America as Parliamentary Democracy, 2002-Present (Rebooted)

Introduction Pt 1: Author's Notes, Political Parties
I never got too far with this the first time around, and after being here a while I thought of some ways I could improve upon what I had already posted, so I'm starting over from the beginning with some changes along the way.

America as Parliamentary Democracy, 2002-Present

Introduction / Background Notes

The emphasis in this series will probably be more on how the major political figures of the United States fit into this system than on major changes in actual historical events (though the exact role played by the U.S. in some events may change). Also, while some real-life media figures appear in news broadcasts and talk shows, the print and online journalists whose work is “excerpted” in places are mostly fictional.

The scenario imagines an alternate history in which the United States achieved independence from the United Kingdom in a more gradual fashion akin to what occurred in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. No Revolutionary War was ever fought, slavery was abolished in accordance with the UK’s Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and there was no Civil War in the 19th century. (However, Southern lawmakers did enact considerable institutionalized discrimination after 1833, similar to what happened after the Civil War in real life, with racism and oppression of African-Americans being a major factor in American politics just as in real life.) The United States was granted full functional independence as the Dominion of United States of America in 1856, an example soon followed by Canada in 1867, and has been referred to only as the United States of America ever since 1904. Also, the nation’s capital is referred to as “Columbia,” as George Washington does not occupy quite as prominent a role in this version of history.

The United States has followed the mother country’s example of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, with a Governor-General serving as nominal head of state but exercising no real powers. Though the Senate exists, most powers rest in the House of Commons (meaning that many real-life Senators are instead incumbents in, or challengers for, seats in the House instead). Seats are informally referred to as “ridings,” and members of the House are referred to as MPs (members of parliament). A nonpartisan electoral commission controls most of the mechanics of elections, with the result that partisan gerrymandering and deliberate creation of majority-minority seats largely do not occur, while federal elections are held on national holidays. There is also less expectation that an MP will necessarily live in his or her own riding. Certain social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and capital punishment are typically treated as “conscience votes” in Parliament.


THE POLITICAL PARTIES

The CONSERVATIVE PARTY has been in power more often than any other party, having emerged from the Tory tradition in the mid-1800s and establishing itself over time as a pro-business, socially traditionalist party that tends to be hawkish on foreign policy, though a more isolationist faction still exists. Economic libertarians have also made the Conservative Party their home, viewing it as an acceptable vehicle for their ideas if sometimes too cautious. A small group of Conservative MPs, however, tend to be more moderate on economic issues and are sometimes referred to as “Red Tories,” though the size and influence of this faction has been shrinking.

The LIBERAL PARTY similarly grew out of the Whig tradition, later becoming home to the Progressive movement of the early 20th century under leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Robert LaFollette. They are supportive of the welfare state but cautious about government intervention in the economy, while taking left-of-centre positions on social issues most of the time. They lost ground to Labour in the 1930s, receding to third-party status, but rebounded somewhat amidst the anti-government politics of the late ‘70s and ‘80s, during which some moderate voters opposed to the Conservatives turned to them as a more realistic alternative than Labour.

The LABOUR PARTY emerged around the beginning of the 20th century, with roots in the trade union activism of industrial America as well as the populist farmers’ movements in certain rural areas. They take a broadly social democratic approach to the economy and social services, and while a majority of Labour MPs tend to be socially liberal, there is also a sizeable faction of MPs, mostly from the South and Midwest, that take conservative stances on issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage. Labour also have strong historic ties to the African-American community due to their role in getting civil rights legislation passed.

The GREEN PARTY reflects the concerns of the environmental movement and take left-wing stands on most issues, but have thus far been unsuccessful in electing MPs to the House of Commons.

The relationship between Labour and the Liberals is more cooperative than that of, for example, the Liberal-NDP relationship in Canada or the Labour-Liberal Democrat relationship in the United Kingdom. Because the two parties usually need each other’s support to surpass the Conservatives, they encourage local riding associations to negotiate non-competition agreements for certain seats where a split vote would likely lead to a Conservative victory. However, they are not a permanent coalition along the lines of the Australian Liberal-National Coalition. Neither is content simply to be the “junior partner,” both form their own front benches when in opposition, and there are certain ridings where the main competition is between Labour and Liberal candidates with the Conservatives in a distant third place. A number of state parliaments are governed by Labour majorities or Liberal majorities alone, and Liberal-Conservative alliances have even been formed from time to time in certain states.

Correspondence between these parties and their real-life counterparts:

Labour: Progressive Democrats, economically populist Democrats, other left-wing figures such as Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader
Liberal
: Fiscally centrist Democrats, liberal Republicans, some moderate Republicans
Conservative: Conservative Republicans, some moderate Republicans, libertarian conservatives, conservative Democrats
Green: Mostly overlaps with the real-life Green Party, minus Ralph Nader’s involvement
 
Introduction Pt 2: Recent Developments
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Following the election of the Conservative government of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the United States followed the lead of its mother country under Margaret Thatcher, as an increasingly pro-market trend took hold. Taxes were reduced sharply, while Reagan and his allies moved to dismantle or at least shrink the regulatory state. During this period of time, Labour became divided between those who wished to moderate their economic policies and those who remained staunchly opposed to all aspects of the Reagan Government’s agenda; the result was often a watered-down platform that pleased neither side. This proved an opportune situation for the Liberals, who required far less ideological migration to present themselves as the party that would embrace the free market while protecting the foundations of the welfare state, and over several successive elections, the Liberals’ seat total increased just as Labour’s decreased.

Meanwhile, a short-lived populist protest movement led by the billionaire Ross Perot had emerged under the moniker of the Reform Party. Though Perot’s ideology was difficult to pin down and Reform had limited organizational resources, his independent style nevertheless won over many voters, and the result was the fractious “hung parliament” of 1992. Some former Liberal and Conservative voters had defected to Reform, allowing Labour to maintain – just barely – their status as the second-largest party after the Conservatives. With neither the Conservatives nor the old Labour-Liberal alliance able to claim a majority, Perot found himself in the position of kingmaker and flatly demanded that Liberal leader Bill Clinton, the moderate former premier of New York, be appointed Prime Minister over Labour leader Dick Gephardt. Unwilling to return to opposition yet again, Labour reluctantly agreed to a coalition government under Clinton while Reform provided confidence and supply.

The alliance quickly ran into trouble, as Perot’s erratic style proved ill-suited to Parliament and disputes over trade policy left Clinton facing pressure from both Labour and Reform. After a series of Commons defeats on important legislation, Clinton called a snap election in 1993. His gamble paid off, as much of Perot’s support had evaporated over the course of a year, and Perot himself was defeated in his home riding. Most ex-Reform supporters voted Liberal, as did a number of Labour voters who had warmed to Clinton, and for the first time in decades, the Liberals became the largest non-Conservative party in Parliament. The Clinton Government was able to keep Labour on-side for the rest of its time in office, with the 1996 election mostly maintaining the status quo.

The Conservatives had chosen Texas MP and former Premier George W. Bush as their new leader in 1999 after a bruising contest with Arizona MP John McCain. Clinton, after surviving a scandal over an extramarital affair in 1998, decided that he would step aside before the next election, as the Liberals turned to his long-serving Minister for Energy and the Environment Al Gore to lead them. Many expected Labour to replace Gephardt after the relatively weak showings of the last three elections, but he had since gained what some called “statesman cred” from his performance as Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government, and he was re-elected as party leader by a comfortable margin.

The election of 2000 saw largely lackluster campaigns from all sides, with Gore struggling to find the balance between touting the positive elements of the Clinton years and trying to present himself as something other than simply the candidate of the status quo, while some former Labour supporters who had supported Clinton in 1993 and 1996 appeared to be “returning home.” Still, Gore might well have won a full term as Prime Minister if not for disputed counts in several ridings, where controversial judicial rulings eventually declared Conservative victories. Although the combined Liberal-Labour popular vote total surpassed that of the Conservatives, the Conservatives obtained a narrow majority of 221 MPs out of 436.

