“There Is
No Middle Ground”
The Democrats’ leadership personifies the useless and misleading doctrine of the “Third Way”—a cover for social democrats —at best—doing the dirty work of Big Business.
A recent publication
in The
Nation
(June 8, 2105) by Mike Konczal was entitled: “The Proof That Centrism is
Dead: Every story that centrists told about the recession turned out to be
wrong.” It focused on economic policy and certainly made a very strong
case for the proof that the title tells us is offered by the column: that is
that there is no “center” on the major economic issues facing our nation.
Back in 2005 I authored a
column (see the ref., below) that dealt with the “middle ground” issue on a
broader basis. At that time the powerful Democratic Rightists who had
come together under the leadership of “The Great Triangulator,” Bill Clinton,
were led by something called the Democratic Leadership Council (a self-styled,
falsely-labelled, “Centrist” Democratic organization). The DLC supposedly
passed away, fairly quietly, about five years ago, but its ethos is still very
much around.
Taking off from where the DLC left off, the last several years
have seen the festering of the so-called “third-way” organizations, like (yes,
they call themselves that) the “Third Way” and “No Labels.” They make
believe that is (mainly Democrats) would “only reach across the aisle,” so many
problems could be solved. What they go out of their way to deny, over and
over again, is that on most of the major domestic issues facing the nation
today, there is simply no middle ground over which the aisle could be
crossed. The economic arguments presented by Mr. Konczal are certainly
very important. But there are a number of other important issues that
should be considered as well, on which there is indeed no “middle
ground.”
We begin with the critique of Iraq policy, which all of a sudden
has made its way back onto the political stage. (Couldn’t have to do with
another Bush running for President, could it? A Bush who waffles all the
way to the bank on this one, could it?) No, the Cheney/Bush War on Iraq was
not “a mistake” that would not have happened “if we knew then what we know
now.” Along with everything else that we knew then were the findings of
the Chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix.
He had been given full searching access by Saddam Hussein. Blix’s
response to the US WMD claims leading up the invasion was: “The CIA doesn’t
know whether or not there are WM there? Please, have them call me.
There aren’t any and I will be happy to share with them everything I haven’t
found.” The CIA never called. Is there
a “middle ground” on what really happened in Iraq?
No.
There is no “middle ground” on the matter of global warming and
what is causing it. One either accepts the scientific evidence or one
doesn’t. If one accepts the evidence, there is certainly much worthy
debate on how to go about dealing with the problem, but the evidence-deniers
are not part of that discussion. And they will go to great lengths to put
their denialism into the law. GOP Rep. Sensenbrenner (literally “scythes
burner”) of Wisconsin (who must share lots of votes with Scott Walker), added an
amendment to the TPP legislation that it cannot be used to address climate
change. Rep. Steve “the only good [Latino] immigrant is a deported one”
King added language furthering his war on immigrants. And so on and so
forth. Not shy, are these folk, and there is no middle ground at all, for
them.
Continuing, “Intelligent Design” either is science or it is
isn’t. No middle ground there. One either believes the religious
doctrine that human life begins at the moment of conception or that it begins
sometime later. Further, one believes, or not, that when it begins, up to
the time of viability, is matter of personal belief, that should not be subject
to a religion-based criminal law. In this context, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick
of Texas once
wondered how “God” would vote in a debate over abortion
rights in that state’s Senate.
There is no middle ground on the matters of voter suppression and
gerrymandering. (And indeed there is a very easy solution to the
so-called “problem of voter fraud,” even though it is virtually non-existent.
Offer free voter ID/photo cards, available at many sites throughout each state
that is concerned with the matter. Why the Democrats haven’t taken this
up since the beginning is beyond me.) There is no middle ground on the rich
being able to buy the government they want, with virtually no limits. One
is either for the Citizens United “system” for buying elections, or one
isn’t. Nor is there a middle ground on whether or not the national
infrastructure requires truly major, tax-based, government expenditures or it
should be left to continue withering away to the point where the public will
acquiesce in letting for-profit companies take it over (in which case tings
would only get worse. But that is another story.)
There is no middle ground on the matter of Separation of Church
and State on, once again, abortion rights, as well as on gay marriage, LGBT
discrimination, and the promotion
by the state apparatus of one religion over another through
the mis-named “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The “middle-grounders”
can only help the Republican Religious Right by muddying the waters on these
fundamental issues and pretending that compromises can be reached. They
cannot. The sooner the mainstream Democratic Party, and some well-meaning
liberals as well, realize this, the better off our nation will be.
And so, how does the Duopoly play into this? Well, the
Republicans are very forthright in presenting and promoting their
positions. Consider, for example, what various Republicans are inserting
in the truly job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation. Then
consider how so many Republicans are not at all shy about putting forth the religious
basis of their positions on the criminalization of abortion and the state
sanctioning on one religion over another, as Indiana tried to do in dealing
with discrimination against the LGBT in the matter of public accommodations and
services.
On the other hand, most Democrats, if they take any positions at
all, just sort of mumble about them. Certainly no “lines in the sand” are
drawn. And so, to what does this lead? On many fronts, just the
continuation of Reaganite policy that has ruled this country since 1981, the
doing-nothing about global warming (did you know that on January 21, 1981, as
one of his first steps the petroleum industry’s man-in-the-White-House Reagan
a) dismantled the research operation that Pres. Jimmy Carter had set up to
develop alternative energy sources and very symbolically removed the solar
panels that Pres. Carter had had installed on the White House roof?), the
ever-widening assault on abortion rights, the ever-expanding intrusion of the
doctrines of the organized Religious Right into government policy at the
Federal, state and local levels, and so on and so forth. Republicans
trumpet all of this stuff. Democrats rarely even say boo to the GOP
goose. And so, although we seem to have two parties, despite the fact
that objectively there is no middle ground, with a few exceptions here and
there, whose sincerity and effectiveness are yet to be determined, like
Senators Warren and Sanders, the Duopoly just rumbles on.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Senior Editor, Politics, Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor
Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and
author/co-author/editor/co-
No comments:
Post a Comment