Progressive Organizing Bears Fruit Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Today, Rep. Jane Harman posted a diary entry about the administration’s aggressive blundering on Iran. She demands “more accuracy and less hype” from the administration, In her post, Harman, a smart, centrist Democrat sounds like a lefty on this issue. Could this be because she’s facing a challenge from the left in her California District?

Irregardless, let’s have more of this! Especially now that Iran has signaled its willingness to negotiate. Also taking up the issue of Iran, the Progressive Caucus today convened its first in a series of ad-hoc hearings on the administration’s pre-emptive war strategy.

This ad-hoc hearing is a big deal in an institutional sense. The Progressive Caucus has had one shared staff person for less than a year. With just that small bit of help, the caucus has held numerous events, convened an annual retreat and begun to meet regularly. The conservative knee-capping of idealism during the last decade(s) has created a hardy sort of new progressive. They are intentional idealists (in my work with the Progressive Caucus, I observe that they are more cautious and thoughtful than their most activist political base, this is especially true on Iraq) They understand the nuts and bolts needs of organizing strategically.

The ability to exercise oversight inside Congress but through informal venues is one vital step toward restoring our legislature’s democratic role. Remember, one of the biggest blows to progressive organizing inside Congress came in 1995, when “reforms” written into the Contract with America gave Congress a mid-level lobotomy--wiping out much of the non-official infrastructure that any Members of Congress could use to recognize important issues. Some examples: the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, the Office of Technology Assessment, the Democratic Study Group ( a rapid response staff that delivered strategic foreign policy information—and which had dozens of Republican members) This hurt progressives and independent thinkers in both parties.

While their progressive Republican colleagues were purged, Democrats languished in the “majority mentality” (believing that they’d take the majority back next election cycle.) Meanwhile, Congress turned into a big marble casino, democracy destroying enterprises like the K Street Project flourished, oversight and accountability –not to mention collegiality--became quaint relics, the leveraged buy-out of the public sector accelerated. The Democratic Party lost its way, the Republican party lost its soul. Which is why Democrats should make sure that the label “progressive” is still open to the other side of the aisle.

Comments

[Patrick Meighan]

"In her post, Harman, a smart, centrist Democrat sounds like a lefty on this issue. Could this be because she’s facing a challenge from the left in her California District?"

You bet your bippy it's 'cause Jane is facing a challenge from the left right here in CA-36.

It's an open question, though, whether Jane's left-sounding rhetoric would continue (were she to survive this challenge), or whether she'll quickly revert to form. Remember, she's still a member of the Blue Dog caucus, and she's still the person who once referred to herself as "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." As such, I don't trust that Jane's leftward tack will last past election day.

That's why I'm volunteering and donating to the *actual* progressive in this race: Marcy Winograd. I urge y'all to do likewise.

Here's her website:

www.winogradforcongress.com

Peace,

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

[kim]

Thank you for the info Patrick!

I believe that everyone EVERYONE in congress needs to be replaced, especially the people that pretend to be on our side. They are the worst of all!

www.notoneincumbent.com

Harmon and John Conyers want us to support their "LISTEN" Act to get Bush to stop violating the law. How will another law stop Bush from violating a law that is already written? IMPEACH HIM NOW YOU DAMN FOOLS!