The Bush Government got off to a shaky start, but rose to stratospheric heights of popularity for its decisive response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Bush’s decision to launch an invasion of Iraq, however, proved more controversial and would come to shape partisan politics over the next several years. It is here that we pick up the story.
 
Last edited:
October 2002: Dick Gephardt Resigns as Labour Leader
Background notes:

What a "free vote" means in parliamentary systems and some examples from the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote#In_the_United_Kingdom

OCTOBER 2002: DICK GEPHARDT RESIGNS AS LABOUR LEADER

EXCERPT FROM:
USBC NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER – OCTOBER 2, 2002




JIM LEHRER: Welcome to USBC NewsHour, I’m Jim Lehrer. In perhaps the clearest example of traditional partisan politics re-emerging over the Bush Government’s push for military action against Iraq, long-serving Labour Party Leader Dick Gephardt has announced today that he is resigning his position. Mr. Gephardt had been criticized heavily within party ranks over his stated support for authorizing military action, despite having promised to allow his party a free vote on the matter. Here is Mr. Gephardt at this afternoon’s press conference.

[BEGIN CLIP]

DICK GEPHARDT: After consulting at length with colleagues, friends, and supporters, I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action for my party and for my country is for me to resign as leader of the Labour Party. My resignation will take effect tomorrow, and in accordance with Labour Party rules, my colleague and Deputy Leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, will assume the role of parliamentary leader on an interim basis.

[END CLIP]

JIM LEHRER: Here in the studio to discuss this development are Gwen Ifill, host of USBC’s Columbia Chronicles, Fred Barnes of the Conservative-supporting Weekly Standard, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation magazine, a publication traditionally supportive of Labour. Gwen, I’ll start with you – Gephardt chose to resign more or less effective immediately, and just two weeks before the House of Commons is scheduled to vote on authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. How does this play out for the Labour Party?

GWEN IFILL: Well, I think what Dick Gephardt realized was that, with the vast majority of Labour MPs, union leaders, and riding associations opposed to the push for war, his position was simply untenable. Even on a free vote, with an issue this important, you just can’t have the party leader advocating one position and the vast majority of his MPs voting the other way. By timing this resignation as he did, he gives the party what it wants in the short term, in that Nancy Pelosi will be leading them when the authorization vote is taken. In the meantime, Labour will have a leadership convention next year, which gives them some time to make the decision of who leads them into the next election.

JIM LEHRER: Just to be clear for our viewers – Nancy Pelosi opposes the authorization?

GWEN IFILL: Correct.

JIM LEHRER: And can we expect her to use the party whip to enforce a No vote on the authorization?

GWEN IFILL: No, I think she’ll still make it a free vote – there’s a small minority of Labour MPs in favor of the authorization, not least among them Dick Gephardt, who will now be sitting on the backbenches, and I don’t think she wants to instigate that kind of dispute as an interim leader. The difference is that when it comes to the debate in parliament, she’ll be able to use the platform of Labour Party Leader to articulate the clear anti-war stance that reflects the party’s prevailing view.

JIM LEHRER: Fred Barnes, what’s the thinking within the Government on this? Do they pull back a bit to see if they can drum up more cross-partisan support for the resolution?

FRED BARNES: No, I think most MPs have made up their minds – there’s not much to be gained by waiting to call the vote or changing the wording of the resolution at this point. I will say that, while I’ve never been a fan of Dick Gephardt, I think it’s a shame that his leadership comes to an end in this manner. He clearly shared the Government’s view that this was a necessary measure to protect the American people, and his resignation means that we’ll have less of a united front on the floor of the House of Commons.

JIM LEHRER: Katrina, I think it’s fair to say that Ms. Pelosi has not been one of the more high-profile members of the Labour front bench – she may have served as Mr. Gephardt’s Deputy Leader, but she isn’t necessarily a household name for most Americans. What can you tell us about her, and do you see her as a candidate for the permanent position?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Nancy Pelosi is a good example of a politician whose expertise has been more in the policy arena and the legislative process rather than in public relations. You don’t see her on the news every night, but she’s hard at work each day as the Labour Party’s manager of legislative business, and she’s earned a lot of respect among colleagues. All that said, she isn’t someone that, as far as I know, is typically seen as having a burning ambition for higher office, so I couldn’t really say at this point whether or not she’ll run for the permanent job.

JIM LEHRER: Are there any other names you’re hearing who might be thinking about running for the permanent position?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, one MP that some in the party’s grassroots really love right now is Barack Obama, the Health and Social Services critic. He’s a relatively new MP, young, a fantastic speaker, potentially the first African-American to lead one of the major parties, and he’s also a clear opponent of the Iraq War. But I’m told that he and those around him think he still needs to build up his resume before trying to climb the party ranks any further, so he may end up not running. There’s a lot of support for Joe Biden among the trade unions and on the right wing of the party, though I think he’d have to walk back some of his initial comments about Iraq.

JIM LEHRER: We’ve seen this sort of, almost, family custom in the Labour Party where somebody from the hard left runs in every leadership election and inevitably loses. Are we going to see that again now?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: (laughs) Probably. And the problem the hard left faces is that their base of support is really concentrated in the riding associations. They don’t have much support among the trade unions, nor do many MPs identify with them, and you need some support from all three parts of Labour’s “electoral college” to have a chance at winning. As for who will take up their standard, my best guess would be either Paul Wellstone or Dennis Kucinich.

JIM LEHRER: I’ll turn now to Gwen and Fred. Obviously there’s no perfect candidate out there, but in light of the drawbacks of each of the individuals Katrina has mentioned, is there anyone who checks off all the boxes for Labour that you could see entering the race?

FRED BARNES: Well, I’ve said all along that taking this hard-line anti-war stance will backfire on Labour at some point. Whether they realize that before the leadership election or not, I don’t know – my guess is no, because I don’t think the union leaders and riding associations that essentially just forced Dick Gephardt out are going to change their minds. That said, one name that they might consider would be the current finance spokesman, Richard Durbin, who hails from the soft left faction and once served as Finance Minister in Illinois’s state government.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Durbin’s already said he isn’t running.

FRED BARNES: Sure, but politicians are known for saying they aren’t running for something and then changing their minds when circumstances become more amenable. If it ends up being Biden versus Kucinich or Wellstone, a lot of Labour MPs may go looking to recruit somebody who’s a more unifying figure.

JIM LEHRER: Gwen?

GWEN IFILL: I think Durbin is unlikely to get in, but one person I’d keep an eye on is John Edwards, the MP from North Carolina. He doesn’t have a long resume in government or on the party’s frontbench, but he’s impressed a lot of people at Labour campaign events with his speaking style, and he could help to give the party a more populist image.

JIM LEHRER: Fred, Katrina, Gwen, thank you for your insights. We turn now to the latest on how the military is preparing for potential action in Iraq….
 
Last edited:
October 2002: The House of Commons Authorizes the Iraq War
OCTOBER 2002: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AUTHORIZES THE IRAQ WAR

EXCERPT FROM: HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS (MSNBC) – OCTOBER 12, 2002

[Footage from the floor of the House of Commons]



SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT: On the matter of HC 1126, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq, the Ayes to the right are 296, the Noes to the left are 139. The Ayes have it.

[In studio]

CHRIS MATTHEWS: That was the scene today in the House of Commons. As you can see, authorization for the Government to wage war in Iraq passed by a comfortable margin. My colleague Dan Abrams delved into the broader implications for foreign policy in the previous hour, now we’ll take a look at the political fallout. With me here is MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman. Howard, it’s clear that, despite all three party leaders allowing a free vote, most Conservative and Labour MPs lined up on opposite sides of this issue. But look at the split in the Liberal Party. What’s that about?

