AN IRAQ EXIT PROPOSAL

Column No. 89 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - 15 December, 2005

Last week we visited the likely Bushevik strategy for leaving Iraq in time for the 2006 elections: claiming to be “staying the course” while actually cutting and running in such a way as to preserve the US bases in the Iraqi Western Desert, create some kind of US protectorate for Kurdistan and its oil reserves, and keep the Iraqi economy, whatever it is, open for US rape and pillage.  The Bush Naval Academy speech of Nov. 30, 2005 talked about achieving “victory” in Iraq. Amazingly enough, according to a New York Times article of Dec. 4, 2005, that speech was aimed not at producing a real strategy for getting out and leaving a viable nation behind, but at getting the American people to support whatever policy, overt or covert, the Busheviks follow in the country.

The speech was put together by a couple of political science professors (who says that there are no right-wingers in academia).  They focused on polling data that they interpret at indicating that Americans will continue to support the war and the ever-mounting number of casualties just as long as “victory” is promised.  Two major issues here.  One is that this Administration which takes the public posture that “we don’t pay attention to polling data” is now openly setting policy because the polls are showing just how little support the Busheviks have outside of their Christian Right/don’t-confuse-us-with-facts base.  The other is that the “victory” which Bush described in the speech consists of a series of events that are totally outside of the control of the United States: free elections in Iraq leading to the establishment of a widely accepted government leading to national stability in the country.  This must be the first time in history that “victory” is defined in terms like that.  I might have missed one, but I certainly cannot think of any previous American war in which it was so defined.

Meanwhile the Democrats are beginning to find their voice.  We have previously visited Representative Murtha’s proposal for a phased withdrawal by a time certain (TPJ 87).  Very significantly, on November 30 (AP, “Pelosi Calls for Withdrawal from Iraq”) the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, supported Rep. Murtha’s proposal.  Previously she had aligned herself with the so-called “muscular Democrats” whose position may be summarized as “Bush is doing the right thing; he’s just doing it the wrong way.”  (That one reminds me of the position that certain liberals took in relation to Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950s: “I agree with what he is doing [attacking “the commies” just for being commies], but I wish he would do it more politely.”)

Hillary Clinton is standing her ground, that is straddling what she and the rest of the Collaborationist-DLC think is some “vital center” out there (see HillaryClinton.com, 11/29/05).  The DLC itself launched a broadside against Rep. Pelosi (which, interestingly enough, as of Dec. 6 was not to be found on their website).  But even Sen. Joe Biden, formerly a member of the “muscular Democrats” (he may still be but he is sounding somewhat different) was strongly on the attack against Bush on the “Imus in the Morning” radio program of Dec. 5, 2005. And Zbigniew Brzezinski, hardly a leftie, is calling for a planned withdrawal by “next year” as well.

To achieve a withdrawal of US forces form Iraq by a date certain will require a detailed plan.  At the beginning of September in this space, as I said then I had the temerity to propose one, in outline form to be sure.  (It built on a proposal that I put up in this space during the 2004 Presidential campaign.) For the balance of this column, I am revisiting it.  This plan is not something that the Georgites would ever do, of course. For the goals of the plan proposed below, to achieve peace for Iraq and the Middle East region accompanied by Iraqi reconstruction, as well as a US withdrawal without abandonment of the Iraqi people, are not those of the Georgites. Theirs are what they always have been: oil and power.   The Collaborationist-DLC probably wouldn’t like it much either, because it is hardly “muscular” where the US is concerned.

The proposal does attempt to deal with the reality of Iraq before a US withdrawal with an announced date, during the withdrawal, and after it, so as to minimize to the extent possible the further pain and suffering of the Iraqi people and their civil infrastructure that will result from such an event.  That is why I suggest the involvement of the UN in a peace-keeping role.  Even better, and this is a new thought, would be if the Arab League would take on that responsibility.  Almost every authority on Iraq is predicting a massive civil war upon a US withdrawal.  That of course is very real possibility, and if the US just up and leaves with as much of a plan for doing so as the Georgites had when they overthrew Saddam, that would almost certainly happen.  But it doesn’t have to.  And so, here once again is my proposal.

1. Announce a date for the end of US offensive military action in Iraq, in combination with a UN takeover of command of all foreign forces (or their phased replacement by an Arab League force under its own command) for the purposes of peace establishment and keeping.

2. In that context, announce a date for withdrawal of all US forces other than those requested by the UN.

3. Propose to the Iraqi government the repeal of the "Bremer Plan" for the takeover of the Iraqi economy by foreign investors.

4. Announce a date for the termination of all US private contracts for security and construction in Iraq, other than those that might be negotiated by the UN and the Iraqi government. Ask Congress to appropriate any funds necessary for the early termination of contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, and etc.

5. Shut down all construction of permanent military bases, with handover of what already exists to the UN Command on an interim basis. Future disposal would be negotiated by the UN with the Iraqi government.

6. Announce support for a comprehensive Israel-Palestine settlement along the lines of the already negotiated "Geneva Agreement."

7. Renounce any interest in ownership or control of any Iraqi oil reserves.

8. Propose as a long-term solution to the Iraqi political situation a tri-partite federation, guaranteed by the UN peacekeeping mission. As part of the package, the Sunni member of the federation would be guaranteed some portion of future oil revenues.

