Posted on 11/08/2002 11:31:09 AM PST by RobFromGa
ROLL CALL DAILY
Following is the full text of Frost's letter to his colleagues announcing his decision:
8 November 2002
Dear Democratic Colleague: Nancy Pelosi and I have waged a quick and close race for Democratic Leader - one that has been hard fought on both sides. Over the past several days, I have talked extensively with virtually every Member of this Caucus. And I am gratified to have broad and deep support that reaches across ideological, regional and racial lines.
However, it is clear to me that Nancy Pelosi has the votes of a majority of the Caucus. In light of this fact, today I am releasing all of my commitments. I am deeply appreciative of all those who have supported me in this race, particularly those of you who have campaigned so strongly on my behalf.
Nancy Pelosi is a talented and capable party leader. I intend to support her for Democratic Leader in next week's election, and I will work with her to do everything I can to return Democrats to control of the House of Representatives. In doing so, I will continue to be an outspoken advocate for the mainstream, centrist views that will lead us to the Majority.
That is the goal that has driven me to work so hard and successfully to keep a Democratic Majority within reach. It is why I accepted the challenge of rebuilding the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee eight years ago after we lost the House. It is why I took on the task of ensuring a fair redistricting for Congressional Democrats after the 2000 Census. And it is why I entered this race for Democratic Leader.
As Democrats move forward to challenge the Republican leadership, it is critical that we bear in mind the unalterable political facts of life in the House of Representatives. No matter how eloquent our rhetoric or how sound our positions, we must have a realistic strategy to win a Majority. That is the only way Democrats will ever have the capacity to implement our ideas for helping the American people.
Given the extremist nature of the House Republican leadership, and their consistent refusal to compromise, we have no other choice. The Democratic principles that bind us together will never become a reality until we control the House of Representatives.
To do that, we must ensure that the public sees our party as the mainstream, aggressive advocate for the American people that it is. That requires maintaining centrist positions consistent with the majority view of the nation - and of the competitive battleground districts that determine the House Majority. Otherwise, we will continue to fall just short of control of the House.
I look forward to working with each of you to carry on the fight for a Democratic Majority. Together, we will go head-to-head with the Republican leadership, and build a Democratic House of Representatives.
Yours truly,
Martin Frost
END
That's not the case now. Among the tenure set, it's a badge of honor.
I hate to be disagreeable (since I basically agree with you), but I think it's more reasonable in politics to take everyone (i.e., the Dems) at face value, in terms of their goals, and then decide what to label them by some empirical measure of these goals. In many cases -- perhaps half of Democrats -- their goals are, I think, suitable for calling them "socialist," but not "communist."
I would point out that my terminology comes from two, I think quite defensible, angles:
1) Empirically, or objectively, the best definition of "socialist" I can come up with would include those people who want to markedly increase the portion of a nation's GDP that is routed through government, especially when that portion is approaching a majority of an economy. (The US is currently at about 35%; most of Western Europe is 50% or slightly higher. Note that schemes to socialize health care, which would probably be favored by half of Democratic politicians, but very few Republicans, would increase the U.S. to a European level of government spending.)
2) Historically, even if you listened to, say, Radio Moscow in the early 1980s (I had a short wave), their terminology was that they were "socialist" countries, not "communist" countries, even though they were ruled by "communist" parties. It's not that they were trying to waffle away from the charge of being communist. It's that "communism" was the name for the end-goal of the party, the situation in the utopian "withering away of the state" predicted so falsely by Marx. And they had no pretentions of reaching that goal (they would have to give up their cushy Party/Government jobs).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.