HOWARD FINEMAN: What it’s about is that the Liberal Party is in fact deeply divided over this issue, both in parliament and among the general public. There have been a number of opinion polls recently—

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s put one of them up on-screen so everyone can see what you’re referring to.



HOWARD FINEMAN: Right. And that’s what they consistently show – a majority of Liberal voters favor the resolution, but that 37 percent opposed is nothing to shrug off. And focus groups have shown that these anti-war Liberal supporters are not just opposed to the resolution, but they are in fact very disappointed and even angry with the party leadership. They really feel that their party is making the wrong call on this and should take a stance of clear opposition.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: So if the party is so divided, why is their Shadow Foreign Secretary, Joe Lieberman, out there banging the war drum every day? I mean, the way he’s talking, he sounds like an even bigger hawk than half the Conservative Party.

HOWARD FINEMAN: Well, from what I’ve heard, some of his colleagues have actually been urging him to tone it down. But, you know, Joe Lieberman is sometimes, depending on how you look at it, either deeply principled or exasperatingly stubborn.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Ha!

HOWARD FINEMAN: And he firmly believes that this is the right thing to do and he’s not shy about using his position to advocate his view.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: These Liberal MPs who just voted against it have been relatively quiet about their opposition, and the entire Shadow Cabinet voted in favor of the resolution. Is Kerry just going to treat this as a backbench rebellion that failed, or does he need to do something to take their views into account?

HOWARD FINEMAN: If you look at his actual remarks, so far he’s taking the position that the Government should have the authority to take military action, but that they should only use it as a last resort and build more of an international coalition first. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take. But I don’t think the Joe Liebermans of the Liberal Party are completely happy with that, nor are the folks who are firmly anti-war, and of course the Conservatives are going to accuse him of equivocating and not taking a clear stance.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: We already saw Dick Gephardt having to step down over Iraq. Do you think there’s something similar unfolding for the Liberals now? Is this a threat to John Kerry’s leadership?

HOWARD FINEMAN: The thing is, to the extent that this is a political problem for the Liberals – and I do think it is one – it’s that Kerry does sometimes sound like he’s trying to have it both ways. But with a party this divided, I’m not sure how you solve the problem by changing leaders. If they pick a leader that’s strongly pro-war or anti-war, you really could end up with dozens of MPs in open revolt.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, what if the consensus within the Liberal Party does shift one way or the other and Kerry does step down? Who’s waiting in the wings to replace him?

HOWARD FINEMAN: Well, if the party moves towards a more unambiguously pro-war stance, then Joe Lieberman would be the obvious choice. As you said earlier, he’s already the most prominent Liberal hawk, and he served as Foreign Secretary during the brief period when Al Gore took over as Prime Minister from Bill Clinton before the 2000 election. On the anti-war side, I’ve heard a couple of interesting things from the Liberal grassroots lately. One name that people have been talking up is the Premier of Vermont, Howard Dean. He gave a pretty strong anti-war speech three weeks ago, saying specifically that the federal party should take a clear stance against any invasion of Iraq. He’s stepping down this fall after eight years in office, so if he’s looking to make a move to the federal stage, this might be the time.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: He’d be a newcomer to the federal scene. Is there anybody who’s already in parliament who could be that anti-war voice? Any one of those 47 who voted no?

HOWARD FINEMAN: I’m not sure about any of them, but I’ve actually heard some talk lately about a movement to “draft” Al Gore back into front-line politics.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Really!

HOWARD FINEMAN: Yeah. He kept a low profile for a while after he resigned from parliament, but he’s been speaking up more lately, particularly against the Bush Government’s drive towards war in Iraq. And of course, many Liberal voters – and Labour voters, for that matter – think that if those five ridings had been counted accurately two years ago, he might still be Prime Minister right now.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, I’ve sometimes had the impression that Al Gore doesn’t actually like politics that much and that he’s been happy to move on from it. Would he really be interested in some sort of comeback?

HOWARD FINEMAN: Probably not yet, but you never say never in politics. It depends how serious the people pushing this idea are and if he feels strongly enough about whatever happens in the near future to want to give it another try.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Howard Fineman, thanks for your analysis.

[end excerpt]
 
Last edited:
Seems interesting, how exactly does this Senate work? Is it still 2 senators per state? Or some form of PR?
 
Thanks for the positive feedback!

@dirtboy re: the Senate. I haven't put that much thought into it, but probably an officially non-partisan body, 2 per state, appointed by state governments with indefinite terms lasting until retirement or death. Not that the appointees don't have political sympathies or past involvement with the parties, but they sit as independents rather than in party-based caucuses. A mixture of convention and established law severely limits the extent to which they can gum up the works. They can request amendments to certain bills, but at the end of the day, the Commons can override them if necessary. They wouldn't be able to cause a constitutional crisis in the vein of Australia 1975, for example.

For the most part, the people who get appointed are the third- and fourth-stringers of the political world. A state Premier might appoint, say, a former executive appointee or state-level cabinet minister who doesn't have big ambitions for climbing the political ladder, and occasionally a previously prominent federal MP whose career is in its waning years will be appointed.

(In a nutshell, the Senate is almost always just a sidenote.)
 
January 2003: Labour Leadership News Roundup
Background references:

David Bonior -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bonior

Phil Angelides -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Angelides

Peter Barca -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Barca

Gerald McEntee -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_McEntee


JANUARY 2003: LABOUR LEADERSHIP NEWS ROUNDUP
Compiled from the Associated Press

Labour Leadership Calendar Announced

January 13, 2003

Labour Party Chairman David Bonior announced today that nominations for his party’s currently vacant leadership post would be accepted from June 16-30. The party will announce the nominated candidates from their national headquarters in Columbia on July 1, to be followed by an afternoon meeting where each candidate will be invited to give a speech. Labour riding associations, affiliated trade unions, and Labour members of Parliament will cast their votes during the final week of August, with the winner to be announced at a party convention in Cleveland on September 4.

Political observers and foreign policy experts agreed that the timing appears to be an attempt to delay the contest until after a likely American military engagement in Iraq. Several prominent Labour figures are said to be contemplating a run, including Interim Leader Nancy Pelosi, former Justice Minister Joe Biden, backbench MP John Edwards, and California state party leader and Finance Minister Phil Angelides.


No Change to Labour Party Electoral Bloc System
January 16, 2003

A meeting of the Labour Party Executive Board yesterday saw the 15-member body vote to keep in place the party’s established “instant runoff” electoral bloc system for electing its leader. As has been the case since 1985, three equally weighted electoral blocs will rank their preferred candidates from first to last: members of trade unions affiliated with the party, Labour members of Parliament, and members of local Labour riding associations.

Left-wing board members, led by former Vermont Labour leader Bernie Sanders and activist and writer Barbara Ehrenreich, proposed eliminating the bloc for members of parliament, leaving selection up to trade union and riding association members. Their proposal, however, was defeated by a vote of 11-4. U.S. Council of Trade Unions Vice Chair Gerald McEntee, who sits on the board, lobbied against the proposal despite the fact that it would have given a stronger voice to union members. “We have to remember that whoever we choose has to lead the parliamentary party on a daily basis,” McEntee said after the meeting. “To impose a leader on our MPs without taking their views into account, I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense.”


Polls: Labour Leadership Contest Still in Flux
January 23, 2003

Early polling on this summer’s Labour leadership race suggests that the race is highly fluid, with no clear favorite emerging from among those thought to be possible contenders. A total of five polls of Labour voters from the 2000 election have been conducted, all showing undecideds in the double-digits, with no candidate reaching 30% or higher in any hypothetical matchups.



