|
|
<< F----- Greens Join GOP to Oppose Lautenberg | Main | More on the Housing Bubble >> October 03, 2002California: Where Democrats can be Democrats[My Next Progressive Populist column-- some of this has appeared on the web site in bits and pieces but this is a fuller list.--NN]California: Where Democrats Can Be Democrats When friends and political analysts complain that Democrats have become more conservative than in past generations, I always have to ask—How would they know? Democrats have not controlled the national agenda for decades: sure Clinton and Carter had nominal majorities in Congress for a couple of years, but GOP filibusters killed progressive bills repeatedly, forcing bipartisan deals to pass any legislation. Even during the Great Society, Johnson like Truman before him faced Dixiecrat alliances with the GOP that defeated chunks of his legislative agenda with filibusters. You have to go back to Roosevelt and the New Deal years for a time when Democrats had uncontested control of the agenda—not coincidentally the exact time most Democratic nostalgics invoke for when “Democrats were Democrats.” The filibuster in the Senate creates the grand confusion in American politics of what policies each party really has, since they can never fully enact them. My contrarian view is that Democrats are more liberal than they were a generation ago. There are just fewer of them. So policy has moved to the right in many areas. To prove that point, the best place to look is California where Dems took control of all three branches of government in 1998 and do not face filibusters, except on budget and tax issues where the GOP maintains a veto due to post-Prop 13 rules. (Ironically, at the federal level, the budget is the one place protected from filibusters, the reason Clinton could pass his progressive 1993 tax bill and Bush could push through his regressive 2001 tax plan.) So what’s been the result in California? An overflow of groundbreaking legislation on behalf of unions, the environment, abortion rights, gay rights, consumers and renters. The marquee-level legislation that has made the national radar is impressive enough.
But those high-profile bills are only the tip of the iceberg. The last few years have seen a torrent of legislation that in its sheer volume shows the issues that could be addressed if the veto by the GOP could be removed from national legislation. On education, the state has increased spending on the public schools by $9.1 billion, a 39% increase in three years while they have tightened supervision of charter schools to assure local oversight. On consumer rights, the state has doubled to 60 days the time landlords must give tenants before displacing them. And with corporations seeking to replace court-enforced rights with private “arbitration” courts, California Dems pushed through rules that prohibit firms from the current practice of charging consumers for the costs of a winning company’s fees and barred arbitrators from handling cases involving companies with which they have any financial interests. On health care, the state has passed some of the toughest HMO reforms in the nation, passing 21 bills giving Californians new health care rights, including:
California passed four key abortion rights laws this year alone:
On gay rights, the state passed on the most comprehensive domestic partners legislation, including rights to hospital visitation, health benefits for partners of state employees, unemployment benefits if one has to relocate to be with a domestic partner, and the right to use sick leave to care for a partner or their child. But nothing marks the changes in California with Democratic power more than the avalanche of new labor legislation passed. Along with the farmworker legislation, these provisions include:
In fact, the legislative list would be even more impressive if Gray Davis had not vetoed some significant legislation passed by the legislature, such as mandating press access to prisoners, online voter registration, even tougher limits on private arbitration, restrictions on employer rights to monitor email, and providing drivers licenses to undocumented workers. And larger budget items such as universal health insurance still face the veto of state Republicans on budget matters. But the impressive list of progressive legislation passed in California does highlight how misguided is rhetoric that says there is little difference between the parties. That rhetoric leads many progressives to waste their efforts on marginal third party efforts or avoid electoral politics altogether, rather than analyzing the real constraints of politics when the parties are deadlocked and Senate filibusters force compromises on any party without 60+ Senators. There are an impressive number of progressive Democrats in office at the national level. What they need to succeed are additional numbers elected. Posted by Nathan at October 3, 2002 09:50 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsThank you for that impressive list that I'll bookmark for future reference. I have long maintained the the 'problem' isn't that the Democrats are like Republicans, there are just too few of them. Is there any doubt that our Democratic reps in Congress would be more progressive if they had veto-proof majorites? Thankyouthankyouthankyou. Posted by: jdw at October 3, 2002 09:40 PM I thank you also. Some of these points are particularly impressive, given that the government had to back down major interests (in the farmworker-related bills). Posted by: Barry at October 4, 2002 09:52 AM Excellent analysis. For years, I've been telling Naderite friends that it's useless to attack Clinton for failing to be FDR, as the Dems had 100 seat advantages in the House of the 1930s. Of course, the question is: would the Democratic Party grow if it ran more progressive candidates? The Naderites believe that low turnout reflects the party's abandonment of its traditional base. Terry McAuliffe disagrees, seeing African Americans, latinos, and suburbanites as the future of the party. Who's correct remains an open question.
Posted by: AWC at October 16, 2002 11:00 AM it must be nice to live in a state where "democrats are democrats". try visiting texas sometime and you might understand why "true texas democrats" are crossing over to the green and independent parties. we just can't win in this backwards state; the religious right has too strong a foothold. Posted by: anna at October 16, 2002 12:22 PM Now look at the mess California is in. Posted by: Roy at July 3, 2003 04:27 PM Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. (c) Posted by: Josias at June 13, 2004 06:06 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|