Michael A. Arcuri: More Concerned with his Fantasy of Independent Voters than Habeas Corpus

Why or why does the Republican Party run to their base while the Democrats flee theirs? Why are Republicans convinced that their base can help them win elections while the Democrats shiver in fear that their base will make them lose? (And don't bring up McGovern right away, I'll get to that, but after the rhetorical questions, a personal story, and a rant.)

So, last night I agree to go with Paul to a local event for Michael A. Arcuri who is running in the twnety-fourth congressional district of the state of New York for the US House of Representatives. Time was when I was a local party hack, a ward heeler with no payola just a couple of black pens and a lot of petitions to get signed. I got fed up, realized I couldn't claim not to be a democrat if I was still a Democrat, and quit. But, having heard that Arcuri was anti-war, I went to the event (which offered fruit, crackers and humus, chips and dip, pizza, soda, and apple cider). I was thinking that if he were a good candidate, I'd do the footwork (go door to door etc) in this part of the district up until the election. In a nutshell, Arcuri didn't mobilize his base. In fact, precisely the opposite!

Mark Gearan, the President of Hobart and William Smith Colleges--former member of Clinton White House (deputy chief of staff or director of communications or something like that, probably Josh_ also, former head of the peace corps, basic point here: Democratic Party insider--introduced Paul and me to Arcuri. I started in with the questions.

Why bother with Democrats if they always agree with Republicans? Answer--and Mark Gearan helped on this--subpeonas, bringing administration folks before Congress and asking questions (apparently the Republicans issued like a thousand subpoenas during the Clinton administration). Another good answer, this time from Arcuri all by himself, minimum wage bill: Arcuri pledges no raise until wage bill is passed.

War? Arcuri is against.So far,so good.

Military Commission Act of 2006? You know, the one eliminating habeus corpus, absolving Bush of war crimes in advance, and permitting torture? Arcuri is for it.

Arcuri supports the legalization of torture and indefinite detention. He thinks that we should look carefully at the matter, though. But, it's necessary for fighting the war on terror.He supports revoking habeas corpus.

So, here is a Democrat, trying to say that electing a Democrat to Congress will make a difference. And yet he supports torture? Who needs Democrats like these?

Now, is he really a Republican? Is he a sicko? Does he hate freedom and the rule of law? Does he think the Geneva Conventions are quaint like the rest of his ilk?

Probably not. Instead, he is trying to appeal to independent voters. It's like he thinks he has the left fringe of the Democratic Party in the bag, so he is going for independents in a district that is sixty percent registered Republican (I think; I didn't look it up).

So, what is an Independent? Paul made a great point while we were at dinner last night. He said that Arcuri's fantasy of an independent is of a someone in the middle. Arcuri presumes an Independent is the split in the hair that separates Republicans from Democrats. This is a truly stupid thing to think. Why presume Independents are there? Why not guess that they are actually Independent because no party represents their views? And, why not try to give these people a reason for voting? A reason grounded in political difference, political will, an opposition to, why not, FASCISM???

Ok, McGovern: I'll see your McGovern and raise you a Goldwater. Goldwater lost big time (what was it, '64?) But, he mobilized a group that had been marginal to the Republican Party, splitting them off from the Democrats, and setting the stage for Nixon's race-based politics in '68 (the famous Southern strategy).So, who is your model?

Also, notice how the Republicans mobilize their base with losing issues (or with issues with a high likelihood of failure): abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, evolution, all the values crap. Democrats could do this, too. Gun control, healthier school lunches, Kyoto accords, mad cow, distribution of contraceptives in elementary school, elimination of God from our currency, making every building in the country wheelchair accessible, etc. Imagine waging a massive gun control campaign in Texas. Surely it would lose. But all those against guns would be up in arms (as it were), highly mobilized, and then righteously indignant after their loss. When Democrats lose, they aren't righteously indignant. They scurry under a table with their tail between their legs, roll over, and pee on themselves.

Democrats: stop catering to your imagined Independent. She doesn't exist. She's a fantasy that traps you in self-defeat. But maybe this is the truth of the situation: you're afraid to govern, to rule, to take a stand, to make decision, to take risks. No wonder you can't win.

Comments

[Lynn]

Great post.

Democrat candidates also miss the opportunity to gather votes from disaffected Republican voters.

[Jodi]

Thanks, Lynn.

I was just teasing Paul for canvassing for torture. He shot back: and you are canvassing against the minimum wage? That gave me pause. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm sacrificing the possibility of something better for millions of workers by focusing on a hypothetical vote--after all, Arcuri didn't actually vote on the bill.

[Adam Elkus]

I think you're right to be angry.

This guy makes it sound like standing up for basic American principles is akin to waving around a "Free Mumia" sign.