(The "-" sign indicates that the prospective candidate was not included in the poll in question.)

Although Interim Leader Nancy Pelosi, former Justice Minister Joe Biden, and (when included) Labour Health & Social Services spokesman Barack Obama appear to start in the strongest positions, political analyst Michael Gibbs said that “polls at this stage, when nobody’s actually announced or started campaigning, are more about name recognition than anything else.”

Pollster James Zogby commented further on the difficulty of polling Labour leadership contests: “It’s hard to get meaningfully representative samples of the members of riding associations and affiliated unions, which is why we usually poll all Labour voters from the previous election instead. But the union vote can be highly idiosyncratic, the riding association members tend to lean further left than the average Labour supporter, and then you have the vote from the MPs who could potentially tip a close race.”


Angelides: No Labour Leadership Run
January 27, 2003

California Labour Party leader and state Finance Minister Phil Angelides announced today that he would not seek the federal party leadership. The successful transitions of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush from state to federal politics led some Labour figures to urge Angelides, the top Labour officeholder in the nation’s largest state, to consider a run, but he cited a desire to concentrate on state politics in his decision. Several Labour state premiers, including Peter Barca of Wisconsin, Michael Madigan of Illinois, and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan have also ruled out seeking the federal leadership.

Labour came close to becoming the largest party in California’s governing Liberal-Labour coalition in last year’s state parliamentary election but fell 3 seats short, with Angelides continuing in the Finance position under Liberal Premier Jane Harman. “We have a lot of work to do in the state of California, and right now I think that’s where I can make my most valuable contribution to public life,” said Angelides.
 
Last edited:

MERRICA

Banned
Hmm, excuse me but I think this would go over VERY well over in shared worlds.

Also, how is the American Revolution seen today ITTL
 
Hmm, excuse me but I think this would go over VERY well over in shared worlds.

Also, how is the American Revolution seen today ITTL

I don't know much about how that part of the site works - does someone "moderate" the contributions from others? And do people role-play the main characters directly? If someone wants to borrow the premise for a thread over there, that's fine with me, though I don't know if I'd have time to participate myself.

There wasn't an American Revolution in this timeline - the U.S. gradually became more independent of the UK in the same way that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did IRL, and they've been functionally fully independent since the mid-1800s. They're still a member of the Commonwealth with a Governor-General and visits from the Queen and everything. Views of the UK and the Commonwealth are generally positive, though there is a small-r republican movement in favor of having an elected President play the role occupied by the Governor-General. (Though either way, the Prime Minister's Cabinet would be the ones with the actual executive authority - hardly anyone supports changing the system to something akin to France's arrangement, for example, or what the U.S. has IRL.)
 
March 2003: The U.S. Invades Iraq
Background Notes:

Question Time (a common practice in Westminster parliamentary systems) -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time

March 2003


The House Comes to Order

Excerpt from “Battlegrounds: The Politics of the Iraq War”
By Christine Gill, Senior Political Editor, Washington Herald & Telegraph, Copyright 2009

There is perhaps no event other than the deployment of American troops into combat that brings more of an atmosphere of decorum to the normally raucous House of Commons. Even the most jaded political operators in Columbia would agree that at the very least, the image of being anything less than 100 percent serious about matters of war could be politically fatal. MPs can be solemn and serious, and if something goes wrong, they can perhaps be angry and cutting, but a display of flippancy or obvious opportunism could cost them dearly. Governments must avoid being perceived as having made the decision lightly or as going overboard with rah-rah patriotism when American soldiers are fighting and dying. Opposition parties must give the military their full support and take care not to appear as if somehow hoping for failure or seeking to benefit from it politically.

These customs held true in the early days of what the Government labeled Operation Iraqi Freedom. When Prime Minister George W. Bush rose to deliver his final military ultimatum to Saddam Hussein’s regime on March 15, 2013, the House sat in respectful silence, with even the most anti-war MPs saving their criticisms for the press gallery afterwards. The invasion began on the 18th, and two days later, Bush and most of his Cabinet dutifully assumed their seats for Question Time. Liberal Party leader John Kerry began his remarks by stating that, “While there have been disagreements leading up to this decision, let me state for the record that the Official Opposition are absolutely united in support for our men and women in uniform,” then went on to ask about the Government’s plans for post-war reconstruction in Iraq.

Even the largely anti-war Labour caucus exercised restraint in voicing their skepticism. Interim leader Nancy Pelosi also said that “while most of us in the Labour Party opposed the decision to go to war, we support our troops 100 percent, and we hope and pray that they accomplish their mission with as little loss of life as possible.” In her second question, she criticized the Government on the failure to pass a United Nations resolution authorizing the invasion, but refrained from the sort of dire warnings of unintended consequences that she had regularly issued in the run-up to the war. Labour Defense critic Carl Levin pressed his counterpart, Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, on whether the invasion of Iraq would limit operational capacity in Afghanistan; Rumsfeld insisted that it would not but declined to fire any verbal shots at Levin.

The most notable clash came when anti-war left-wing MP Paul Wellstone of Minnesota posited to Bush, “Everyone agrees that the fight against terrorism is first and foremost a battle for hearts and minds. One of the biggest obstacles to winning over those hearts and minds is that so many in the Muslim world have come to believe that the United States is waging a war of aggression to assume ownership of Iraq’s oil industry. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the United States will not, in any way, shape, or form, seek to control or profit from Iraqi oil when this war comes to an end?”

Some mutters of irritation from the Conservative benches were heard as Bush rose to reply, “Mr. Speaker, I have stated many times, but I will be happy to state it again now: the reason we are taking this action is that Saddam Hussein has refused to disarm. The oil supply in Iraq is the property of the Iraqi people, and it’s going to stay that way. I think we’ll win over plenty of hearts and minds when we remove a brutal dictator from power and give Iraq a chance at freedom.”

Several minutes later Conservative MP Jeff Sessions of Alabama asked, in reference to Wellstone, “Would the Prime Minister agree with me that if the member for Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned about terrorist propaganda, he might do well not to repeat it here in the House of Commons while our troops are fighting the War on Terror?” Labour MPs clearly did not appreciate what Sessions was implying – Pelosi glared daggers at Sessions, and veteran Boston-Suffolk MP Ted Kennedy was heard to interject, “He didn’t mean it that way and you know it.”

Speaker Dennis Hastert called for order as Bush stood at the dispatch box, chuckling awkwardly at first but otherwise refusing to take a swing at the obvious partisan softball, responding, “Well, Mr. Speaker, the member for Minneapolis can ask whatever question he wants. I will simply reiterate that if Iraq did not possess a single drop of oil, we would be making the exact same decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Asked about the exchange by reporters later, Wellstone stated, “The notion that we’re doing this to get our hands on Iraq’s oil has been circulating for months now. The idea that somehow terrorists wouldn’t hear about it if I didn’t mention it in the House of Commons is frankly pretty far-fetched.” One reporter asked if the question was part of a build-up to a run for the party leadership when the contest began in June; the typically guileless Wellstone responded, “I asked the question because I thought it needed to be asked. There was no reason for it other than that.”
 
Author's Note & Some Background Info
A few notes:

For those of you unfamiliar with the practice of “Question Time” in Westminster systems, I’d encourage you to watch the segment starting at 2:45 here to get an idea what it can be like, both in terms of the rowdy atmosphere and how barbed the politicians on both sides can be towards each other. (The segment covers the first showdown between Tony Blair and Michael Howard after the latter became Conservative Party leader in 2003 – it ends around 10:35 if you feel like watching all four exchanges between them.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?179084-1/question-time

Part of what I’m doing with this timeline is trying to imagine the U.S. with a slightly more irreverent political culture, along the lines of what we tend to see in other English-speaking parliamentary democracies. I'll be using Question Time to advance the storyline from time to time.

