[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Is Feingold the Next Dean or Wellstone?

[Chuck Minne]

Is Feingold the Next Dean or Wellstone?
by Tom Hayden

Sen. Russ Feingold unveiled his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq at 
several Los Angeles events this week, sounding like Howard Dean in 2003 
by telling Democratic activists and potential funders that the 
Democratic Party is "too timid".

Feingold is the first U.S. Senator to offer a specific proposal for 
withdrawal by the end of next year. In doing so, he may change the 
dynamic of the Senate Democrats who are dominated by the pro-war views 
of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. If Feingold's proposal, which be 
floated in a series of speeches around the country, receives a warm 
response from Democratic and independent audiences, it may force other 
senators to re-position themselves on the war.

Feingold acknowledges that he is "considering" a presidential run in 
2008, but is far from decided. Most of the party's elites, and a 
considerable portion of its base, are loyal to Hillary Clinton who takes 
a hardline hawkish position on Iraq despite polls showing 85 percent of 
Democrats see the war as mistaken.

The Feingold factor may begin to realign Democratic thinking at a time 
when the Cindy Sheehan crusade has fired up the grass roots. Incumbent 
politicians will return to Washington in September when exit strategy 
hearings are scheduled for Sept. 15, followed by massive protests and 
lobbying Sept. 24-26. Feingold believes that many Democratic officials 
will be "asking themselves how to do something against the war" in 
September. Already, for example, former Sen. John Edwards has begun the 
re-positioning process by his wife's moving letter to Cindy Sheehan.

Feingold's Iraq resolution, while bold by Senate standards, is 
cautiously-phrased in comparison with peace movement demands. Recently 
co-authored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Feingold resolution calls on the 
administration to provide a timeframe for achieving its military goals 
and withdrawing all troops. In his Los Angeles presentations, Feingold 
said he was flexible about the one-year deadline. "It's to start the 
discussion. Let others offer their ideas", he said.

Both supporters and critics may forget the political context of 
Feingold's proposal to pick instead on its sparse details. Already many 
in the peace movement think a one-year timetable is too long while 
pundits at the LA Times echo President Bush in claiming that timetables 
will be exploited by the enemy. Feingold is on solid ground with most 
Americans, however; even a Fox News call-in poll revealed a majority 
favoring a one-year pullout. As for the Times's criticism of deadlines, 
Feingold replies that, according to that logic, the insurgents could 
stop fighting today, wait for the US to pull out, then take over Iraq.

The best that can be said of Feingold's proposal is that it is a brave 
departure from the ice house of the Senate, with potential for being 
developed further as he travels the country. Its main deficiency is the 
lack of an exit strategy, which might consist of appointing a peace 
envoy, commencing talks with insurgent groups, along with 
confidence-building declarations that the US has no interest in 
permanent military bases or privatizing the Iraqi economy for foreign 
investors. Most, though not all, Americans are hesitant about military 
withdrawal without accompanying efforts at a negotiated political 
settlement. That is why the Bush Administration works so feverishly at 
creating the appearance of progress towards an Iraqi constitutional 
process.

Feingold's caution was displayed at a Town Hall meeting Wednesday 
morning when he spent thirty minutes describing his Iraq proposal as a 
"course correction" in the larger war on terrorism. It is characteristic 
of Beltway Democratic thinking to frame even anti-war criticism as part 
of pro-war rhetoric on terrorism. It is true, of course, that all 
Americans live on borrowed time because of the probability of another 
9/11 attack, and it is true that the war in Iraq is a rallying point for 
would-be martyr-bombers. But the debate over the war cannot be reduced 
to which party is "tougher" on national security. The reasons that 
voters are anti-war are due to the Bush Administration's deceit, the 
needless deaths in an unnecessary conflict, the one billion dollars 
spent per week, the war profiteering, the deepening of our global 
isolation, and the shame brought to America by prison torture.

The strongest moment in Feingold's Town Hall speech came at the end 
when, struggling with genuine emotion, he spoke of his 25-year old 
daughter in London. He wanted her to go as far as possible in life, he 
said, and "always be welcomed as an American, which any parent should 
want for their child."

Feingold's effort is a work in process. But already he has ended the 
silence of the Senate and aligned himself with the grass roots majority. 
Beyond his Iraq initiative, Feingold represents an attractive, 
progressive profile in courage on other issues. He consistently opposes 
his colleagues on trade agreements that lack enforceable worker and 
environmental protections. He was the only Senator to vote against the 
Patriot Act. He has opposed the death penalty for many years. He fights 
to reclaim the label "patriot" from the right-wing. He comes from a 
state with a long history of populism, labor struggles, and isolationism 
capable of producing both reactionary and progressive populists. He has 
the qualities of a new Paul Wellstone.

Tom Hayden is a former California state senator and the author of 
"Street Wars" (Dimensions, 2004). 



		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050826/39145a52/attachment.html