The Demma Dilemma

[welshTerrier2]

One wonders just how much stretching the fabric in the "big tent" can withstand. Prior to November, it was a bit easier. We were all "anti-bush". Regardless of what positions Democrats took, their influence was minimal. Their bills couldn't even make it to the floor for a vote. This is not to say that even out of power there wasn't an important role for Dems to play. The job then was educating the public. The job now is defining and implementing policy. Of course, even now, the Dems are subject to filibusters and vetoes.

Differing values and beliefs and policies are nothing new for Democrats but the intensity of these differences has been magnified a thousand fold because of the war and also because of bush's right-wing extremism. The "progressive wing of the Democratic Party" wants aggressive action and major reforms; the Clinton wing of the Party wants to get Hillary elected and will do all they can to stifle the progressive wing. For them, electoral politics trumps policy concerns everytime. For me, we need to strike a balance between electoral politics and policy concerns. We cannot have one without the other. Period!

The article below discusses the polarizing effects of the war within the Party. It's interesting to note that it almost completely ignores the policy considerations in Iraq. It does not concern itself with what is possible or what is moral or what is in the country's best interest; it only looks at the politics. Well, I guess that's OK for a single article. In this post, I hope to resolve the Great Democratic Party Dilemma by offering a bit of a compromise. I wouldn't be surprised if no one likes the idea. We're all so polarized that ideas like the following don't seem very prominent in the public discourse.

Having said that, let's get to it. I was strongly opposed to this damned war long before it began. It was worse than shocking to see leading Democrats believe bush was going to do anything but go to war. I wrote and called and did all I could to get people to understand that toppling Saddam was going to create a huge "power vacuum" in the Middle East. Could others not see that? Whether Saddam had WMD or not, the risks created by destabilizing the entire region were much more severe. We really could be facing a region-wide war or possibly even a "world war" because of the US invasion. How could leading Democrats not have seen that? How could they have believed anything other than the fact that Saddam was totally "contained". He was a paper tiger. His military was an empty shell. His country was nearly bankrupt. The huge benefit he offered the US was that he kept the Iranians in check. It's not about beating up on Democrats who voted for the IWR (at least not in this post); it's just unbelievable to me that any of them actually did. The debate shouldn't have been about how to ensure that bush would go to the UN. Democrats should have understood bush was perfectly happy going to the UN because, regardless of what they said or did, doing so was just more cover for the bush administration. "See, we did everything we could to go through channels but Saddam has to be stopped." Pushing bush to the UN accomplished absolutely nothing. It just added more support for his script which was all about taking the country to war from the first day he took office.

So, Democrats, what now? Let's talk politics and policy. My position has always been, and still is, that we should get the hell out of Iraq as quickly as troop safety permits. Total withdrawal could be achieved under these guidelines in 3 to 6 months. That's my personal view. Clearly, Democratic leaders have to contend with a wide array of issues. First, many in the conservative Clinton wing of the Party would never get on board with my "personal view". If Democrats called for that kind of withdrawal program, too many would see it as a risk to Hillary's candidacy. All they think about is winning. Period. So, regardless of my preference, the Dems couldn't even get enough votes from other Democrats to effect the changes I would like to see. And it's certainly clear they'll get almost no support from the republicans or from bush. So, my view ain't going to happen.

And then we get all the stuff about not leaving too soon and not cutting off funding and "regional diplomacy". This is the Party's "mushy middle". You get your Kerry's and your Clark's and lots of Democrats who consider themselves to be in the "pragmatic wing of the progressive wing". They view these strategies not so much from a politically pragmatic perspecitve (how's that for alliteration?) but focus on a genuine concern for getting the policy right. I respect them; I disagree with them.

And finally, we get the Clinton conservative wing of the Party. It's almost not right to call this the conservative wing because ideology and values and beliefs are not even on their radar. The marketing department is concerned with how to sell their product. They have a job to do and that's that. All this talk about the right policy just gets in their way. It's truly a tragic business they're in. Let's hope voters are able to see it for what it is.

OK. So, that's my snapshot of where the Party is at regarding Iraq. What should we do to balance policy with politics? Again, my view is that we need both pieces to choose the right path. Which brings me to my "solution". I call it that but, of course, it's not really a solution at all. It's an unfortunate compromise to build some harmony in the Party.