The Speaker of the House in these systems is also expected to act as more of a neutral figure in charge of procedure and decorum rather than leading his or her caucus as in the U.S. IRL. For the purpose of this timeline, the Speaker is usually drawn from the governing coalition but does not participate in debate, does not vote unless there is a tie, and is expected to be relatively even-handed in ruling on procedural disputes.

Also, there’s no specific POD for this, but I’ve decided to make Australian satirists John Clarke and Bryan Dawe into more of an international act in this timeline, partly because I’ve always wondered how their unique “fake interview” sketches would play in an American context. So instead of being known only in Australia, they also do segments focused on public figures in the U.S., Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. Below is a link to perhaps their most famous “bit,” which is itself pretty hilarious and should give you a good idea of their style – i.e. Clarke (who unfortunately passed away a month ago, incidentally) “imitates” someone without actually attempting to mimic the person’s appearance or voice, and Dawe does his best to respond calmly to Clarke's absurd and nonsensical answers:


(While I'm sure I can't be as clever as the actual Clarke and Dawe, the chance to incorporate them into this was too tempting to pass up.)
 
April 2003: Today Iraq, Tomorrow...Syria?
Source for the controversy about Syria in this chapter:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/15/syria.usa

April 2003

Today Iraq, Tomorrow...Syria?

Excerpt from “Battlegrounds: The Politics of the Iraq War”
By Christine Gill, Senior Political Editor, Washington Herald & Telegraph, Copyright 2009

Though members of parliament had generally been measured and respectful in debating Iraq, especially after the seeming initial success of the invasion and the quick collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, the foreign policy fault lines re-emerged in mid-April. On April 14, reports surfaced that Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had directed two of his top deputies, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, to work with the MoD’s top civil servants to begin drawing up plans for an invasion of Syria. According to the reports, Rumsfeld’s team had been alarmed at reports that Syrian border security measures were insufficient for preventing Saddam loyalists from smuggling weapons and armor – including, potentially, Iraqi WMD – into Syria, as well as the Syrian regime’s ongoing efforts to develop chemical weapons. Needless to say, anti-war activists were outraged that the Government was even considering another war so soon after invading Iraq.

What was even stranger than the seeming hubris of the notion, however, was that Rumsfeld’s team had begun drawing up the plan without informing the Prime Minister. In fact, few within the Government knew what was taking place at MoD until April 11, when Press Secretary Ari Fleischer became aware of the story through his media contacts and brought it to the attention of Bush and his deputy, Finance Minister Dick Cheney (who, despite his domestic portfolio, exercised considerable influence over nearly every aspect of government in his role as Deputy Prime Minister).

Bush, who generally gave his Cabinet Ministers considerable leeway and had never pretended to be a policy wonk, was not particularly upset with Rumsfeld for taking this upon himself, but he knew that the political optics were suspect and thought any talk of war with Syria was entirely premature. Cheney, whose thinking had been heavily influenced by an ultra-hawkish group of right-wing think tank members, was less averse to the notion of targeting Syria in theory but also sensed that the politics would make it impossible at the moment. A meeting of Bush’s core foreign policy team – himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Foreign Minister Condoleezza Rice, and CIA Director R. James Woolsey – was hastily convened to deal with the political fallout.

“Well, we’re going to have to walk this back somehow,” said Bush after Cheney gave a brief overview of what they’d heard from Fleischer.

Rumsfeld replied, “I’m prepared to resign, but – and I’m not saying this just to save my job – there are maybe six or seven MPs who could really hit the ground running [as potential successors], and two of them are already in this room [an allusion to Rice and Cheney; Woolsey, as a non-MP, was ineligible]. Anybody else, and practically that means [top MoD civil servant General Richard] Myers runs things while the new guy gets up to speed. ”

“No, Don, you’re not resigning,” said Bush. “You’re a good soldier, and anyway, I’m not shaking up the foreign policy team in the middle of two wars.”

“How about this?” said Cheney. “Don goes back to MoD and tells Doug, Paul, and everybody else that the planning work on Syria stops. It was a hypothetical situation that they were exploring, and the Prime Minister decided that it wasn’t necessary.”

Bush nodded. “I think we can make that work.”

“Okay, but I need to tell [Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk] al-Sharaa something,” said Rice. “If the message is that somebody jumped the gun and we’re not seriously considering this, fine. If the message is that they’re on thin ice, I can tell them that too. But where are we going with this?”

“Realistically, Syria doesn’t pose the kind of threat to us that Iraq did,” said Woolsey. “The worst-case scenario, in terms of WMD and using them against U.S. interests, is probably that somebody sells a chemical weapon to a local terrorist group and they use it against Israel. Assad may be a bastard, but he’s not looking for a fight with the United States.”

“Can you press them to tighten up the borders and *then* reassure them that we’re not going to invade?” Bush asked Rice.

“I’m certainly willing to try,” Rice replied. “Are you open to a direct conversation with Assad about this?”

“I’d rather not if I don’t have to,” said Bush. “See where you get with al-Sharaa.”

***

Syrian officials seemed willing to accept the explanation at face value and agreed on several steps towards strengthening the border patrols, but the American domestic opposition wasn’t so generous. The revelations had perhaps united the Labour and Liberal caucuses on foreign policy for the first time since Iraq had come to the forefront. Both John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi denounced the idea of invading Syria and criticized the Government’s disorganization, with Kerry calling on them to release documents showing exactly how many MoD personnel had been diverted to this planning process and for how long. Even top Liberal hawk Joe Lieberman issued a press release stating that “absent any clear and immediate threat, this is the wrong time to be talking about another invasion.”

Also weighing in was Green Party leader David Cobb, who wasted no time in calling for Rumsfeld’s immediate resignation. Cobb had been promoting his party as the one that could truly be counted on to oppose the Bush Government’s foreign policy as compared to the divided Liberals and the “compromised” Labour Party. He was enough of a pragmatist to understand that an all-out assault on Labour and the Liberals would likely result in mutually assured destruction, but he had hopes of finally leading his party into parliament by targeting a few strongly left-wing ridings, and it was important to stake out their territory and raise his party’s profile.

Not surprisingly, the issue dominated Question Time on April 15. Kerry and Pelosi both challenged the Prime Minister with the sorts of barbs and provocations that they had eschewed ever since the invasion of Iraq began. Kerry dissected the Government’s strained attempts to pass off the incident as just a case of a department exploring a hypothetical that the Prime Minister rejected while also asserting that Bush would exercise more direct oversight in the future. “Is the Government’s rationale essentially that nothing was wrong, but they still won’t ever do this again?” he asked. Bush, for his part, did himself few favors by beginning with the lamentable turn of phrase: “Look, let me be clear about this – I’m the decider.” Opposition MPs roared in derision, and with that one sentence, late-night comics and satirical websites had their material for the next 24 hours. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart would lead off that night’s episode with a graphic of Bush as comic-book superhero, captioned “THE DECIDER!”

When Pelosi rose to speak, she sounded genuinely exasperated, asking, “How on earth can any functioning Government be drawing up war plans for the invasion of Syria without the Prime Minister even knowing about it? Is the Ministry of Defense now running our foreign policy?” Pelosi’s question aimed at one of the most persistent concerns of the Bush Government’s critics: that the Prime Minister was so removed from the details of policy-making that he could be talked into almost anything by his Cabinet and his advisers.

“I know that the opposition parties have been out of office for a few years now – maybe they’ve forgotten how Cabinet government works,” Bush began. The comment drew some chuckles from the Conservative benches, but taunting the opposition for being out of power is generally seen as boilerplate Question Time 101. “I place a great deal of trust in all Cabinet Ministers to explore the options and present them to me for final decisions, and that’s what happened here.”