9. Propose the creation, under UN leadership, of a new international organization for combating terrorism using the most sophisticated weapons of intelligence, police work, and focused military action as indicated.

10. Arrange for the immediate shutdown of the US "Guantanamo Prison System" around the world with the transfer of all persons held to the justice systems of their home countries.

Perfect? No. Doable with the right US leadership (to be found among neither the Georgites nor the Collaborationist-DLC)? Yes. Better than what exists now? Surely.  Remember: “The strong make the tough decisions; the weak ‘stay the course.’

EXITING IRAQ, THE GEORGITE WAY

Column No. 88 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 10, 2005

Since the time of 9/11, starting with comments made by Attorney General Ashcroft very early on, the Georgite line of attack on critics of their foreign policy in general and their Iraq policy in particular has been that such people are traitors.  It has remained the same until very recently, except that in the attacks on Rep. John Murtha in Congress for calling for a planned withdrawal from Iraq by a date certain, a Bush attack-dog from Ohio added the word “coward.” Dick Cheney has been a prime promulgator of the “traitor” line, pursuing it evermore viciously in recent weeks as the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to deteriorate, American troops continue to die, and the poll numbers both for him and his titular President continue to seriously erode.

Then, all of a sudden, over the weekend of Nov. 19-20, 2005, things changed. Bush, overseas no less, visiting that well-known world power Mongolia (well, it was one in the 12th and 13th centuries under Genghis Kahn and his sons, who were just a tad more competent, but no less brutal than George, Sr. and his offspring), went out of his way to call Cong. Murtha a patriot. Dick Cheney was still on the attack, but suddenly going in a new direction, too (of course by coincidence, pure coincidence: who says that Karl Rove is totally preoccupied in talking with his lawyers [although may change soon]).  Cheney’s attacks, with possibly even more venom than this venomous man usually puts forth, were focused on those critics of the War who are and have been for quite some time calling the Georgites liars. And the chosen epithets changed from “traitors and cowards,” to “corrupt,” “shameless,” and “reprehensible.” “Totally reprehensible,” he said, in charging the Georgite critics with lying about the Georgite lying.  Why this sharp turn in the direction of attack, one might ask?

It is becoming evermore clear to evermore people that the Georgites lied the US and its "coalition” partners into the war. An excellent all-round source on the War on Iraq and the Bushevik lies that led to it is: After Downing Street. For a superb brief summary of the Georgite lies, both those that got the US into the war and those being spewed forth now about that series of events and what really happened, see also “Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt. . .” by Frank Rich, New York Times, 11/27/05 (subscription service).  Then consider this recent item by Rupert Cornwell that appeared in The Independent (UK) on Monday 21 November 2005, entitled “White House Used 'Gossip' to Build Case for War:”

“The controversy in America over pre-war intelligence has intensified, with revelations that the Bush administration exaggerated the claims of a key source on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, despite repeated warnings before the invasion that his information was at best dubious, if not downright wrong.  The disclosure, in The Los Angeles Times, came after a week of vitriolic debate on Iraq, amid growing demands for a speedy withdrawal of US troops and tirades from Bush spokesmen who all but branded as a traitor anyone who suggested that intelligence was deliberately skewed to make the case for war.  Yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, joined the fray, saying that talk of manipulation of intelligence ‘does great disservice to the country.’  In Beijing, President George Bush said that a speedy pullout was ‘a recipe for disaster’ - but the proportion of Americans wanting precisely that (52 per cent according to a new poll) is now higher than wanted similar action in 1970, at the height of the Vietnam war.”

A “recipe for disaster” it may be to Bush, publicly.  But it is becoming evermore clear that a pull-out of US forces by the 2006 elections is exactly what the Georgites are suddenly now focusing on (Agence France Presse, “White House Has Withdrawal Plan,” Nov. 28, 2005). That they are is the reason for the sudden change in the content of their attacks on their Iraq War.   But further: why, you might ask, the sudden change in their own Iraq War policy?  Obviously, for political reasons: those polls and the fact that even certain Republicans are beginning to abandon ship tell the tale.  Remember –- only part of the reason for the Iraq invasion was to implement the Project for the New American Century/Neocon plan for US Middle East domination, set forth in the mid-90s. The other reason was, as Andrew Card politely told the press in August, 2002, to influence the Congressional elections of that year with a “new product line” (his words), the Iraq Attack Plan,  that would be “rolled out” at the right time, September.

Today, Bush will continue to tell the American people that we have to “stay the course,” even as he is withdrawing our troops with, it is to be hoped, a reduction in American casualties.  Yes, very unusually for this man, he will be telling his fans one thing while he does quite another.  But regardless of what he says or doesn’t say, once the Georgites have started withdrawing, the major and real foreign policy issue for the 2006 US elections will no longer be withdrawal.  It will be how the US got into the War, with the subsequent death, destruction, and vast expenditures, in the first place. It will be about getting a Democratic majority in at least one House of Congress so that a serious investigation of the lies, the waste, the death and the deception used by the Bushites, possibly leading to criminal prosecution and even impeachment (if the Democrats can again gain control the House of Representatives).  The Georgites see this, they know this, and that is why the line suddenly changed from “critics are traitors” to “those who charge us with lying are reprehensible.” It is this “how dare you” line that will be front and center as they rally their fundamentalist Christian Rightist troops and set up their election day fixes to continue to promote their version of “democracy,” both in Iraq and the United States.

