I’ve gotten to the point where I think one of the biggest obstacles to ending the war is the incredible, booming, popularity of the Democratic Party. You’d never know that the Democratic Party is stunningly popular if you restricted yourself to looking at congressional approval numbers and talking to progressive activists. But it’s true, nonetheless.
Rasmussen Reports. 9/4. Likely voters. MoE 4% (8/1 results)
Generic congressional ballot
Democrats 50 (47)
Republicans 32 (37)
It’s not just that stunning generic ballot margin. For the first time ever, the Dems are outraising the Republicans. The longer the war goes on, the more people hate Bush and hate Bush’s party. But, at some point, you say, the people will begin blaming the Democrats for the war and this advantage will disappear. Perhaps, but it is far riskier to force an end to the war over the objections of the President and his party. Then we’ll have ownership over the consequences…which will not be pretty.
The Dems are reluctant to end this war because there is not enough political upside to it. The status quo is a bonanza. Self-described moderates consider the Democrats in Congress to be moderate (52%), while they consider the Republicans to be conservative (51%). Combine this with staggering new numbers that show young people and Hispanics are more and more identifying with the Democratic Party, and you can see the makings of a supermajority ruling party. Why risk screwing this up?
The answer is, of course, that ending this war is the right thing to do…morally, financially, and militarily. And that means, ultimately, that it is the right thing to do politically.
“The Dems are reluctant to end this war because there is not enough political upside to it. “
The Dems are reluctant to end this war because there is not enough will to do it, regardless of political consequence. This is because while a few party members have talked the talk, the leadership has no intention of walking the walk. Their job is to keep people from bolting the 2 parties while continuing the policy of Stalemate and Occupation. Add little political upside to that and it’s a no brainer that progress will be slow if anything good happens at all.
While there are definitely more individuals in the Democratic party that are correct on the war, the party as a whole shares far more policy objectives with the GOP than anyone will ever admit.
Before the Democrats get their supermajority, they have to (quietly) reform themselves. Time to make a few DLC folks disappear one way or another.
You might be right, but I am not so sure. The more analysis I do, the more bright things look for the Dems. It seems like a perfect storm where all kinds of little things are conspiring to kill of the Republican Party. It’s Bush, the war, demographic changes, the age of key politicians, the enormous strength of Democratic recruitment, Wall Street’s change of heart, corruption and perversion scandals, the netroots…
Looking forward, the Republicans look leaderless and rudderless. And they have so few prospects. Their ideas have either been tried or revealed as worthless rhetoric. Last night a room of 29 Republican primary voters universally panned ALL the Republican presidential candidates’ performance in the debate. It just looks damn ugly and I’m not sure the Democrats can screw this up.
It is definitely consistent with Stalemate and Occupation objectives that the Democrats resoundingly punish the GOP for what they have done (rehabilitates US image abroad) while finding more ‘friendly’ justifications for staying on as long as possible. Holding the Iraqi citizenry hostage will work for a few more Friedman Units(Impending Genocide justification).
In 1969 it was a Bush who told the UN that the official US policy in Israel was peace. The reality was a policy of Stalemate and Occupation. Ever since then, once the ‘map’ was laid out, it’s been a debate between Occupy and Settle and Stalemate and Occupy. Peace has never been a real option. Same stuff different era, different place.
We broke it, we bought it. As long as we end up owning it, I guess the ends justify the means.
No matter what, we’re going to have a smaller footprint in Iraq. That’s driven off of the staggering cost of the occupation and the size of the military. Unless we have a draft we can’t fix the latter problem, and a draft only exacerbates the former problem.
It’s a total loss.
Only if you look at the balance sheet for the government. If you look at the balance sheets of the energy companies and military industrial complex contractors, this thing is a fantastic success and the longer things go on with maximum chaos, the longer the maximum profits persist.
It’s all a matter of how you define ‘America’..
Socialize the cost and Privatize the benefits.
All in all, a fair assessment, although I see little to gloat about: if Hillary is elected president, for instance, she will never give up our megabases in Iraq, will restore few or any of our civil liberties, and will do nothing to scale back the Imperial Presidency.
