Oregon Dems: Go For the Low-Hanging Fruit
Jeff Alworth
In a few days, Oregon Democrats will find a table laid with a glorious array of delicacies: school funding, health care reform, the corporate kicker, civil unions, election reform, the environment, immigration, fixing Measure 37, and more. For the first time in sixteen years, they will control the House and have the rare opportunity to select from among the morsels those which look the most delectable and make them law.
Given the recent mood in Salem--and politics generally--it wouldn't be surprising to see the Dems begin with something punitive; civil unions, say. Punishing gay Americans has been a winning strategy for the GOP for a few years now, so it might be ever so delicious to begin the session by passing SB 1000. Take that, Christian conservatives! What tastier aperitif than the cold dish of revenge?
I hope not. Republicans will rightly be looking for any reason to obstruct the work of the majority (they are the opposition, after all). If Democrats begin the session with controversial issues, they'll lose Republican support on many of the issues they might otherwise support. Take school funding. In order to punish the teachers unions, Karen Minnis played hardball with the schools budget in the last session (and won). Yet funding schools at an adequate level is one of the things Oregonians are most keenly interested in. It is so popular, Ron Saxton put it at the center of his campaign. Beginning with this issue puts everyone immediately on the same page. Republicans will want to contain spending on big ticket items like reducing class size, but they won't choose this issue as their Waterloo.
Other issues offer similar promise: ethics reform, health care,
fixing Measure 37, to mention a few. Democrats can't accomplish
everything, and taking the easiest isn't a cop-out. They are serious
issues that, if addressed, would substantially improve the lives of
many Oregonians. Issues like civil unions and immigration are no less
important, but we are likelier to see good policy drafted by two
parties with at least a little comity, if not actual trust.
The Dems are on a pretty short leash. Oregonians have no great confidence in either party, so the Democratic majority is a provisional one. If they slide into partisanship and invective and fail to accomplish the basic goals Oregonians have, they'll pay a big price. With full control comes full accountability.
Building trust between the parties does not satisfy our baser instincts, but if the Dems were to have a record year, accomplish even half of what they've identified, and end for once the painful gridlock in Salem, their reward will be of a different order of magnitude. Success and accomplishment are the greatest revenge.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:30 a.m.
Jan 4, '07
Jeff--I've been assured by multiple members of the Democratic team that civil unions will be somewhere in the middle of the session, rather than the beginning or the end. It seems at this point that they fully intend to see a bill make it to the Governor's desk this year, but they are well aware that it needs to be handled without excess drama and political theater.
It's my impression that, like the federal House, Democratic leaders in Oregon will begin by attempting to push through bills and plans that have strong majority support, but which were blocked by House leadership. Then they'll start taking on the less clear-cut stuff on the agenda.
But you're absolutely right--for Democrats everywhere, the rule should be "get some shit done right away."
11:36 a.m.
Jan 4, '07
"get some shit done right away."
That's a motto I could embrace.
Jan 4, '07
I suggest a slightly different approach. Democrats should work on those issues that have solid support among the electorate but were ignored by Republicans. That is the best way to build a positive opinion of Democratic leadership. It is clearly true that voters are not happy with government overall. Proving to them that Democrats listen and care can go a long way toward winning approval.
Jan 4, '07
In principle, I agree with you that Dems should pursue popular, attainable goals. But I can't agree with your characterization of immigration and civil unions as fringe issues. Both are as important to both the long- and short- health of our nation as public schools, heath care, other entitlement reform. (I think the majority of Democrats favor at least civil unions, but since there isn't a "Democratic" position on immigration the least we can do is openly debate the options for some kind of reform.)
Yes, Democrats should work to cooperate with Republicans and find common ground, e.g. civil unions instead of "marriage." But behaving to protect our party's power at the expense of using that power to promote our core beliefs is the short road to exile. I believe part of the reason the public turned on the Republicans in the last election was the transparency of their use of power for its own end. If the Democrats backtrack on civil rights and Constitutional protections we will quickly find ourselves banished with our credibility to the same political wilderness.
1:09 p.m.
Jan 4, '07
Tom, agreed. This was apparently not my most cogent post, but that's essentially my argument. Which brings me to:
I can't agree with your characterization of immigration and civil unions as fringe issues.
I didn't call them fringe--I said they were controversial but "no less important." Partly this is an issue of phasing. People who work together and develop positive relationships naturally work better on controversial issues than those who already have strained relationships. Do the people's work, address the kind of issues Tom mentioned, and leave civil unions and immigration until later.
Jan 4, '07
Jeff, I hear what you're saying and understand your fear that all our hard work may be squandered by zealotry. And I agree with you. As someone who actively supports 2nd Amendment rights, I'm on a lot of email-mailing lists which have gotten increasingly dire in tone warning about the supposed threat posed to the Constitution by the recent election and by Nancy Pelosi specifically. One prominent group sent out a mailing with the subject line "The Barbarians Have Taken the Hill!" Considering the strength of the "Blue Dog" Democrats and other new voices on the Hill, I think these comments are, to put it mildly, disproportionate to the actual danger (I hope).