OK, withdrawal, one might say, isn’t that a good idea?  On paper, yes –- but the way the Georgites will be doing it, possibly not so good.  Totally ironic is the fact that the Georgite version of withdrawal will be a variation on “cut and run,” in time for Nov., 2006.  It will be accompanied by tall tales of how successful the “Coalition” has been in training the Iraqis “to do the job.”  However, just because they will be withdrawing (while all the time saying that they are not except that they are) doesn’t mean that they will have given up attaining their principal objectives for going in the first place.

Those objectives (none of which were clearly stated as objectives for the invasion beforehand)? They have gotten rid of Saddam (not stated as an objective independent of the “WMD” and the “al Qaeda link,” but it was).  They will make sure that they keep the string of permanent bases in the Western Iraqi desert now being built (some probably completed, but there is a complete wall of silence around that venture). They will likely “acquiesce” (encourage behind the scenes) in the establishment of a semi-independent Kurdistan, which will become a full US protectorate, along with, it just so happens, those potentially gigantic oil reserves.  They will do nothing to settle the Palestinian/Israel conflict on anything like rational terms.  They will continue, to the extent possible, to rape the Iraqi economy under the Bremer Plan for externalizing it,  as long as their puppets remain in power, at least.

In sum, the Georgite withdrawal will leave nothing in place that might bring some kind of stability to Iraq, might lead to the massive reconstruction program that Iraq so badly needs, might fend off the establishment of a totally undemocratic fundamentalist Shiite theocracy (built along the lines of what the Georgite Christian Right proposes for the US, ironically enough) except in a very limited area of Iraq.  They would make sure that the secular Kurds would be able to remain secular, however.

When the likely disaster on a variety of fronts would gradually overtake Iraq, the Georgite Privatized Ministry of Propaganda would be out in force of course.   Blaming it all on the ‘traitorous peace-niks” and worse, who “stabbed the military and the noble Bush Administration in the back.”  But then, blowback. Well, hardly blow-back.  More likely tornado-back.  One likely outcome?  Suppose the above scenario is followed and a secular Kurdish republic, standing astride all of that oil, is established between Iran and Turkey.  Then supposing the Isamicists fully take over the Turkish government and, turning their eyes eastward, give up the idea of getting into the European Union.  Islamicist Turkey and Islamicist Iran launch an all-out war on secular Kurdistan. For its part, Turkey, which has no oil, gets a share of what lies under Kurdistan.  A federation of those two theocracies is established, along with the Shiite portion of present-day Iraq.  The Saudi Monarchy is overthrown in a Wahabbist revolt.  The new, massive federation, soon to be armed with nuclear weapons acquired one way or another, turns its eyes on their suffering co-religionists in Palestine.  And the US military, massively weakened by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate, can do nothing about it, unless they choose to go nuclear.

Speculative?  Indeed.  Possible?  Unfortunately.

Author’s note: this column was written on 11/28-29/05, before the Bush/Annapolis speech

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, VIII: A POLITICALLY VIABLE PROGRESSIVE POSITION ON THE WAR

Column No. 87 By Steven Jonas MD, MPH  - December 1, 2005

A friend, a Democrat who is no progressive and was a strong supporter of the Iraq War wrote that he never thought he would be saying that he wants the U.S. out of Iraq now, but he is.  He pointed out that the decision to invade is history, and in his view no longer controlling.  He pointed out that given that the vast majority of the anti-US insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners, and that the bulk of the Iraqi people want us out, now, and that our continued presence there only continues to create terrorists, the US has no national interest in staying in Iraq. (This was written before the joint Iraqi request to the US for a planned withdrawal, presumably made with advance notice to the Busheviki, was made.)  If the Iraqis, absent Hussein, cannot rule their country, that is their problem not ours, he said.

It is wrong to expect the whole world to do things like we do, he said. The US needs to look at this strictly in term of power, and the longer we stay there, the more our power diminishes, in terms of men, materiel, money, international reputation, and the ability to get other nations to cooperate with us on so many fronts and issues.  And so, he said, we should back off, and bring our troops home, now.  (He did ignore the fact that it is our invasion. Directly, with no plan for follow-up, that has created the chaos and death that wrack Iraq now.)  He found Rep. Murtha’s voice a welcome one. Where are the Democratic heavyweights, he asked? He hopes that the Democrats can mount an effective opposition.  He sees leadership as the issue and leadership has been sorely lacking in the Democratic opposition, he said.