When Rumsfeld’s turn at the dispatch box came, he fared little better than his boss, and both Liberal Shadow Defense Minister Ellen Tauscher and Labour Defense Critic Carl Levin forced him into uncharacteristically halting answers. On two occasions, he sought to explain his failure to inform Bush of the war planning process by alluding to how “busy” the Prime Minister was, eliciting some jeers from opposition MPs. Though no knockout blows had been delivered, the general consensus was that the opposition parties were the “winners” of Question Time and that the Government had yet to provide a fully satisfactory explanation of the Syria controversy.

Australian comedians John Clarke and Bryan Dawe, in the midst of one of their three-month tours of the United States, had Rumsfeld square in their sights two days later when they delivered one of their patented faux-interviews on USBC. The Government’s flailing PR about the Syria war plan, as well as one of Rumsfeld’s more unusual quotes from 2002 and his apparent enjoyment of refusing to answer questions dealing with sensitive information, were given the duo’s usual satirical treatment. A transcript of the segment follows.

CLARKE AND DAWE (USBC) – APRIL 17, 2003

BRYAN DAWE: Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, thank you for joining us tonight.

JOHN CLARKE (as Rumsfeld): Thank you Bryan, always happy to be here.

BD: You’ve been in the news quite a bit lately between the invasion of Iraq and this issue of planning for war with Syria –

JC: Yes, Bryan, let me just say before you go any further that people have been overreacting a bit to this issue of Syria. The fact is, as a Cabinet minister, it is my responsibility to plan for a number of contingencies and hypotheticals.

BD: So all of this was just about exploring a hypothetical?

JC: Correct.

BD: But why pursue this particular hypothetical in the middle of two other wars?

JC: Again, Bryan, you must understand the nature of the job. There are things that we know, and there are things that we know that we don’t know, but there are also things that we don’t know that we don’t know – what I call the unknown unknowns. And it’s my responsibility to prepare for all of them.

BD: So you’re saying that the people criticizing you are failing to account for the unknown unknowns?

JC: Exactly.

BD: And what unknown unknowns do you think they’re overlooking?

JC: Well, I don’t know, Bryan. That’s why they’re unknown unknowns. If I knew what they were, they’d be known unknowns.

BD: Do you understand, though, why someone might find “unknown unknowns” to be an insufficient reason for going to war?

JC: It would depend what the unknown unknowns are.

BD: The same unknown unknowns that you yourself can’t identify because they’re unknown?

JC: Of course. What other unknown unknowns would they be?

BD: Now, another issue is that you apparently got pretty far along in this process without informing the Prime Minister. Why didn’t you tell the Prime Minister sooner?

JC: Bryan, the Prime Minister is a very busy man. He’s got Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with, he’s got domestic issues that need his attention. If every single Cabinet minister insisted on sharing every single idea they’ve had, he’d barely have time to ignore his policy briefings.

BD: I’m sorry – did you just say that the Prime Minister ignores his policy briefings?

JC: That’s classified, Bryan.

BD: Your own words from ten seconds ago are classified?

JC: I’ve explained this to the media many times – when a question deals with sensitive information regarding operational security or intelligence, I cannot and will not discuss it in public.

BD: But all I asked was that you repeat what you already said. If that’s classified, then haven’t you already discussed classified information in public?

JC: That's also classified.

BD: All right. At the very least, can you put everyone’s minds at ease and reassure us that the United States will not, in fact, be invading Syria any time soon?

JC: I’m perfectly happy to put that one to rest. As I said, this planning process was simply about considering all the hypotheticals. This Government has no intention of invading Syria as things stand.

BD: Well, that’s good to hear. So have you asked the civil servants in the MoD to draw up war plans against any other countries that you have no intention of invading?

JC: Of course not.

BD: Really? Why not?

JC: Well, they’re very busy, Bryan.

BD: I see. Too busy to do things like draw up war plans that you don’t actually intend to use?

JC: Quite right.

BD: Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, thanks for your time.
 
Last edited:
May 2003: "Mission Accomplished," Biden Speaks Out
EXCERPT FROM:
COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN (MSNBC) – MAY 5, 2003


INTRODUCTORY SEGMENT

[Opening titles display]

KEITH OLBERMANN: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

[CLIP 1: Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld in the House of Commons]

KEITH OLBERMANN: (voice over) The Minister of Defense making a surprisingly definitive announcement about Afghanistan in the House of Commons….

DONALD RUMSFELD: It is our expectation that, from this day forward, the armed forces of the United States will no longer be called upon to carry out large-scale combat missions in the nation of Afghanistan, and that our role and that of our coalition partners will be primarily that of peacekeeping, training of Afghan units, and organizing reconstruction efforts.

[CLIP 2: Prime Minister George W. Bush speaking on board the USS Woodrow Wilson, with a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” in the background]

KEITH OLBERMANN: (voice over) The Prime Minister making a similar announcement about Iraq, this one in a setting very much unlike the House of Commons….

PRIME MINISTER GEORGE W. BUSH: Thanks to the efforts of the brave men and women standing here today, and those of countless others in uniform, I am pleased to say that major American combat operations in Iraq have come to an end.

[CLIP 3: Labour MP Joe Biden speaking to an interviewer outside the House of Commons]

KEITH OLBERMANN: (voice over) Some criticism of the Government’s foreign policy – from a prominent Labour MP who supported the authorization to go to war….

JOE BIDEN: I think it is irresponsible for the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister to be speaking in these terms right now. We are very, very far from the end of the road, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

[CLIP 4: Conservative MP George Voinovich speaking to interviewer Chris Wallace]

KEITH OLBERMANN: (voice over) Possible trouble ahead for the Government’s planned tax cuts as one Conservative MP says he cannot vote for the package as it stands….

GEORGE VOINOVICH: I informed the Chief Whip yesterday that I would not be voting for the tax cut bill in second reading if the estimated cost is above 350 billion dollars. So far, I have not been given any indication that the Government is planning to offer an amendment.

[CLIP 5: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking at a press conference]

KEITH OLBERMANN: (voice over) And finally, a move to federal politics for Rudy Giuliani….

RUDY GIULIANI: Today I informed the chair of the Conservative Party riding association for the seat of Staten Island and Brooklyn Southwest that I will be submitting nomination papers for the next federal election. It would be my privilege to continue to serve the people of New York City in this seat.

[END CLIPS]

KEITH OLBERMANN: Our #5 story tonight, Labour MP Joe Biden – who served as Justice Minister under the Clinton Government and as Labour critic for Foreign Affairs under Dick Gephardt – today had some pointed words regarding the announcements by Prime Minister Bush and Defense Minister Rumsfeld that major U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are, essentially, over. You may remember that Mr. Biden was one of 11 Labour MPs that voted in favor of giving the government authority to go to war in Iraq, and he has been sitting on his party’s backbench ever since Dick Gephardt resigned as leader. Asked for a response to Mr. Biden’s comments, the Deputy Prime Minister had this to say.

[BEGIN CLIP: Deputy Prime Minister Dick Cheney speaking in the lobby of the House of Commons]

DICK CHENEY: Well, I heard about Mr. Biden’s comments. All I can say is that if he thinks we’re somehow not being aggressive *enough* in Afghanistan and Iraq, he’s certainly pretty far afield from the rest of his party.

[END CLIP]

KEITH OLBERMANN: Mr. Biden is with us from Columbia now to discuss his comments and the government’s response. Mr. Biden, thank you for joining us.

[Biden appears via splitscreen]

JOE BIDEN: Glad to be here, Keith.

KEITH OLBERMANN: You heard what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say about your criticisms today – your thoughts?