[The Constructivist]

Back when I was a grad student I had the opportunity to read most of Jackie Robinson's columns from the 1960s. As a Rockefeller Republican, he crowed over Goldwater's defeat and predicted the end of the conservative movement in America. OK, so he was a better baseball player than political analyst, sue him. What I'm trying to get at is I agree with you that Goldwater trumps McGovern. And I think your point abount non-Party-affiliated voters is spot on, too.

BTW, did you catch the upstate NY politics thread on Crooked Timber? Is there a conspiracy to make me miss Western NY?

[Jodi]

thanks, constructivist, I added a link to the crooked timber discussion.

[Alain]

Jodi, I generally agree with any rant that points to the lack of spine in our democratic comrads. But, in this one case, I am going to disagree with you: The torture issue is a non starter for most Americans - until lily white, honest to goodness "Americans" come forward with their own stories of abduction and torture, most folks believe we should do everything and anything to the bad guys, our humanity be damned. So, unfortunately, it is unlikely that anyone can get elected in a heavily republican district without supporting torture. That seems like common sense today. Which doesn't mean I would canvass for such a candidate- but given his other positions, I would probably vote for him.

[Adam Elkus]

The torture issue is a non starter for most Americans - until lily white, honest to goodness "Americans" come forward with their own stories of abduction and torture, most folks believe we should do everything and anything to the bad guys, our humanity be damned.

It's certainly true, but down the line that'll happen.

Torture is like a cancer--it'll infect every part of our legal system. If "terrorists" can be legally tortured, the call will go out to torture drug dealers and other criminals. The genius of the torture rationale is that it can be used against any enemy of the state, no matter how petty.

I certainly hope we can stop it before things get that bad, though.

[The Constructivist]

It's not just the torture, it's the habeas corpus and the Executive power-grab that's so troubling and dangerous. If you can't figure out how to adjust Berube's Credocrat lines for a slightly-Republican-leaning district, you should hire someone who can do it for you!

[Jodi]

Alain, I respect your view (it's also Paul's) but I can't go there, for reasons Adam and the Constructivist point to. If I vote for him, then I am saying that he represents me. I am culpable for acquiescing to the collapse of the rule of law.

[Alain]

Jodi I respect your view as well. It makes me sick that these are the choices that confront us today.

[Jodi]

Alain, in that we are fully agreed. It's appalling that I keep talking to local Democrats who feel like they have no choice but to vote for Arcuri. As they see it, a vote for anyone else is a vote for the Republican opposition. And, in a two party system, their pragmatism is correct. I just ran into some friends infuriated with me for being a 'purist' and risking the possibility of changing the character of the House, particularly with regard to a piece of legislation in the past. I don't have a good response for them, other than what I've already said. And, the sick thing is that they are committed to raising the minimum wage, something terribly, terribly important. I worry that my 'principle' position is pathetic and defeatist. But, I betrayed my convictions when I voted for Kerry and have regretted it terribly ever since.

[Adam Elkus]

The thing is that the "pragmatist" viewpoint isn't quite that pragmatic.

If I was a Republican voter, I'd take the real thing instead of a watered-down copy, just in the same way I'd buy a real Armani suit, not a cheap knockoff.

Ultimately what needs to happen is that we need to carve out a cultural space in the public sphere that accepts the left. We have not had that space since the end of the 60's. Instead we are regarded as freaks and fanatics.

And that will take a long time time, and may not even happen at all. But I can tell you that in the meantime we won't profit from pretending to be who we really aren't. People can see through it.

[Jodi]

Of course you are right--and I love the way you put it over at your blog, re how sick it is that being against torture is now a mark of being on the looney left.

[Mike Sylvia]

"It's appalling that I keep talking to local Democrats who feel like they have no choice but to vote for Arcuri. As they see it, a vote for anyone else is a vote for the Republican opposition. And, in a two party system, their pragmatism is correct."

I believe we are coming to see the ill of this 'two party' system. A two party system has the benefit of being stable, a good thing when three branches provide checks and balances. What I see as the issue that must be most immediately addressed is the collusion between the Democrats and Republicans. I see most of the bickering between them as a bit of stage show to draw attention to themselves as a unit. They both use this tactic to draw support from their bases and divert the attention of Americans away from real issues.

This whole process turns away good men and women. Not only are the best (sensible) people not running for office, 60% of voters are disgusted with the freak show and stay home on election day.

Pragmatism degrades our government. We are now facing a choice of which torturer is least bad. If people of conscience are moved by this issue, I will win.

People who vote for Mieir support torture.
People who vote for Arcuri support torture.
People who don't vote support torture.
People who vote for Sylvia will know that they sent a message.

Peace and Freedom,
Mike Sylvia

www.mikesylvia.org