In light of what a former right-wing Democrat had to say, let’s look at some of the issues that progressive Democrats can use, now.  As readers of my column know, I have a somewhat different understanding of the history of what I call the War on Iraq.  In my view, it was the Georgite neocons who made sure that the War they had been advocating since the mid-1990s happened.  They considered their goals, not publicly stated of course, to be in the national interest then and they still do (see Cheney’s speeches, when he isn’t attacking the patriotism of 37-year veterans of the Marine Corps who fought in two wars, when he had “other priorities” that deterred him from fighting in even one).  These are the potentially massive Kurdish oil reserves, the permanent bases in the Iraqi western desert, “American hegemony,” and the power to legally loot and pillage the Iraqi economy.  But of course these goals are never mentioned.  What we have now, in the absence of WMD and any known link between al-Qaeda and Hussein except what appeared in “Vice’s” imagination and Bill Safire’s New York Times columns, is the goal to “bring Democracy to Iraq.”

We know that Bush’s concept of “democracy” does not include maintaining it here (see, for example, fixed elections, the destruction of Constitutional amendments IV, V, and VI, and the continual description of dissent as treason).  But he claims to want to establish it there (even though electoral democracy for the whole country would bring into power the most un-democratic, fundamentalist-Shiite concept of government.  Of course, that merging of church and state is precisely what the Georgites want to do here, so maybe Bush’s visions for Iraq and the US aren’t that far apart after all).  But whatever the case, so doing was not on the original agenda put before Congress and the American people by the Georgites.

And so we come to the resolution offered in the House of Representatives by John Murtha of Pennsylvania, certainly no leftie.  As in my proposed “Commitment I” for Democrats (see my column of last week) his resolution called for withdrawal from Iraq by a date certain.  Apparently, in addition to reading the polls, Rep. Murtha has been hearing from many of his friends and contacts at just below the highest levels of the military that this is an unwinnable operation for us and is just wasting American lives and draining the American treasury, to say nothing of the harms that it is doing to our military overall (to say nothing of the harm it is doing to people of Iraq), for no good reason.

For your information, here is the resolution that Rep. Murtha offered: “Be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That: Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region. Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.  The Republicans, with their usual foresight and candor, put the following resolution on the floor instead: “1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”  Although their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda did their best to convince their listeners that this is what Rep. Murtha was offering (I heard that message myself on the Fox”News”Channel, 11/21/05), it of course was, and is, not.  And so we have a reasonable, solid, position to put forward, designed to achieve what about 65% of the polled American electorate wants (and now a broad coalition of Iraqi leaders wants it too): a planned withdrawal by a date certain, in the not-too-distant future.

As asked for by my friend, the Democratic leadership is beginning to rally, organize, behind this statement (see, for example, a letter put out by DNC Chair Howard Dean,

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/governor_dean_s_4.php).  Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi may not be rushing to endorse this position, yet (as of the time of writing, 11/22/05, my 69th birthday!).  But on the other hand, I strongly doubt that Gov. Dean would have put out a statement like he did, if he had not received at least their tacit approval for so doing.

And so, how might we now proceed on the reasoning behind this position.  Very important, in my view, is that the “democratization of Iraq,” now Bush’s only publicly stated reason for our presence there, was never put on the table in the run-up to the invasion.  We must continue to push on the fact that Bush and his cronies lied our nation into this war.  They knew that the Niger uranium letter was a forgery and that the “aluminum tubes” were of a type that could not possibly be used in uranium centrifuges.  They knew that their single source for the "Iraq-al Qaeda connection” was a known fabricator.  They knew that the UN’s Hans Blix had found no WMD and was unlikely to.  They were sharing intelligence with him; he used what they gave him and it led to nothing.  That they knew that there were none is precisely why they rushed into the war before Blix could declare that his inspection was completed, and they presented the Security Council with a resolution they knew would be turned down by a majority.  They did not want to wait the extra month, nor did they actually want any UN involvement, given what their true agenda for the invasion was (see my column on this subject of March 16, 2004, “You Know Me Al: The Iraq War”).

This case, to me, is clear.  But for those opponents of the war who cannot believe that Bush consciously lied, that it was the “faulty intelligence” that was at fault, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say that he wasn't lying.  In that case the stated original mission was indeed accomplished.  It turned out that there were no WMD.  There was no nuclear program.  There was no al Qaeda link.  If it were the WMD threat and dealing with an al Qaeda-Hussein link that were their true goals, Bush should have simply declared victory and left.  But because there are those true, but secret, Georgite goals, Bush cannot do that.  Now we get the new, post-invasion mission: bring democracy to Iraq.  Is that what we are spending thousands of American lives and wounds on?  Is that what we are spending billions of dollars on?  Is that why civil society in Iraq is gradually being destroyed and thousands of Iraqis killed?  Is that a mission that our nation should be involved in?  Is that a mission our nation, or even a Republican-dominated Congress could have supported when the war was started?

Rep. Murtha has given a big push to the rolling ball for Iraq withdrawal at the level of the US government that was started by members of the Black and Progressive caucuses in the House.  He has brought to it candor, credibility, tremendous publicity, and the toughness that goes with someone who worked with the United Steel Workers for decades trying to prevent the destruction of our formerly great domestic steel industry.  (Do we possibly have a union-Black alliance developing here?)  You don’t truck with Rep. Murtha.  No back-tracking and tears like those of the benighted Sen. Durbin (see my columns of July 14 and 21, 2005).  This is progressive Democratic leadership in the development stage.