JOE BIDEN: Well, look, this sort of back-and-forth political point-scoring isn’t what’s important right now. What’s important is that there’s still a lot to be done in both countries. Just last week in Afghanistan, in Zabul province in the southeast, 15 Afghan government troops were killed in combat with rebel fighters. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who have stopped fighting and, I guess, most of them have gone home, but what’s the plan for them now? Who’s going to be responsible for all their armor and weaponry? I mean, it’s been less than a month since Baghdad was captured. And to be sending this kind of message that most of the hard work is over is just not the responsible thing to do right now.

KEITH OLBERMANN: So, to be clear, is your argument with the substance of what the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister said, or more with the timing and the possible unintended message?

JOE BIDEN: It’s both. The reality is that you need the political support back home for efforts like this to be successful. And unfortunately, we probably have not seen the last of American combat casualties in Afghanistan or Iraq, which means that the Government is going to have to explain why our troops are still risking their lives every day when they’ve told people that major combat operations are over. And second, take the attacks in Afghanistan last week that I mentioned. Does anyone think that if we start seeing things like that all the time, our troops won’t end up engaging in combat? We’re just going to sit back and let the Afghans do it?

KEITH OLBERMANN: Now, I’m rarely one to take up Dick Cheney’s cause, but are you, in fact, suggesting that somehow the U.S. military needs to be taking more aggressive tactics, either in Iraq or in Afghanistan?

JOE BIDEN: I hope we don’t have to. Listen, I – my own son serves in the military. He could end up deployed to Iraq any day. So I get it. I understand what this is like for parents and military families all over this country. But ask any military family and they’ll tell you they don’t want sugar-coated happy talk – they want to know what are the risks that their loved ones will be facing and why. All I’m saying is, don’t go parsing things like “major combat operations,” as if there’s any such thing as a “minor” combat operation, and tell us the truth, that we have to win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and that some tough times are still ahead of us.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Obviously, any commentary on Iraq inevitably ends up being seen through the lens of politics. What would you say to those who will suggest that this is really about you putting some political distance between yourself and the Conservative Government in preparation for a Labour Party leadership campaign?

JOE BIDEN: No, that’s got nothing to do with it. First of all, I haven’t decided whether I’m running or not. But in any case, the real policy question for the next Prime Minister isn’t going to be about whether we should have invaded Iraq or not – that decision’s been made and now we have to deal with it. The question is how are we going to stabilize the situation in a way that makes us safe and secure, that does right by the Iraqi people, and that achieves the goals of the War on Terror. Look, I want us to be successful in Iraq. This isn't about taking shots at the Government, this is about what’s best for America.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Joe Biden, thanks for your time.

JOE BIDEN: Thank you, Keith.

KEITH OLBERMANN: We’ll turn now to NBC military analyst, Retired General Barry McCaffrey, and CNBC political writer John Harwood to discuss what we just heard. General, do you think that Joe Biden has a point here about setting the right expectations for the near future in Iraq and Afghanistan?

BARRY MCCAFFREY : I think he’s right about a couple of things. One is that the local Afghan forces aren’t yet ready to take on all the toughest missions when it comes to going after Taliban remnants and other Al-Qaeda sympathizers. They’re still going to need the support of the U.S. forces and the other coalition troops for a while yet. The other is that any long-term security plan for Iraq has to include provisions for the standing army, even if it’s basically non-operational right now. I’m not sure I’d have phrased it as starkly as Mr. Biden did, but I can understand where he's coming from.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Would you imagine some of your former colleagues who are still in the active military might have been cringing a bit at the Prime Minister’s rhetoric today?

BARRY MCCAFFREY : Well, Keith, the responsibility of every active-duty officer is to carry out their orders in coordination with the Ministry of Defense. It’s not their place to be criticizing the civilian government, so I’m certainly not going to speak for them, especially when they’re commanding our men and women on the ground in Iraq. I would just say that any Government that takes the nation to war should be clear and realistic about what that means, both for the members of the military and for the American public at large.

KEITH OLBERMANN: John, what about the political side to this? Was that the opening salvo of the Biden Labour leadership campaign?

JOHN HARWOOD: I don’t know if it was or it wasn’t, but I do think it was a preview of the sort of rhetoric we might hear if Joe Biden, or one of the other Labour MPs who voted to authorize the war, ends up running for the leadership. That is, the decision to go to war is over with, and now we have to concentrate on stabilizing Iraq instead of re-litigating the vote from last year. But don’t forget that it’s been less than a year since Dick Gephardt quit because he didn’t think it was viable for Labour to have a pro-war leader, and if anything, the opposition to the war has grown even stronger among the party’s grassroots.

[END EXCERPT]
 
Last edited:
June 2003: Labour's Reluctant Standard-Bearers


Excerpt from Hard Labour: The Labour Party in Opposition
By Michael Gibbs, Political Analyst, New York Daily Record

It was the afternoon of June 4, and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama were having a somewhat unusual conversation: each of them was trying to convince the other to run for the leadership of the Labour Party.

For Pelosi, the calculus was simple. She’d stepped into the role of Interim Leader by default when Dick Gephardt, yielding to the party’s largely anti-war mood, had resigned, but even after accepting the job as Gephardt’s deputy in 1998, she’d never really envisioned herself at the top of the Labour hierarchy. Though she’d performed competently enough and satisfied the party base’s desire for firm opposition to the Bush Government, she freely admitted that she wasn’t sure she had the burning ambition necessary for a run at the nation’s top office. And with war and terrorism likely to dominate next year’s election, she knew she’d be weathering plenty of subtly sexist insinuations that she wasn’t “tough” enough to defend the country.

At the same time, she wasn’t especially impressed by the others known to be eyeing the position. Joe Biden was an experienced MP and former Cabinet Minister who demonstrated a natural rapport with voters (albeit one tinged by the occasional bizarre gaffe), but his vote in favor of authorizing the Iraq War would mean trouble with the riding associations and vulnerability to the Greens among staunch anti-war voters. Paul Wellstone was likely destined for the early exit that typically awaited the candidate of the hard left. As for John Edwards, Pelosi spoke for many of her parliamentary colleagues when she stated to a confidant that “I’m just not sure the substance is there under the style with John.”

Obama looked like a potential solution on several fronts. Like most Labour MPs, he had genuinely opposed the Iraq War and voted against authorizing it in Parliament. Anyone who spoke to him for more than a few minutes could easily see that the substance was there under the style. He sat comfortably in the party’s ideological center on most issues, and as the party’s Health and Social Services critic, he’d developed detailed policies to make private health insurance more affordable and comprehensive. And thanks to the party conference of 2000, he was something of a national figure despite his brief tenure on the federal scene.

***

Few moments are as iconic in Labour Party history as the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Though a broadly pro-civil rights consensus had emerged among the leadership of all three parties, it was still the government of Labour Prime Minister John F. Kennedy that completed the negotiations reflecting that consensus and shepherded the bill into law in the summer of 1965. After suffering two health crises in the past two years, Kennedy had announced that he would step down at the end of the parliamentary session, and the bill was the final item of business for the House of Commons before its adjournment.

“Mr. Speaker, a little over a hundred years ago, Mr. Seward, Mr. Fillmore, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Lincoln stood on a platform, not far from where we gather today, to proclaim the Free Dominion of United States of America,” Kennedy had begun when he rose to speak in the House of Commons. “They declared the guiding principles of our nation to be justice, welfare, and liberty.”

“And yet, if those men stood among us today, they might rightfully say that we have yet to realize their vision in its entirety. Too often, justice has been supplanted by the manipulation of our judiciary to favor the white man over all others. Too often, welfare has been measured out based on racial differences, rather than upheld as the birthright of every American. And too often, liberty has meant not the liberty of every individual, but the liberty of one man to oppress another based on the color of his skin.”

