War-Democrats In Congress May Fall With Unpopular Bush Policies

The Bush administration’s poll numbers are sinking, a majority of Americans now oppose the Republican lead war, and every day it seems that another Congressional incumbent is in trouble with constituents.

Another Democrat incumbent that is.

In southern California long-time Democrat incumbents Jane Harmon, Howard Berman, and Adam Schiff are being criticized as “Bush Democrats” or "War Democrats" and worse, based on their supportive voting records and luke-warm criticisms of the administration.

Each is facing a Democrat challenger in the primary based largely upon a lack of opposition to the Iraq war and the President’s warrantless wiretapping – issues which current poll numbers suggest may resonate with voters and transcend traditional party lines.

Although each of the incumbents has a substantial war chest already and the challengers do not, the issues are sufficiently emotional that mere money may not be able to sway many disappointed voters to reward the wayward incumbents with another term.

The novelty of so many serious Democratic challengers has garnered more than a little press; some further digging into the incumbents’ voting and contribution records should generate enough information to keep the challengers on the front page.

All three elements taken together suggest that the incumbents are at serious risk of losing their seats – not to the Republican opposition, but to angry elements in their own party.

But even if the incumbents can beat down their Democrat challengers by dint of their vastly greater financial resources, viable challengers will still remain in November.

The Green Party is fielding very strong candidates in many races, including two of the three seats held by the incumbents noted. And when the Democrat challengers are eliminated in the primary by incumbent money, there will be an awful lot of voters unwilling to vote for the remaining right-wing Democrat incumbent -- and who may well turn to a well known Green candidate.

There are at least a few conservatives, too, who disdain the illegal conduct of the Bush administration and are embarrassed by the Republican Party’s capture by extremist elements, who may well find the Green candidate an acceptable alternative. (There are more than a few former-Republicans in the Green party.)


Byron DeLear (G) is running in Berman’s 28th Congressional district; he has begun the campaign for November with a burst of energy that, if sustained, could see a significant challenge to the otherwise long-entrenched Democrat. Recent news coverage bemoaned the fact that Berman, considered the most hawkish of the three, had the weakest Democratic challenger – leaving DeLear the sole option for disgruntled Dems and repulsed Republicans.

Bill Paparian (G) is running in Schiff’s 29th Congressional district; a former Mayor of Pasadena, Paparian is well known to locals, as well as the large Armenian communities in and around Pasadena and Glendale. Because of his track record, Paparian is likely to have significant financial help from the community, and in the general election will be the only other known candidate – and the only serious peace candidate – in the race.

There are a total of nine Democrats being challenged from within their own party in districts all or partially within Los Angeles County. None of the rest of the challengers has emerged as particularly strong.

Greens are running in only two of those races in November, leaving voters with no real choices if the incumbents win in the primary in the remaining districts.

Saving the World In Two Flavors

W ho knew that saving the world from humanity could be such an internally divisive process?

As result of many conversations I have had with folks of late, I have come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the elements of the Green Movement and Green Electoral politics, a misunderstanding engaged in by both groups and which undermines the mission of each.


Communication Gaps, Not Differences, to Blame

So far, no one I have chatted with has identified the communication gap between these two groups as a cause of internal difficulty.

Often folks have identified the existence of differing approaches, but even in the most introspective and even handed of Green party discussions I have yet been party to it is the difference that is blamed for any difficulty.

Let me be clear here: I lay the blame on a lack of good understanding of the approach by each faction, a failure to remember that multiple approaches often succeed where a single "received" doctrine will not, and a sense that the approach of the "others" somehow undercuts ones own approach.

And to that mindset, I say "Phooey!"

Governance v. Movement Building

Governing (and thus the electoral process) is fundamentally different than supporting and living a movement. If it is the existence of differences alone that is the issue, than the world and the Green Party are done for and we might as well pack it in right now.

Governance means that one is the government for ALL the people, members of your party or movement or not. It is neither reasonable nor fair to engage in governing from an all or nothing "movement" perspective.

It is reasonable to take such purist positions to advance a movement, if one wants to do so.

(I tend to think that the best approach is to be as pure as one can, but bring others in to movement through a friendly bowl of Stone Soup combined with the Aikido effect . . . the later is the idea that one should step into and embrace an attack, use the energy of the attack to dissipate any harm, and demonstrate ones moral superiority by standing serenely upon the attacker's chest. Stone Soup is a children's story I recommend. But my approach to movement building obviously makes me more comfortable with governance.)

The problem is that both the incremental approach to changing the world and Aikido politics are required of someone that is in a governing position or who aspires to be in one.

Governance Requires Right Compromise

Not only do Greens require votes from green-minded voters in all the other parties in order to govern, even a party with 50% + registration has to take into account the opposition -- or risk so angering a significant group and some fence sitters that the backlash will be terrible to behold.

The problem seems to me to arise when those interested in governing engage in the necessary governing mode and are accused of selling out, of compromising principals for power, or worse. But the reality is, other than in a totalitarian dictatorship, compromise and incrementalism are the only way one can govern effectively.

On the other hand, the problem also seems to me to arise when Movement folk are dismissed as doctrinaire, academic, unrealistic, or simply obstructionist. Although in a political setting the Movement approach can be all of these things, the Movement level work is necessary and beneficial to the electoral approach.

The confusion arises with the word Party: for me, and for most Americans, I dare say, "party" means "electoral political party." Long before I registered Green I considered myself a dedicated small-g green. I got there in part by work that Movement oriented activists did before me, pushing the purist form of what it is to be green.

Compromise Can Lead to Sell-Out Power Grabs

If you find you are a Movement person, then I would suggest that you not engage in formal electoral politics, except as a volunteer for a campaign you find you can agree with fully. You will be happier, not because the system is corrupt or selling out or at odds with your beliefs, but because the nature of governing non-Greens means constant compromise and small, incremental changes.

If you are an Electoral person, it is important to be clear on the difference between compromise due to governance requirements and the need to bring diverse constituents along gently -- and the degree of compromise that is sellout designed to grab personal power over good public policy. It creeps up on the best and most altruistic.

In the end, like most organic processes, both the Movement approach and the electoral approach are part of a cohesive whole, and can and should work synergistically to advance the Green and green causes.

And maybe actually save the world in the process.