“The strong make the tough decisions; the weak ‘stay the course.’ “This is something that the leadership in the Democratic Party can run with.  Let’s keep on encouraging them to do so.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, VII: ‘THE TEN COMMITMENTS’

Column No. 86 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - November 25, 2005

I have devoted the first six columns of this series to historical and analytical matters.  I have dealt with certain major characteristics of the primary opponent of US Constitutional Democracy as we have known it, the Republican Party and its current incarnations that I call the Republican Religious Right and the Georgites.  I have also dealt with the primary opponent of progressive Democratic thinking within our Party, the Democratic Leadership Council.  In my view, and the view of numerous other observers of and commentators on the political scene, it is essential that a new, consistent, Party-wide progressive purpose, philosophy, and program be developed for the Party, for two primary reasons.

First, unless the Republicans field extraordinarily weak candidates as they did in the 1992 and 1996 elections, with DLC, “Republican-lite-with-nice-rhetoric” policies and programs combined with the Republican ability to fix elections  (an issue the DLC absolutely does not take on) they will be very difficult to dislodge electorally.  Second, winning an election must mean something significant and different in terms of what will be done with governmental power and authority once it is taken back.  “Republican-lite” policies and programs might look better on paper and they might sound better from what we have now, but as far as making real change from the country’s present course, they are likely to change little, just because they are in their essence Republican. There is still much ground to cover in the arena of political and historical analysis.  But this week I am turning my attention to certain matters of practical politics.  I present some ideas on what I think the Democratic Party needs to do for 2006 and 2008, not only to win the elections but also to make them worth winning.

In the past several months there have been a number of proposals for a new basic program for the Democratic Party. Among them are Stephen Pizzo’s “10 Pledges to Demand from Democrats” (available through AlterNet) and “A ‘Real’ Contract with America” that Bob Borosage, Co-Director of the Campaign for America’s Future (http://www.ourfuture.org/) published in The Nation on Oct. 24, 2005. Inspired by the form, not the content to be sure, of Newton Gingrich’s famous 1994 “Contract on America” (oops, sorry, it was actually entitled the Contract With America) with which I will deal in some detail next week, they have often been put forward in a group of ten.  I have come up with my own list of ten as a proposal for what I think the Democratic Party should go into the 2006 and then the 2008 elections with.

You will see that these are all about matters of political and governmental principles and over-all policies.  They are not specific programs or proposed pieces of legislation.  This is not because I do not think such new programs as national health insurance, supporting the preservation and restoration of the environment at all levels, real Federal support for education at all levels, and so on and so forth, are not important.  I surely do.  But since the time of the John and Robert Kennedy, time and again the Democratic Party has put forward Christmas-tree ornament wish-lists of specific legislative proposals as their platform and Platform.  Principles, broad brush-strokes of what government should and should not be doing, what indeed government is for, for the society in general, not in the first instance in the specifics, have been for the most part absent.  Strangely enough, Edward Kennedy, as great and important for progressive Democracy as he is, is one of the worst offenders in this regard.

My primary list for the most part eschews specific legislative proposals.  Rather, for the most part it looks at principles.  With apologies to the wonderful Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun for the title of my list (http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/ten_commitments), I put forward my proposed Draft “Ten Commitments.”

Henceforth, the Democratic Party will be committed to:

I.  A full, planned withdrawal from all military activity in Iraq, including the construction and maintenance of bases, by a date certain, accompanied by a reactivation of the Israel/Palestine peace process along the lines of the proposed Geneva Accords, further accompanied by a return to the multi-lateral foreign policy that worked so well for our country from the time we entered the Second World War until the advent of Georgitism, and a return to abiding by the UN Charter, which forbids “pre-emptive war” of the Georgite type.  (A specific plan for achieving that withdrawal can be found in my column of Sept. 1, 2005.)

II. Making the protection and promotion of Constitutional Democracy, in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution including the Preamble, the center of the Party’s approach to governing.  A return to the Constitutional System of checks and balances and the requirement that the President fully abide by the Constitution is essential.

The Preamble to the Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

III. A vision of government that is defined by the Preamble, which understands that big problems require big solutions, that when necessary for the common economic good, government needs to be big, that the Norquist Doctrine of Bathtub Government needs to be flushed down the toilet.  On the other hand, in accord with the prescriptions of the Constitution, when it comes to matters of personal such matters as belief as to when life begins, freedom of expression, and adult personal behavior, government needs to be small.  This is the exact opposite of the Republican, anti-Constitutional view, which wants government to be overwhelmingly big when it comes to such matters of personal belief, rights, liberties, and freedom, and overwhelmingly small when dealing with the economy.

IV. A return to totally free and fair elections, and a full-scale assault on the Republican strategy of Grand Theft Elections.  (See: the recent GAO analysis, the Report of the Carter-Baker election reform commission and Mark Crispin Miller’s new book, Fooled Again.)

V. A Pledge of honesty, integrity, openness, and a return to the traditional arms-length relationship between government and the private sector for all elected and politically-appointed government officials.  A specific pledge to which all Democratic candidates for elected office and Democratic nominees for political appointments will be asked to subscribe will be developed.

