I'll get right to the point. I share the disappointment that is rife around here regarding the inability of the democratic party in Congress to stand up to Bush over the war in Iraq. But I do not share in the pessimism, nor do I intend to abandon the democratic party. I strongly encourage all progressives to take a deep breath, and consider the following observations below the fold.
- One of the lessons of Vietnam is that it takes a long time to end even an obviously failing war when the executive branch and the Congress are controlled by different parties. Consider that our military commitment to Vietnam was not defunded until 1974, when the democrats in the 93rd Congress held a 56-42 advantage in the Senate and a 242-192 advantage in the House.
- In my view, the leadership's biggest mistake was in driving up expectations. Because the truth is, we didn't have the votes and we won't have them unless we get them in the next election. I think if the leadership had been a bit more careful about all the tough talk, we would not have nearly the gnashing of teeth and renting of clothing that is going on here. I try to remind myself that in the wake of the election last fall I was most excited by the fact that democratic oversight would begin to expose for all to see the corruption and utter lawlessness of this administration. And in fact, that is happening on a grand scale, despite Bushco's stonewalling and claims of executive privilege.
- The leadership could have strung the Defense Supplemental out, it could have returned, again and again, to the original bill, or a bill with a short time frame, or a streamlined bill -- it could even have said, "we refuse to set up an arbitrary deadline for this important issue, and so we will wait until after the holiday recess and take this up again" (my personal favorite) -- the result would have been the same. No bill would have mustered a veto-proof majority, and Bush would have vetoed it. He does not care.
- We must remember that in the event of such a stalemate, Bush has certain other advantages. The same president who has successfully kept military funerals and flag-covered caskets out of the media can easily reverse course in the wake of a budget stand-off. Do not underestimate the ability of FOX and the other MSM lapdogs to proclaim that this is the result of democratic "intransigence" on the issue of Iraq. Do not underestimate this administration's willingness to manufacture, publicize and politicize every little incident that plays on popular fears of the 'islamofascist' peril.
- Conversely, I do not believe that a majority of the american public would necessarily appreciate a stand on principle by the democratic party. I think many of us here misread the results of the last election when we say the country wants to see the democrats stand up to Bush on this issue.
- Our victory in the last election, though fairly widespread, was in many places very thin. I do not subscribe to the belief that this thin victory was evidence of a mandate on the Iraq war, any more than I believed Bush's assertions in 2004 that he had a mandate to govern based on his thin electoral theft. Perhaps our recently elected senators should have shown more backbone -- they have another 5 years to go before the next election. But our representatives must face their constituents every 2 years, and public sentiment on Iraq is far from settled.
- I have believed for some time that by the time we get to the primaries, public sentiment on Iraq will be so clear that no serious contender will be speaking of anything other than withdrawal. Is further delay therefore jusitified? No. But the end of our involvement is approaching, and the efforts of progressives will ultimately be successful. If this is correct, however, it likely means that the next election will be fought over other issues, and these will be issues that most of us here feel very deeply about. I personally believe that sentiment in this country is so negative on so many fronts, that the democratic party has an opportunity for an electoral victory in 2008 that is reminiscent of 1980.
- Which brings me to the point that is most important to me. I do not agree with those who say that Iraq is the overriding issue, moral or political, of our time. Iraq is a symptom of a much more serious and potentially devastating problem. And that is the perhaps irreversible destruction of our constitutional system of government.
We have had many wars and national disasters -- all of them terrible to endure and seemingly insoluble. We have survived them. But we have had one constitution and one general consensus about how our government is to operate for over 200 years, and we are in serious danger of losing both of those in one fell swoop.
In my view, the moral and political issue of our time is whether we will succumb to a political party that believes in the exercise of pure, unadulterated power; that believes the executive is limited by no earthly power, but on the contrary, bases policy on the imagined desires of such unearthly authority; that believes that government exists to control all of the social and cultural relationships of its citizens; and that believes that war is always a readily available political tool.
If we lose sight of how it is we came to be in Iraq, then we will ultimately have much more than Iraq to regret.