I have been very supportive of the latest "non-binding" stuff Democrats have pushed. Would I have loved to see an immediate cutoff of funds without all this non-binding "posturing"? Absolutely. It would have been the RIGHT POLICY. The reality is they can't even get a vote on the non-binding stuff in the Senate. As the article below describes, and we see so much of it here on DU, the big tent is a-straining. This is not some minor difference of opinion; it goes to the heart of who we are as Democrats and what we can reasonably expect from our Party. Don't be naive by believing that missteps in dealing with the war couldn't do serious damage to the Party. It could and leaders like Dean, Reid and Pelosi are more than aware it could.

The "solution", in my view, is to balance what's possible with a very loud and clear statement of our values and beliefs as progressives. What we in the progressive wing of the Party want, and those anti-war voters who are no longer Democrats want, and what is in the country's best interest in our view, is just not feasible politically. That's the bad news. What is feasible, however, is a very clear articulation by leading Democrats of why we, and hopefully they, believe that remaining in Iraq makes absolutely ZERO sense. The compromise is that we cannot hold them to the standard of cutting off funding. I can't tell you how sorry I am to come to this perspective. I support the idea completely but it's just not feasible.

So, in seeking "the next best thing", we should demand of Democrats that they articulate all the reasons for ending the war. They should point out the abuses of the oil industry and other mega-contractors in Iraq. They should explain to the American people that "training the Iraqi troops" is no longer a reason for staying there. As Kerry pointed out, we've trained 300,000 of their troops. We've trained the very militias that are causing most of the problems we now see. How many more militia do we plan to train before we leave? It makes ZERO sense. Now there are reports that the Saudis have been funding and supporting the Sunnis in Iraq. Are we going to invade Saudi Arabia? We hear charges of Iranian weapons in Iraq. Well, aren't there US weapons in Iraq? Haven't we trained far more of these militia than the Iranians could ever hope to?

The Great Democratic Dilemma is very real. The left is very, very angry at the Party and frankly I understand it completely. To heal the great divide, Democrats need to find a way to start addressing the concerns of the anti-war left. Blocking the surge (have they?) or doing all these little things about "no more funding unless the troops get better equipment" is fine but it is nowhere close to sufficient. Nowhere close. In the end, you can't get water from a filibuster or a veto. And accepting crushing political damage for something that is ultimately not feasible doesn't make much sense. BUT, and it's a really big BUT, Democrats are not even close to doing what they need to be doing to point the country in the right direction, end the war, and speak out to the Party's progressive wing. If the defense is "give them time; they just got there", I'm fine with that for now. I'm not fine with that for long, however. If Democrats choose to not cutoff funding, they better start explaining to Americans why there is nothing left for the military to do in Iraq. NOTHING! Let's hear Democrats start telling that to the American people. When asked about why they don't just push for a funding cutoff, the unfortunate answer has to be that it is just not viable at this time. The party's job is to start a national dialog that will change that perspective. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath or holding out much hope they'll do it. But if a blend of good policy and good politics is the goal; that's the only path I see.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq_risks_3

Democrats face a host of risks as they move toward more substantive steps to tie President Bush's hands with funding restrictions on the Iraq war. Leaders are wary of allowing the more intense anti-war activists to define the party's image. Simmering divisions within the ranks over how soon to move — and how far to go — could quickly diminish a tactical victory this week on a resolution criticizing Bush's conduct of the war. "There are those in our caucus who would rather we not do anything, and there will be people who want to see us extricate ourselves overnight. We'll have to balance those interests," said Rep. James Clyburn (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, House Democrats' chief vote-counter. "We're not going to sit anybody out, but we will have to decide how to weigh those things." <skip>

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a "very clear point" this week by putting the House on record against Bush's troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking to cut off funding or limit deployments right away. "They don't want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration's failures," Frost said. "This is Bush's war, and there should be no confusion about whose war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done to them." Frost said he did not want to "prejudge" Murtha's effort to restrict funds, but cautioned that Democrats should not yield to intense pressure by outside anti-war groups for swift action to end the conflict. <skip>

Most Democrats say there are more opportunities than risks for their party in the Iraq debate, arguing that the public supports their push to change the course of the war and impose more accountability on Bush's handling of it. "There are many more risks for Republicans," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., the head of his party's campaign committee. "On the whole, the Democratic Party is doing what America wants."

Privately, however, some Democrats concede they will have to steer a careful course to avoid being demonized and divided on Iraq.

"There's tension between those who want to end the war immediately and cut off funding and those who aren't there," one senior House official said. As for Murtha's proposal to use benchmarks to control war spending, lawmakers are "getting there," the official said. "I'm not sure they're there yet."