VI. The broad and forward projection of the most important Values that define a civil society: pluralism in matters of religion in accordance with the First Amendment; tolerance of difference; the promotion of compassion and sharing the burden, leaving behind the Doctrine of Every Man for Himself and the Devil Take the Hindmost; the full promotion of human rights at home and abroad; the understanding that healthy sex is healthy and unhealthy sex is not and that for adults sex is a private matter; and the end to the promotion of the criminalization of personal belief in matters of morality and adult sexual identity and behavior.

VII. A taxation policy designed to support Commitment III, with the sharing of the burden in accordance with ability to pay.

VIII. Regulation of the market for goods and services designed to insure that it is both free and fair.

IX. The development of an Energy Policy that will deal with the potentially disastrous and very real problem of global warming, as well as ensuring that ample energy will be available to support modern human life after the petroleum runs out.

X. The establishment of nomination and hiring standards for political appointees designed to ensure competence in government.  A specific list of standards will be developed.

We shall return to the list, of course.  Rather different from that of the DLC for the most part, no?  (Note that the full, free, and fair entry of military recruiters to college campuses, one of the DLC-touted ‘wedge issues,” is not on my list.)  This is a list, I think, that arises from a reality-check on what is important now in the history of our nation and what is not.  It is a list that envisions an all-out assault on the major harms being done to our nation, our Constitution and the world at large by the Georgites, with a positive perspective.  It is a list that can easily be used to mobilize our base, educate the people as to what is really happening under the Georgites, and bring masses of new voters into play.

Next week I shall take a look in some detail about the fraud that was Gingrich’s Contract on America (he never does talk about the details) and then I shall begin looking at some specific strategic and tactical steps that can be taken to start pointing the Democratic Party in the direction it needs to go if the Georgite Juggernaut (yes, I do like that one) is to be derailed.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, VI: AN ORGANIZING PROPOSAL FOR PROGRESSIVES

Column No. 85 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - November 17, 2005

For the better part of the past two months I have been running a series of columns on what I and many other progressive Democrats see as the major issues facing our Party, and also see as issues that our Party should be facing but for the most part has not yet faced. (In recent weeks, this situation has begun to change for the better, it should be noted.) There are several reasons why these issues must be dealt with.  First, there is the matter of the role of government in promoting an ensuring a positive present and future life for all Americans.  Second, is the matter of the role of the US government in affecting the lives of people all around the world.  Third, there is the matter of being able to win elections here, so as to be able to achieve positive outcomes both for the people of our nation and of the world at large.  Fourth, related to all of the above, is what the posture of the Democratic Party should be in relation to this range of issues.

In a column published on October 17, 2005  entitled “Get It Together, Democrats” Bob Herbert of The New York Times said:

“What the Democrats have to do is get off their schadenfreude cloud and start the hard work of crafting a message of hope that they can deliver convincingly to the electorate - not just in the Congressional elections next year, but in local elections all over the country and the presidential election of 2008.  That is not happening at the moment. While Americans are turning increasingly against the war in Iraq, for example, the support for the war among major Democratic leaders seems nearly as staunch and as mindless as among Republicans. On that and other issues, Democrats are still agonizing over whether to say what they truly believe or try to present themselves as a somewhat lighter version of the G.O.P.  I wonder what Harry Truman would think about today's Democratic Party?”

Harry Truman, a Democrat who at least up until the time of Joe McCarthy  knew that a) there were real differences between Republicans and Democrats, b) knew what they were, and c) knew how to fight for what Democrats who know the difference believe in, indeed.

I think that it is clear from our writings in TPJ that Steve Gheen, our Editor/Publisher, Michael Carmichael our European Editor and I know the differences.  We know that these differences are not of degree, but of kind. We also know that the leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal group representing the right-wing of the Democratic Party, believes that what differences there are, are for the most part of degree, not kind.  Therefore, although the DLC professes that they would like to have the party win elections, they think that the way to do this is just to say to the electorate: “if we get in, we’ll just do ‘it’ differently, but really our ‘it’ doesn’t really differ from their ‘it’ that much at all.”

There are numerous Democratic Party organizations that agree with the positions taken in TPJ, perhaps not in every detail, but certainly on the principles.  Among them are for example in a non-exclusive, incomplete list: Progressive Democrats of America (http://www.pdamerica.org/), Democracy for America (formerly Dean for America, http://www.democracyforamerica.com/), The Campaign for America’s Future (http://www.ourfuture.org/), 21st Century Democrats (http://www.21stcenturydems.org/), Moveon.org (www.moveon.org), and Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/).

These groups have in common a number of important features.  They develop and articulate policies.  To a greater or lesser extent they engage in both on-the-ground and internet-based organizing work and small-donation fund-raising.  They may become involved in particular election campaigns.  They generally oppose the direction followed by the DLC.  They believe that a Democratic Party re-oriented in the progressive direction can: a) win elections and b) equally as important, once in power, lead the nation away from the disasters in which the Georgites and the Republican Religious Right have already plunged us and worse disasters to come, and towards a bright, Constitutionally-based future that will benefit all Americans.  (See III and last week’s column in this series, and especially next week’s column for more detail on what in my view the “progressive direction” is.)

