Well, if Dems are opting for simplistic slogans in lieu of actual policy, it might be because they're imitating the current administration and the RNC-- the model worked pretty well up until last November, and the way the word "surge" is being massaged, marketed and spun doesn't make it appear even those elections changed much. (And whoever came up with those tiny phrases repeated on a blue background needs to be beaten, IMHO.) With "message control" (and its dark twin, "party discipline") being the new Holy Grail of American politics, I'm not entirely certain I would ever know what the Democratic leadership really thinks about this move. Heck, who knows how much arm twisting went on behind doors to get Republicans to sign on for this? I doubt it will come out until a month, maybe a year, later just how much opposition was suppressed on the Republican side.* I'd like to see free range legislators become more common inside the Beltway, but don't expect much for the next five years, at least.
In any case, I'm not really sure how much else the opposition party can be expected to do in this situation. Their intelligence sources will, almost by definition, be worse than what the president sees-- and any secret negotiations between the heads of state involved (sometimes the most important factor in a policy decision) won't be part of any plans. Even worse, a well articulated, comprehensive plan might well be considered an opportunity for interested foreign powers to try and sway domestic politics, either by covertly backing the mouthpiece of the new plan, or (less likely) openly negotiating with them to see about changing the course of US policy. Hyperbole, perhaps, but then again divide and conquer is one of the oldest strategies in the book.
Yet there is widespread, possibly even majority, opposition in the US to the way the occupation is being handled, and good reason to believe that a partial withdrawal is the desired direction. What tools are at hand for an opposition party dealing with a lame duck president? Cutting funding is a very drastic step, and a bad precedent, disastrous even, to set in the middle of a conflict anyway. Impeachment? Even worse. The only way open is politics, as I see it: applying pressure to the president's party, whose members are up for reelection, in the hope that the unpopular proposal might get changed.
You may disagree, but I believe the Democrats have (mostly) kept a sense of proportion about the whole mess. The US isn't going to be conquered as a result of Iraq, nor bankrupted, and combat losses, as I think you've noted, have been fairly light. If you think of this as a policy matter, then, rather than a matter of life or death situation~, dueling speeches on the floor or for the cameras is about as far as opposition should go. Sure, hearing dumb slogans repeated endlessly may be infuriating, but again, I blame Karl Rove for that.
*Lincoln Chafee was safely out of power by the time this proposal was finally revealed, for example. Would someone who very publicly nixed the Bolton nomination for good be quiet if he disagreed?
~I'd consider counter-terrorism a far more serious issue. Note that the Democrats have been far less vocal on this matter, largely IMO because the administration is largely uninterested in the matter, and hence has nothing to oppose on the table. This is where Democrats could actually show some leadership, and whether they do or not should be closely watched over the next two years. I'm not holding my breath.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
12
 11
|
Re: Sincere Flattery
Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:34 AM EST
|
In any case, I'm not really sure how much else the opposition party can be expected to do in this situation.
Did you miss the last election results, uncarved? The Democrats are no longer the "opposition party". They are the majority party, by virtue of winning control of both Congressional houses.
14
12
|
No, I Didn't
Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:31 PM EST
|
By meant opposition in the partisan sense. Yes, the Dems may now be the majority in the Legislative branch, but there's still a duly elected Executive representative as Commander in Chief. I was going to add tonight (thanks for the kick in the butt) that I'm also really not sure what options the Republicans have either, if their party leader refuses to let the "soft" pressure of an upcoming loss at the polls change his mind. Yes, they could join in and cut funding*, but to reiterate my first post, I believe that would set a terrible precedent-- the yes or no vote should come before military action starts (see: tough talk with Iran, 2007), and after that I agree with the cliche that politics should end at the border, for the most part. An ideal not always met, but still worth holding on to IMHO.
What do you think is the proper range of dissent without challenging the constitutional balance of powers? I'm trying to be moderate here-- the screeching liberals already know what the answer is (impeachment, and maybe a lynching), but I don't think I fit the bill. (Feel free to disagree.) What options are open that won't do more damage to the Republic, in the long run, than an expensive but otherwise negligible occupation of a foreign state? If we can find some common ground over what can be done, maybe it will help us discuss what could be done.
*Which may not be that easy. Are we still technically "at war" with Iraq? The regime has fallen and been replaced, and its dictator is dead. Does this give the Congress more or less power over the funding of the troops currently deployed? I may be wrong, but AFAIK the Congress has never had much say over military deployment in places like the DMZ, though that doesn't mean they couldn't, I guess.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
