Congressional Democrats are doing everything they can to prove Ralph Nader correct. In 2000 they ridiculed his charges of two-party sameness, citing mounds of principled differences between the Party of FDR and the Party of Gingrich. They were incensed that he was roaming the countryside, duping progressives, and recklessly siphoning off a critical base. Democratic House and Senate candidates needed party loyalty then more than ever, they said, just in case the "bumbling" Texas governor should bumble his way into the White House and launch a buckaroo-banzai assault on those Americans hapless enough to be born into unprivileged circumstances. Democrats would act as the firewall against W's smoldering intemperance.

No doubt you recall their indignation in the war against Ralph. Democratic leaders heaped it high and spread it thick. There's little doubt that had a handful of Greens stuck with the top name on the Democratic ticket, we wouldn't be in the fiscal and foreign policy mess we're in today. But on the congressional level Dems, on the most fundamental issues, have proven themselves utterly worthless, utterly unworthy--just as Ralph said they would. They have handed W the ignition keys to national wreckage, and by all rights should be forced to pay reparations to Mr. Nader.

The fundamental issues to which I refer, of course, are those of general fiscal and war-making judgments. Last summer enough Democrats, whose ecumenical thinking was refined principally by reelection yearnings, drop-kicked common sense into the field of right-wing fantasyland to guarantee a financial Pearl Harbor. Win or lose in 2002 they, at least, can take refuge in their 6-figure salaries or obscene pensions when the fiscal aftershocks devastate working- and middle-class folks. Their leadership was something to behold. Truly.

Unsatisfied with bloating the plutocrats who finance their seats, Democrats then revoked what little legitimacy they had left in battling deficit spending by forking over nearly $200 billion to the farm lobby. No longer, with any integrity, can they decry as fiscally irresponsible W's grotesque budget manipulations. Like their $3 trampish counterparts, they proved their willingness to do anything--absolutely anything--to keep the customers happy. It is we, however, who are left the wonders of transmittable disease.

On the war-making front, there simply isn't one led by congressional Democrats. In the face of piercing worldwide critiques of, and thoughtful alternatives to, W's gunslinging proclivities, our elected "progressives" are schlepping gutlessness to pioneering heights. If Junior wants to send Saddam an exploding cigar or put a billion-dollar contract out on him, fine. I'll help roll the stogie or contribute to the hit fund. But a stubborn fact remains: the president has not delivered the promised evidence for justifying an Iraqi invasion and laying waste to innocent thousands. You and I know it, the world knows it, the administration knows it, and, of course, congressional Democrats know it. Nevertheless the cavernous holes in the administration's argument haven't stopped Democrats from falling over themselves in the rush to flex their superpatriotic muscles--tethered chiefly between their politically ambitious ears.

Top-Dem Tom Daschle best displayed his party's high-wire act to hell in a New York Times interview last weekend. He first made a show of mindful independence by posing some rather troubling and unanswered questions--such as what is it, precisely, the administration plans to do once it levels Iraq. He also wondered, among other things, if our unilateral indulgence might not set a deplorable precedent for other nations wanting to level their enemies, thus destabilizing international relations for years to come. "We're not going to just blindly say, " said Daschle to Bush, "whatever it is you want, you've got." He then blindly gushed, however, "We would be inclined to work with the administration to see what we could do to fashion a resolution that would accommodate his [sic] needs." Daschle wanted no living being to draw the "premature conclusion" that Democrats are "opposed to what the president's doing." That would "be unfortunate," he said, unlike the assuredly happy consequences of accommodating the administration.

Tom, stick to screwing up farm policy. The president's "needs" lie in hyping the bejesus out of a gratuitous and costly war to divert attention from the ghastly ramifications of his domestic policies. But you already know that. What you meant to say was that South Dakota winters have frozen your cajones into presidential-contender form, and ambition can't be bothered by a lot of senselessly lost lives. I suppose that alone makes you executive material. Like W, you're now a real Mensch.

Other Democratic leaders--so to speak--throwing away their shot at conscientious politics are Senator John Edwards, who peeped his head out of some fundraiser long enough to proclaim "the time has come for decisive action"; Senator John Kerry, who has hinted he might, just might, favor a war resolution once United Nation formalities give him political cover; and ever-presidential-hopeful Dick Gephardt, who has been modeling a pro-war line for some time now. Naturally Senator Joe Lieberman has the hots for insanity's "broadest possible bipartisan support," but he doesn't count, Republican that he is.

Notwithstanding the fabricated or absent reasons for now-certain war, the president said last Saturday that "if we have to deal with the problem, we'll deal with it." Of that preconception there has been little doubt. In play, it seemed, was whether Democrats on the Hill would deal with it. Mr. Nader had the answer to that two years ago.

---

© Copyright 2002 P. M. Carpenter

Mr. Carpenter's column is published weekly by History News Network and buzzflash.com.