Also, being considered to be the lesser evil by most people does not exactly make you popular.
i have to agree with this.
she’ll be the first woman imperial president. she’s a neo-liberal interventionist and nothing i’ve seen from her indicates that she’ll in anyway give up the drives of Empire. but let’s face it, it’s certainly bigger than just one person, though i do think the public is growing very weary of all this war and mongering that’s busting the US treasury and bankrupting the nation.
and the point about civil liberties, it’s not like the democrats have been very much in opposition to the steady wearing away of the liberties, in fact they’ve jump on that ship again and again with this phony patriot act s..t
it seems to me like the republicans continue to set much of the agenda and get their way. (they certianly seem to still have the mainstream media in their pockets) what makes you think that adding a few more blue dog dems is going to bring an end to this war or magically restore civil liberties or god forbid that the US actually do something about global warming, which so few talk about except good old Al.
color me skeptical about the up side of a democrat like clinton as pres or a bigger majority in congress…..
you notice too that it’s the courts which have been helping to restore some civil liberties, or at least put a stop to many of the abuses of the phony ‘national security’ rationale of national security letters, fisa, etc etc.
the Dems have been worse than useless, in fact they’ve been enablers and complicitous. they don’t even filibuster these major setbacks to our civil liberties. not once!!
The Dems are reluctant to end this war because there is not enough political upside to it.
maybe you’re right. maybe some dems have done that political calculous. but i also thinks some of the resistance to the anti-war movement is, for lack of a better word, cultural.
despite all the polls, the results of the 2006 election, etc. i think it still hasn’t completely sunk in among the democrats in congress the depth and breadth of opposition to this war. they’re in the washington bubble, where the initial war mania was even stronger and more comprehensive than it was in other parts of the country. the democratic leadership can’t seem to shake the impression–or at least their perceived impression–of the mood of the country back then.
the culture in washington is an inherently pro-iraq war culture. it’s hard for them to see past that. and, as a result, it’s made them profoundly disconnected with the overwhelming mood of the country. no matter how many times we hit them over the head, they just don’t seem to ever get it.
I agree with that. The culture of Washington plays a big part in this. But let’s dig down a little deeper and see what it is, exactly, that the Democrats fear? And, remember, it is only a faction (mainly white, mainly male, mainly southern/rural) of the Democrats that are causing the problem on our end. They fear what will happen in Iraq after we leave. If there could be shared responsibility, that would be one thing. But if we have to go crazy and shut down the government or impeach the president and vice president…and then Iraq goes to hell…
For a lot of these more conservative Democrats, that looks like a nightmare scenario where the Dems will be forever blamed for letting things get out of hand.
Then we have another group…the foreign policy establishment and the oil/gas establishment. They want to stay to keep promises, or to enlarge the war to Iran, or to just save face.
Yet the Democrats attitude might be: Over your dead body, not mine, you’re in Iraq getting killed, buddy, I’m not, I’m making it big time over your dead body in DC.’ Grotesque.
Forget about the money which the two top-tier candidates aren’t prepared to allot to insure the country for health care anyway.
What will this lead to: more war after January 2009? If this is the only way they can become ‘popular’, then they have little going for them. Pathetic. The Democrats are carrying the last straw which will permanently break the moral back of the country. And they may well be in for itsy, bitsy surprises come November 2008.
Sadly, the people with power and influence within the Democratic Party are pro-war, in that they support the unfortunate “American Exceptionalism” meme that lies at the heart of the clever justifications used to support US aggression in Iraq.
I don’t see any Dem candidate for President or other Democrat in a leadership position in the party ever stepping up and renouncing this terrible and absurd ‘exceptionalism’idea, and therefore they will never truly oppose this war and have the integrity to work hard enough to end it.
Tonight I got a fundraising call from the DCCC. I had the sad pleasure of explaining to the hardworkng, paid solicitor that I would not be donating to their campaign since electing a Democratic majority had not caused any progress toward either ending the war or restoring the rule of law. They need to hear more of that — imagine they have a check box for such topics.
No, they’re just prowar. If they were less popular, that would be the excuse. Polls also show they’re squandering their good will, particularly on impeachment and Iraq. Only direct action to stop recruitment will stop it. Let’s stop sending the rulers cannon fodder.