Now that the Democrats are back in power, the American
public can finally exhale. Bush is doomed. Cheney is on the ropes. Condi is
updating her r�sum� while Rove prepares his exodus. Well, such an optimistic
outlook is boldly misguided. The Democrats may have regained control of both
houses of government after 12 long years, yet small changes are all we�re
likely to see come out of the 110th United States Congress.
On the surface things look like they are moving in the right
direction. Democrats are enthused to increase the minimum wage and roll back
subsidies to the oil cartels. They want the Fed to work with Big Pharma to give
Americans access to cheaper prescription drugs. Democrats also want to lower
interest rates on student loans. Not bad for the first 100 hours in office. But
not all that wonderful either.
Most of what Democratic leaders are proposing are minor,
long overdue reforms, not the type of progressive restructuring we really need.
As Ralph Nader recently warned, �Early and troubling signals from Capitol Hill
indicate that the Democrats are not going to move to remove the brazen Bush tax
cuts for the wealthy, are not going to go after the huge waste and redundancy
in military weapons contracts . . . are not going to end massive corporate
welfare . . . and are not going to propose a serious crackdown on widespread
corporate crime, fraud and abuse.�
Perhaps even more alarming than Nader�s prescient omen is
that our Middle East policy isn�t on the road to recovery. Israel will continue
to have an affable government in the U.S. that funds the occupation of
Palestine and supports Israel�s bullying of Iran. As The Times in the UK
recently revealed; Israel may be planning a nuclear strike on Iran to destroy
the country�s uranium enrichment facilities, something Israel denies. All
contradictions aside, the Democrats in Washington overwhelming back such an
attack.
Following these reports, the new House Majority Leader Steny
Hoyer told the Jerusalem Post that Democrats wouldn�t rule out using force on
Iran to block Tehran�s nuclear aspirations. In the past similar remarks had
been made by Democratic leaders Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, along
with presidential hopeful John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Even superman
Barack Obama won�t challenge the Bush administration�s erroneous Iran approach.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune in September of 2004,
"[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these
pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I
hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point . . . if any, are
we going to take military action? . . . [L]aunching some missile strikes into
Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in
Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession
of nuclear weapons is worse."
Some other Democrats seem to have come to their senses, and
many plan on objecting to Bush�s push for more troops in Iraq, a common sense
position that we should hardly congratulate them for taking. Sen. Harry Reid
had initially supported such a surge, but later back-peddled after realizing
he�d see repercussions from the antiwar wing of his party.
Similarly, if we want the Democrats to change their tune on
Israel and Iran, we�ve got to hold their feet to the fire. If left to their own
devices, Democrats will continue to mimic the neocons' strategy for the Middle
East, not alter it.
Joshua
Frank is the author of Left
Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush
and
edits www.BrickBurner.org.
