polls. Gone are the "in your face," arrogant  neo cons whose dream of world domination through American military might has been shattered or at least put on hold by the tragic and frightening debacle in Iraq.  Those who haven't yet got the heave-ho, like Rove and Cheney, will most likely spend the remaining two years licking their wounds although I wouldn't count Rove out until he is truly gone.  The new team in charge of national security is being put together by Poppy Bush's friend and fellow Houstonian, James Baker, the unflappable aristocrat and diplomat with the icy smile. Daddy's old confidante  will now put the leash on the wayward son of his friend whose feckless ways he was familiar with but whom he still worked hard to put at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth. Should we then trust him and his rescue team?  Those who put personal loyalties above the good of the nation? This new group of old hands are being widely hailed as "pragmatists and realists" about national security and foreign policy. What does that mean?  After all, they didn't foresee the break up of the Soviet Union or the unfolding chaos in the Balkans. They were incredibly cozy with the Saudis, Kuwaitis and assorted monarchs and dictators, including Saddam Hussein. They paid little or no heed to the most crucial problem in the middle east - the Israeli Palestinian issue. The real difference between them and Bush-Cheney is that they didn't go into Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein after the 1991 invasion of Iraq. Instead they tried to starve the Iraqis with sanctions. To me that seems more like opportunism and cynicism rather than "realism" which implies some degree of wisdom. So I guess under the stewardship of the "neo-realists," Dubya's itchy trigger finger will be kept under check in case he gets it into his head  to undertake regime change in another country like Iraq.  Instead, we will attack smaller, more defenseless countries with negligible military power like Panama and Grenada. (Take note, Venezuela and Nicaragua.)  Thank goodness for small mercies.

I will hold my fire on the matter of the new Democratic Congress for the time being. Let us see how they conduct themselves in the next two years. Whether they will strengthen their hands for years to come or fritter away their energies with petty bickering on domestic policies and craven caving in on national security. Will they turn our attention back to bread and butter issues like minimum wage, job creation, access to education and health care? Can they inject some rationality and decency in the national dialogue which rises above petty issues of race, religion and parochialism? Will they be brave enough to state clearly that our morality and ethics do not equate to quoting the scriptures or wrapping ourselves in the flag?  That compassion does not equal pandering?  Instead of just nickel and dime retail politics of small gains, will the Democratic leadership be bold enough to put together ambitious national projects to benefit ALL Americans (universal health care and insurance?) and have a convincing message to sell it? Will they learn their lessons about national security from George McGovern and Howard Dean who advocate going to war only when we are attacked or our national security is truly threatened?  Or will they follow the lead of Madeleine Albright who wanted to attack "somebody" just because we have the best military in the world and to prove that she was "man" enough to take us to battle? Will we now turn our attention to Darfur, Congo and the poverty in Africa?  Or will our foreign policy consist mostly of striking lucrative trade and outsourcing deals with China and India? ? Can they assure us that they will try "honestly" to solve the mideast problem without waging unnecessary wars under the guise of "security" for Israel?  And will the Democrats work for a solution in Iraq which first and foremost, takes into consideration the future of the Iraqi people and not just some ill defined "victory" for Americans? Most of all, can the Democrats unite and lead our country in a direction in which "American Pride" signifies progressive and innovative endeavors in science, technology, education and equitable social services, rather than Red, White & Blue jingoism during war and the Olympic games?   

I hope the Democrats succeed. I hope that with success will come the confidence to be bold. Boldness in time may give rise to vision and statesmanship.  But that may be too starry eyed. As my co-blogger Dean, gently reminded me in his comment, "politics is for politicians" and I must learn to live with that unremarkable fact.  Perhaps I will - as long as Americans never again foolishly elect and empower incompetent and dangerous leaders like Bush and Cheney.

Comments

[naveeda]

You've said so much here that has been on my mind Ruchira, which is why I haven't been all that jubilant, I suppose. I guess it's "the glass half empty" for me rather than full, but I'm trying not to lose the little optimism I have. Great post!

[UshaA]

Good analysis. I, too, am only cautiously optimistic. While I do believe there's a somewhat stronger humanitarian streak to the core values of the Democratic party, relative to the Republican, the Dems can be undercut by their own grave problems. It's easy to imagine this new Congress might amount to little positive change towards the future. In fact, I fear that they may be in a no-win situation: if they are too capitulating and ineffectual—or if they are strong and seen as playing viciously against the Repubs—it could have bad consequences in 2008.

[Ruchira Paul]

Naveeda and Usha:

Some will call me naive and Pollyannaish for my expectations. But I will keep looking for progress, however incremental, both in policy and the political conversation.

What I am worried about is that the Dems will be scaredy cats and try to pander to the "center" by emulating some of the less wholesome practices of the Republicans. Just saying that they are bringing "change" is not enough. It must be the kind of change that will convince the average American and the "values voters" that their bread is buttered on the side of the Democrats so that they can check their other concerns at the church, mosque and temple doors when they enter the voting booth. For example, the left may have to yield on certain issues like late term abortion in order to keep most abortions legal. They must on the other hand be resolute about facilitating access to health care and promote bio-medical research to drive home the point that access to good education, health care and medical innovations will reduce the need for abortions. They must show support for the armed forces by increasing benefits for veterans and the serving military but tenaciously oppose all unnecessary military interventions and wasteful expenditure to line the pockets of defense contractors. These are the kinds of compromise I want them to make - not the ones where they try to outdo Republicans in holier (and tougher) than thou posturing. Otherwise I am afraid that another "exile" may be in the making and the savages will be back.

[naveeda]

I don't think that's "naive or Polyannaish" at all, and I agree with everything you've said. Let's hope we see this progress.