Kennedy proceeded to recount all the ways in which American institutions had failed to uphold racial equality after the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833: incidents of mob justice against African-Americans, segregation laws in numerous Southern states, routine discrimination in hiring practices, the legacy of anti-miscegenation laws, and the efforts of political party officials to deny African-Americans the right to vote or otherwise bar them from political participation.

“Mr. Speaker, this is the last speech I will ever give in this place, and I have no doubt that it is also the most important. Because today, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we will finally become the nation of justice, welfare, and liberty that we were always meant to be,” Kennedy concluded. MPs from all parties, including opposition leader Everett Dirksen and most of his front bench, rose in applause as Kennedy stepped back from the dispatch box, though some southern Tories and a few renegade Labourites remained defiantly seated. When the applause died down, members filed into the Division Lobby, and fifteen minutes later, Speaker Ralph Yarborough announced that the Civil Rights Act had passed by a vote of 388-48.

(In a break from custom that historians speculate may have been unique in parliamentary history, Yarborough descended from the Speaker’s chair to line up with the Ayes. By custom, if not by law, a Speaker never enters the division lobby and only casts a vote if a tie results.)

***

As the 2000 election approached, Labour were preparing to commemorate the act’s 35th anniversary at their upcoming party conference. The keynote speaker would be Atlanta-Fulton MP John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights movement. But it was partly at Lewis’s urging that then-leader Dick Gephardt and his conference organizing committee approached Obama, then an up-and-coming “star candidate” and member of the Illinois Legislative Assembly, about giving the speech immediately preceding Lewis’s. Gephardt and Lewis both thought that Obama, with his mixed-race background and childhood in places as far as Hawaii and Indonesia, was ideally positioned to deliver the message that they wanted.

Politics in the Illinois Legislative Assembly at the time were dominated by the political machine of Labour Premier Michael Madigan, who had been in power since 1986, and Obama emerged in the mid-90s as a leader of the “young Turks” faction of Labour MLAs urging Madigan to reform the state civil service. It was a testament to Obama’s determination and intelligence that Madigan eventually appointed him Minister for Governmental Affairs, a position he used to introduce sweeping new accountability and transparency measures. His good government credentials and oratorical skills had caught the attention of Labour’s National Executive Board, who recruited him to run for the open and safe Labour seat of Chicago Central.

While Obama’s impending ascension to federal parliament was never in any real doubt, he was nonetheless surprised when Gephardt and Lewis contacted him about the speaking slot. “Are you sure I’m the right person to be giving a speech like this?” he asked them. “I mean, I haven’t even made it to parliament yet. I was four years old when the Civil Rights Act passed. I spent part of my childhood in Indonesia.”

“That’s why we want your perspective,” Lewis told him. “We want you to talk about both the opportunities and the challenges for minorities growing up in the era after the Civil Rights Act. And I’ve read some of your speeches and writings – your experience could resonate with immigrant communities in some ways too.”

Obama promptly got to work, weaving a personal narrative that acknowledged the discrimination and bias that African-Americans and other minorities still faced, while celebrating the country’s increasing acceptance of diversity and the common values that – he hoped, at least – united its citizens across political and racial lines. In Obama’s view, America, despite all its problems, was a country where “thanks to men like Martin Luther King, and John Lewis, and John F. Kennedy, even a skinny kid with a funny name like Barack Obama can stand on a stage like this and find a place in our nation’s public life.” Though confident of his talents as a speechwriter, Obama still held some doubts that he was striking the right tone – he was acutely aware that the civil rights leaders to whom he was paying tribute had faced struggles far greater than he ever had.

If those doubts hadn’t been put to rest by Lewis’s e-mail response to the draft (“Don’t change a word,” the veteran MP had said), they likely were by the time he reached the end of his speech and the Labour conference faithful rose to their feet for a two-minute standing ovation. Obama’s style had never been “folksy,” but he possessed a sort of cerebral charisma that made him especially effective when delivering this sort of complex but uplifting and optimistic message. “It’s one thing to fire up a crowd,” Joe Biden would later comment, “but it’s another to inspire them. Barack inspired people that day.”

Obama knew he’d hit a home run with the speech – he was in almost as much demand for interviews after the party conference as then-leader Dick Gephardt – but he’d seen enough media sensations come and go to know that this bubble could burst any minute. “All I did was give a speech,” he told his campaign staff when he returned to an exuberant welcome back in Chicago. “I’m going to have to do a lot more than that to be a good MP.”

***

Nearly three years later, Obama still wasn’t sure if he’d truly arrived as one of Labour’s heavy hitters or if that bubble just hadn’t burst yet. While he’d quickly ascended to Gephardt’s front bench only a year after the election, he was still learning how federal politics worked, and in some ways he was grateful to have his primary responsibilities limited to the Health and Social Services portfolio. The party faithful loved him, and his policy work had gotten good reviews, but he regarded himself as having traversed only part of a steep learning curve.

“You realize I have basically zero foreign policy credentials,” he said to Pelosi at their meeting.

“You had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War,” she countered.

“So did eighty-three other Labour MPs,” replied Obama. “Besides, do you really think that the country is ready to elect a black Prime Minister?”

“Do you think they’re ready to elect a female Prime Minister?” said Pelosi. “Look, I understand your doubts. But Joe was right when he said that you inspired people with that speech at the conference. People will give an inspiring leader much more benefit of the doubt than they would most politicians.”

“I’m not sure inspiration is what people want in the middle of two wars,” Obama replied. “‘Solid and steady’ may be a better bet, and you’ve been that ever since Dick stepped down.”

“You know they’ll come after me with the whole ‘San Francisco radical feminist,’ not-tough-enough line.”

“Sure, but the American people have gotten to know you. I don’t think they’ll buy into that kind of pigeon-holing rhetoric.”

“I’m not so sure, and even then, I still think you would be the stronger candidate. We have to have a leader who can unite the party. Joe [Biden] is going to have trouble in the riding associations, and Paul [Wellstone] is going to have trouble everywhere but the riding assocations, and I don’t see John Edwards as the guy to thread that needle.”

Obama shared Pelosi’s dim view of a potential Biden-Wellstone-Edwards race, and he agreed to give it some thought, spending the next few days consulting with his closest political allies and his family. Labour Finance Critic Richard Durbin was all in favor, telling him, “What do you have to gain by waiting? Five, ten years of political baggage that they can use against you later?” His wife Michelle was less enthusiastic at first but seemed to come around to the idea after a talk with Obama’s chief of staff David Axelrod. As for Axelrod himself, he had no objection to the idea intellectually: he saw a clear path to the leadership for Obama and thought that the 2004 election would be competitive despite the Conservative poll lead at the time. But like Pelosi, he believed that “fire in the belly” was a necessary ingredient and wasn’t sure his boss was quite there yet.

Several days later, Pelosi was in her office conferring with two of her closest parliamentary allies, fellow Bay Area MP George Miller and Western Pennsylvania MP Jack Murtha. The three of them had met to discuss other possible “unity candidates” in the event that both she and Obama were to sit the race out, but the pickings appeared slim. Durbin had already ruled himself out, as had Iowa’s Tom Harkin, and the three of them had also gotten a pretty firm “no” when they approached Wayne County MP and Defense Critic Carl Levin.

As reluctant was she was, Pelosi had dedicated her life to the Labour Party and shared the view put forth by Miller and Murtha (and, indirectly, by Obama) that she was a more viable leader and potential Prime Minister than Biden, Wellstone, or Edwards. If Obama opted out, she would be a good soldier and run. The conversation had just about reached its conclusion – that there were no other viable alternatives – when the phone rang.

“Hello?” Pelosi answered. “Barack – good to hear from you.”

Miller and Murtha watched their boss’s expression assume her standard “I’m disappointed but I’m not going to get wound up about it” look as she exchanged a few brief words with Obama before hanging up.

“Well,” she said. “I guess we’re doing this.”
 
Last edited:
Top