In the whole period preceding the vote in Congress, the leaders of the 73-member caucus sharply criticized the bill being pushed by the Democratic leadership, and pledged to vote against it. This reflected the major pressure from their electoral base and the antiwar movement that many Democrats were under to oppose any further funding for the brutal disaster in Iraq.

Caucus leader Maxine Waters correctly pointed out that the Iraq war funding bill was not the antiwar stand claimed by the party leadership or media. In an interview, she stated: “We just voted a non-binding resolution that said we do not support the surge or the expansion, and now we're going to fund it?” (Fox News, 3/11/07).

Yet on the eve of the vote in Congress, the leaders of the Out of Iraq caucus completely reversed their position. Under intense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party bosses, they broke a pact they had made to vote against the bill and gave their blessing to caucus members to vote for it. Waters explained this by saying “we told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership.” (Washington Post, 3/23/07)

The funding bill barely passed with 218 votes. The Out of Iraq caucus could have voted to defeat it, exposing the pro-war character of the bill and making a stand against the occupation and the pro-war Democratic Party leadership.

Instead, of the 73 supposed antiwar representatives in the caucus, only seven voted against the bill, and these seven knew their votes would not affect the bill’s passage .

The vote revealed the deep cowardice and extreme political limitations of the “left” Democratic politicians. While the corporate-sponsored, right-wing Democrats who support funding the war refused to compromise, the “progressives” again demonstrated their willingness to loyally bow their heads when the Party leadership demands it.

A telling example is Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison. Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress, and won a tight primary race based on support from the antiwar movement. His pledge that he would never vote for more funds for the Iraq war was crucial to his victory.

But when the first test came, Ellison broke his promise and voted for war funding. This triggered a wave of anger among local antiwar activists. One well-known antiwar activist, who won a “best district volunteer” award for his work on Ellison’s campaign, published a widely-circulated letter apologizing to everyone he had convinced to support Ellison, saying “we… provided the very backbone of his campaign… we trusted him, but we were mistaken.”

After the vote, Ellison defended his decision, stating “it is more different to govern than it is to be in the opposition.” (Pulse, 4/18/07) But in whose interests are they governing? Now that the Democrats are in power and have the opportunity to cut off funding for the war, they have instead decided to “govern” in support of the war.

This shows the role of “left-wing” and “progressive” politicians like Ellison, who help funnel movements like the antiwar movement into the dead end of the Democratic Party by providing the right-wing Party leadership a left-wing face. Again and again, the Democratic Party has co-opted and demobilized mass movements, diverting anger into safe channels that do not threaten the interests of the ruling class.

If Keith Ellison, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich and others were really interested in stopping the war and bringing about radical social change, they would break from the Democrats and run independent campaigns to help form a new party that represents the millions, not the millionaires.

Unfortunately, past performance makes it unlikely these politicians will take this necessary step. The antiwar movement can’t rely on the Democratic Party to represent us. The movement needs to work to build an antiwar, anti-corporate political alternative to the two parties of imperialism, war, and greed. In 2008 and beyond, we need to organize campaigns of truly progressive independent candidates who will take a real stand against the war and mobilize mass opposition in the streets.