But this kind of mailing supports your point that the obstructionists on The Right are lying in wait to exploit any missteps by the new Democratic leadership, so hopefully our new leaders won't create opportunities that can be exploited.
However, when you say "...and leave civil unions and immigration until later..." I can only agree as long as "later" means within the term of the 110th Congress.
Jan 4, '07
This sentiment is a great way to prove to everybody that Democrats don't have any balls.
As a Democrat, I've always sneered at the Republican treatment of the Choice issue... they use it as a wedge to build support, but they're not in any rush to actually "solve" the issue (the Supreme Court right now could get it done), because they'd rather have it to wave as a campaign flag.
Now we see the Democrats, after clamoring for civil unions, universal health care, and additional school funding thinking "Holy Crap... We're in the majority?! We didn't really want to do those things."
I'm feeling inspired already. Is the "low-hanging fruit" crowd the same people who asked, "Why did Kerry lose to Bush? he made all the safe moves and didn't stick his neck out into any potentially controversial positions!"
Jan 4, '07
Seems to me the smart thing is to start on what affects the most people--things like state police funding, school funding, other economic issues.
Leave the "hot button issues" (yes, to those who would support civil unions maybe [if they liked the way the bill was written] but oppose gay marriage because marriage is a sacrament and belongs in a church, civil unions might be a hot button issue either for themselves or for some of the people who worked hard on their campaign) until the middle of the session.
Nothing passes without 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate, no matter who is in charge. And given the larger Senate majority, maybe civil unions should be a Senate bill, not a House bill.
Jan 4, '07
Argh!,
The Oregon Dem's present situation is not closely analogous to the Kerry-Shrub dynamic. I [and Jeff, I believe] am not suggesting a 'middle way', playing it safe, or abandoning constituencies. I am suggesting a chronology that makes it more likely that important but controversial issues are successfully addressed. Building public support and confidence when first talking the reins of power is simply good sense.
3:23 p.m.
Jan 4, '07
I agree with Tom on this, and this is form someone who thinks SB 1000 is at best a half-way measure to actual equality under the law for non-heterosexuals who will never be treated as equal citizens of our nation until we overturn DOMA and end gender discrimination in civil marriage law. SB 1000 does precisely nothing on the Federal level for non-heterosexuals couples.
So while I applaud the motive and the partial step forward SB 1000 would be, I think Tom is correct to get the other non-contentious bills through first, before you lose some vote form the other side over the more hotly debated bills.
LT, SB 1000 was/is a Senate bill, hence the SB designation.
3:51 p.m.
Jan 4, '07
Yes Tom, a helpful strategy in the form of a thoughtful chronology is needed to increase the credibility of the new Democratic majority. After 16 years, the other side of the aisle would like nothing better than to see this new Democratic majority implode. The burning issues are health care, funding the Quality Education Model, securing public school funding, raising the corporate minimum tax, suspending corporate tax rebates, increasing the per pack cigarette tax, and establishing a real Rainy Day Fund. Governor Kulongoski stated his initiatives in early December which were; expanding access to Head Start preschool, more college financial aid, universal health care for children, adding low-income adults to the state health plan and adding more state troopers.
My personal wish would be to get rid of the "kicker" tax rebates, all $1.1 billion projected in 2007 would stabilize our state and county budgets. We just have to amend the Constitution to get that accomplished!
Jeff, some of the low hanging fruit is actually at a much higher elevation. You made an interesting point. Great opinion piece.
4:38 p.m.
Jan 4, '07
Jeff, some of the low hanging fruit is actually at a much higher elevation.
Yeah, I suspect that's true, and I'm not anywhere near behind the scenes to understand the subtleties of these rivalries.
Jan 4, '07
Start making the excuses now as to why things didn't get done during session?
We'll do it next session. Not so fast! We've got to secure our majority. Let's not polarize the electorate. It would become a campaign issue.
I'm very glad that LBJ didn't think that way when signing the Civil Rights Act. We surely are past the time of big ideas and steadfast ideals when the subtext of Mr. Allworth's post suggests that the ultimate goal should be turning a provisional majority into a solid majority... sacrificing policy victory today for political victory tomorrow.
Jan 4, '07
Argh!,
When LBJ was president, Democrats had secure hold on the reins on power for quite a while. He followed Kennedy and Dems took control of Congress in Eisenhower's administration. So again, your reference is not totally relevant.
Jan 4, '07
Tom,
Sorry to disappoint if you thought I was going for an exact carbon-copy example in a period of history. :)
Thanks for the history lesson, though! If ever I need to look up simple historical facts, I'll come to you first, chief! (winks and points)
1:46 a.m.
Jan 5, '07
Republicans will rightly be looking for any reason to obstruct the work of the majority (they are the opposition, after all). No, doggone it, they're not. They're Oregon state legislators, elected to do the people's business. I don't believe most Oregonians would describe the job of the minority as "rightly" nothing more than obstructing the majority. Let's hope there are a few Republicans in the Oregon legisltature who will choose governing over perpetual campaigning.
3:12 a.m.