This column is devoted to organizational issues for achieving these ends.  Within our Party there is this impressive list of organizations, and others not named as well, that are pointed in what we consider to be the right direction.  Could not one or more of them by itself simply do the job?  I think not.  I think not because the Party has been lead rightward over the last 30 years by an organization, the DLC, which does not look anything like any of the above-named organizations.  Organizationally, the DLC has three defining features: it focuses on policy-development and making, not on organizing at the grass-roots level and not, directly, on elections (although it indirectly supports its candidates at the national level and for important state posts).  Second, it has the adherence of a number of major elected officials at the top levels of government who generally agree to follow its policy and program recommendations.  Third, it is a major behind-the-scenes fund-raiser for the Party from major donors that support its policies.

I believe that if the Democratic Party is to be lead back towards its progressive roots of the first two-thirds of the 20th century, what is needed is a counter-weight to the DLC that happens to look very like it in terms of its organization, role, and function.  I propose as a working name the “Council of Progressive Democrats (CPD).”  To establish it and get it up and running would require a good deal of money.  If this were to happen, it is obvious that one or more wealthy progressive democrats (and there are more than one of them out there) would have to provide a significant amount of seed money.  But the key point here is that what is to be formed is not simply another organization like those already in the field, but rather a DLC-type organization, with a radically different agenda.

I propose organizing that agenda around a phrase borrowed from Rabbi Michael Lerner of the Jewish national organization Tikkun: the Ten Commitments.  I will be detailing my list (you have seen its major elements already) in next week’s column.  All of the existing progressive Democratic organizations would be asked to affiliate, of course.  Key would be the adherence to the agenda of as many elected officials as possible, from the national (like the DLC) down to the local level (differing from the DLC in this regard).  Once the Council of Progressive Democrats were to be formed (and the sooner the better) I would propose the convening of a national convention, not of the Democratic Party as a whole yet, but of those organizations and elected officials ready to make the commitment to progressive change for the party.  I have in mind something along the lines of a very exciting convention that I attended in 1967 as the representative of the New York Medical Committee to End the War in Vietnam, the National Conference for New Politics.  That particular effort was not well-organized and nothing much came of it directly, although it did give a major boost to both the anti-war and the civil rights movements.

To be successful in this endeavor, egos will have to be checked at the door.  It will have to be clear that the new organization will deal with policy development and proposals for implementation only, leaving the direct action area to the many fine progressive Democratic organizations already on the field of play.  However, it would not be simply a think tank.  It would as well focus on the policy of politics and politics itself: how to win with progressive thought; and why the DLC must be opposed within the Party and eventually replaced in the leadership position by the CPD, for the good of the Party, our nation, and the world.

Next week, I will begin dealing in more detail with what a “progressive” Democratic Party would look like, based on my own past work as well as that of the many progressive organizations and individuals concerned with the same issues.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, V: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND

Column No. 84 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - November 10, 2005

After last week’s excursion into a little pre-indictment indictment-analysis, in this week’s column I am returning to a consideration of how the Democratic Party needs to be transformed if it is to become a true opposition and governing alternative to the Georgite juggernaut.

It should be noted that while many outside observers presently see the Georgites as politically wounded, on issues ranging from Iraq to Katrina to the Libby indictment to the crimes-and-corruption scandals involving both Administration and Congressional Republicans, to the continuing low poll numbers, Bush doesn’t see that picture at all.  He sees that he sits in the White House and will do so for more than three more years.  He sees his party in power in the Congress with at least a 50/50 chance of keeping power following the 2006 elections, if for no other reason than that the Democrats are so weak, politically.  He sees his party, that of the  Republican Religious Right, fully taking over the Supreme Court through the Alito nomination – unless  the Democrats are able uncharacteristically to find some strength and mount a successful filibuster.  And so George II proceeds with governing the only way he knows how: by following the dictates of the middle-finger school of political science.

How to act against this is the big question we all keep asking ourselves, as the Democratic Party has done for years, and as outside observers have done for years.  I have examined repeatedly the Collaborationist-DLC approach to the problem (see TPJ , “Future of the Democratic Party III,“ for my take on Carville’s latest).  Another recent DLC version of “what to do” comes from Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton White House operative now in Congress from Chicago and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  According to the November 2005 issue of The American Prospect (p. 14) Emmanuel, aided by a variety of top Congressional Democrats from both Houses, have come up with this agenda for “going to the people with a unified program for 2006:” making college universal in the 21st century, getting the federal budget under control, achieving energy independence, creating a new national institute for science and technology, and providing health care to all working Americans.

Now that’s a winner, isn’t it?  Really exciting, no?  A total turn-on for the voters, don’t you think?  Goes for the Georgite weaknesses?  Takes what the Georgites are giving us and turns it on them?  Really addresses the major harms being done to our nation, our Constitution, and the world at large by the Georgites?  I wonder.  Nothing on Iraq.  Although something on energy policy, nothing on global warming.  Nothing on the fundamentalist attack on science.  Nothing on the “Bathtub Theory of Government” and the “Reverse Robin Hood Theory of Taxation.”  Nothing on Grand Theft Elections.  Nothing on the attack on the right to freedom of belief as to when life begins as well as the attack on a woman’s right to choose.  And so on and so forth.