Jan 5, '07
Let's hope there are a few Republicans in the Oregon legisltature who will choose governing over perpetual campaigning.
I'll cross my fingers, but I won't hold my breath.
9:26 a.m.
Jan 5, '07
RE: the historical debate between Argh and Tom.
As Tom notes, LBJ is a terrible example. He followed a period in which liberals had governed for 35 years and accomplished much of their agenda. A better example is FDR, who followed a period of GOP rule. He had enormous pressure from the progressives (in those days, progressives were further left than liberals) and the communist/socialist faction to enact sweeping changes. They regarded the reforms of the New Deal as a cop out. Of course, we now look back at FDR as the greatest progressive president in history, a leader who's reforms define a modern democracy.
It is quite clear that had FDR followed the Argh-like dictates of his coalition, his name would be a synonym for failure, like Bush's. Keep in mind that in the 30s, the verdict was far from out on communism and the degree to which the state should own private enterprise. History was against those ideological progressives who misunderstood the abuse such economic models enable.
What's even more striking about the LBJ example is that so many of the great society programs have been overturned or remain controversial. His heart was in the right place, but his accomplishments are already faring more poorly than FDR's.
History, as Dubya now knows, teaches us a lot of things.
Jan 5, '07
Jeff,
The comparison of FDR to LBJ is interesting. I think FDR's legacy is more secure because his programs were instituted at a time when most Americans were poor or economically insecure. His programs, therefore were society-wide.
LBJ dealt with marginalized minorities [a worthy effort] so his programs were a 'war on poverty' at a time most Americans were economically comfortable. Since the poor have little political influence in our money driven political process, programs aimed at helping the poor are always vulnerable to attack. Once the cities stopped burning and poor people stopped marching in the streets, the power elite no longer felt motivated to fund anti-poverty programs. The rise of Goldwater/Reagan Republicanism was funded by such "get-tough" rich folk. Their politicians, think-tank intellectuals, and media screamers have lead the way in dismantling the Great Society.
I believe that is more an indictment of our political campaign system than it is of LBJ's social programs.
Jan 5, '07
"If Democrats begin the session with controversial issues, they'll lose Republican support..."
Trust me, Repubs will never work in any substantial way with progressives. Maybe they can work with wimpy centrists because deep down inside they (and their constituents) hate Democrats and will abuse bipartisanship.
Jan 6, '07
Huh what? How in the world is proposing legislation on civil unions "punitive", Mr. Alworth? Punitive to whom? Kindly be specific, because this claim is truly bizarre.
10:12 a.m.
Jan 6, '07
Punitive to whom? Kindly be specific, because this claim is truly bizarre.
When Democratic legislators set their agenda, they have the opportunity either to extend the invitation to Republicans to join them or to stay on their side of the aisle and suck it up--much as the GOP has done in the past. Civil unions legislation is among the most controversial issues on the docket. Prioritizing it would be tantamount to saying, "we don't need no stinkin' bipartisanship."
While that's satisfying, as I mentioned, it has consequences down the line for getting more controversial measures through. During Oregon's greatest progressive period, we had excellent Dem-GOP cooperation. Those two factors are strongly correlated.
Jan 6, '07
In response to Mr. Alworth's statement, there's no doubt that a civil-unions bill would be controversial, but it would be controversial whether introduced next week, next month, or next year. Whether or not it is a priority item on the legislative agenda will not affect that. And the idea that any civil-unions bill is ever going to elicit bipartisanship backing in this age, when the GOP has mortgaged itself to pseudo-Christian haters, seems silly.
On to bipartisanship. I know this is a really touchy subject. Some people posting here really want to push for bipartisanship; more, it seems, have reached the conclusion that the GOP in power in recent years hasn't given a damn whether Dems support the legislative agenda or not.
It has become kind of a common-place to observe that modern GOP legislative parties--at both state and federal level--have become rigidly disciplined, ideological parties more like those in parliamentary democracies, where the entire raison d'etre of the opposition is to get in the ruling party's face. A parliamentary opposition party isn't out for "bipartisanship"; it's out to draw blood from the ruling party. So before we start talking hopefully (naively?) about the bipartisanship of yore, perhaps we need to consider whether it's even a relevant or useful concept any longer.
5:48 p.m.
Jan 6, '07
LQ--I think your comments are exactly what my post aimed to address. It's about tactics, and we apparently disagree. I'm not surprised--I expect a lot of people want to tackle civil unions right of the bat. Thus this post.
7:09 p.m.
Jan 6, '07
I don't know about "bipartisan backing," but I do know that Minnis blocked and hid SB1000 because it was going to pass, not fail--and they held the majority at the time.
Sure, it will be controversial whenever it's brought up. But if that 'whenever' is subsequent to a series of relatively noncontroversial but popular items, the majority will have gained public goodwill as pragmatic custodians of the legislature. Even gay people care about payday loans and ethics reform!* So I agree with Jeff that there's no reason to dive into the most polarizing bill on the agenda straight away. Plus, as important as it is, it's by and large a social issue, which I think should naturally take a back burner to restoring order and cleaning up the economic house a bit.
*the 'even' was meant to be ironic.