I am sure that that Collaborationist-DLCers do not for a moment see themselves as collaborators, enablers, and enhancers.  I am sure that they truly believe that there is some “middle-ground” on many key policy issues and that a large group of “middle-ground” voters can be won over by some “middle-ground” program.  As we proceed to examine where the Democratic Party must be going, and soon, if Constitutional Democracy is to be preserved, let’s briefly take a look at this “middle-ground” theory, on the major issues.

Is there a “middle ground” on Iraq?  No.  It’s either “get out” or “stay the course.”  Each of those needs to be defined further by their advocates.  What “Course” is being talked about, at what cost in lives and materiel, for what end?  “Getting out” can be done in a variety of ways; my specific proposal appears in TPJ, “An Iraq Solution”.  But on overall policy the two are mutually exclusive.  There is no “middle ground” on global warming.  One either accepts the 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.  “Intelligent Design” either is science or it is isn’t.  No middle ground there.  One either believes that human life begins at the moment of conception or that it begins sometime later. If one believes in the former one then also believes that the latter belief should be criminalized.  No middle ground there either. For a summary of my position on the whole “values” question, see TPJ, “Bill Frist’s Declaration of War”.

Now the DLC-ers apparently deny this reality.  They thus tell us that the only way for Democrats to win is to trim our issues-sails and go after that large pool of “middle-ground,”  “moderate,” voters projected to be out there.  They tell us that the reason that Democrats lose is that we have been “too liberal” (see the analysis of the Carville position in TPJ , “Future of the Democratic Party III,”).  Several problems here.  As discussed at some length in the latter column, there is simply no evidence that the Democrats have been running radical or even “very liberal” candidates in national or even state-wide races, who have then lost.  Do they mean Tom Daschle?  As to the House, a significant chunk of the RRR majority there is the result of the unconstitutional Delaymandering in Texas (not challenged by the DLC, to my knowledge).  As to the pool of “middle-ground” voters, there is no evidence that it is either very large or that it would be won over to the Democrats by running on Emmanuel-type platform. Current evidence that this is so?  Current Bush approval ratings and poll numbers on the Iraq War (see Steve Gheen’s excellent analyses of same in recent issues of TPJ).

Third, and I dealt with this one over and over again in the run-up to the 2004 election, there is a rich vein of potential Democratic voters to be found by the huge number of elgibles who just don’t vote because they see no reason to do so, for they do not see their issues being addressed.  How do we know the latter is true?  First, see a book entitled The Vanishing Voter, by Thomas E. Patterson.  Second, if it weren’t, why would the Republicans spend so much time, effort, and money trying to keep the voting totals as low as possible, especially in non-white, other poor, and youth-dominated areas of the country? Third, some proportion of them (not enough, but some) were mobilized by the efforts of Move On, etc. Finally on this point about “going after the middle ground,” the DLC makes the assumption that the Democratic Party should not place the real issues facing the country before the voters because people cannot grow, change, be educated.  Now that’s creative, isn’t it?

Three columns ago I set forth the following as the Big Four, top-tier of problems facing our country now:

I.                     Achieving an end to the US War on Iraq, with a return to the multi-lateral foreign policy that worked so well for our country from the time we entered the Second World War until the advent of Georgitism, and a return to abiding by the UN Charter, which forbids “pre-emptive war” of the Georgite type.  A specific plan for achieving that withdrawal can be found in my column of Sept. 1, 2005.

II.                   Making the protection and promotion of Constitutional Democracy, in accordance with the Preamble to the Constitution, the center of the Democratic Party’s approach to governing.  A return to the System of Checks and Balances and the requirement that the President abide by the Constitution is essential

III.                  A vision of government that understands that big problems require big solutions, that when necessary for the common economic good, government needs to be big, that the Norquist Doctrine of Bathtub Government needs to be flushed down the toilet.  On the other hand, when it comes to matters of personal belief in such matters as when life begins, expression, and adult behavior, government needs to be small.  This is the exact opposite of the Republican view, which wants government to be overwhelmingly big when it comes to such matters and overwhelmingly small when dealing with the economy.

IV.                A return to totally free elections, and a full-scale assault on the Republican practice of Grand Theft Elections.  The recent GAO analysis of ballot corruption (to view the full report: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20051021122225-53143.pdf.) and the Report of the Carter-Baker election reform commission, http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/203832.htm, are good places to start.  See also Mark Crispin Miller’s new book, Fooled Again.

The DLC wants to have nothing to do with any of the above.  Let me add to that list now the “second-tier,” key issues with no descriptions (most of which the DLC also wants no truck with):

A.                  Managing the economy.

B.                  Taxation policy.

C.                  Export of jobs.

D.                 Corruption.

E.                  Competence.

F.                  Energy policy and global warming.

We shall return to them, of course.  A rather different list from that of the DLC, no?  A list that arises from a reality-check.  A list that envisions an all-out assault, as I noted at the outset, on the major harms (in the plural) being done to our nation, our Constitution and the world at large by the Georgites. A list that can easily be used to mobilize our base, educate the people as to what is really happening under the Georgites, and bring masses of new voters into play. Next week shall begin looking at what specific steps can be taken to start pointing the Democratic Party in the direction it needs to go if the Georgite Juggernaut (yes, I do like that one) is to be derailed.