« If Ramesh Wants a Passing Grade, He'll Have To Rewrite His Response Paper | Main | You Know You're a Political Junkie When... »
June 03, 2006
Equal Time
(Posted by John.)
via Susie Madrak, this could be seen as a refutation of my previous post, namely that the US leadership doesn't pay a political price for war:
MACKINAC ISLAND – The war in Iraq has become so unpopular that it could cost Republicans control of Congress, statehouses and governor races around the country, national pollster John Zogby said Friday.
He said 70% of voters believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, adding, “I have never seen a number like that since I’ve been polling.”
I'm always happy to be proven wrong, if it means trouble for Republicans.
Some more thoughts after the jump.
This is fascinating:
Zogby said his boldest prediction is that Hurricane Katrina, which demolished much of the Gulf Coast in 2005, could be more of a defining moment for the U.S. than the 9-11 terrorist attacks because the storm showed that neither big federal government nor federalism – greater state powers – can cope with large-scale disasters.
This poses a problem for Republicans and Democrats. If I'm reading him right, what Zogby is saying is that Katrina dealt a fatal blow to the legitimacy of the American political system that neither party can respond to immediately - though this might be a good start: Again from Susie Madrak:
“Americans aren’t looking for big government or small government, liberal government or conservative government. They’re looking most of all for competent government.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy
The question for me - and this speaks to my earlier theory about the political cost of US military use - is whether the American people have drawn the right lesson from Iraq.
The incorrect lesson to learn is that pre-emptive wars of aggression are okay, so long as they're run by competent Democrats. The correct lesson to learn is that, even in the best case scenario, wars are acts of savagery and brutality that one population inflicts on another, and they need to be used only in the direst cases, if at all. To put it simply, war as anything but a last resort is deeply sinful. I'm profoundly skeptical that the American people have learned this lesson.
The fact that more people have died under Bush, rather than a smaller number of dead under a competent administration, is important of course. But it's hardly the most distinguishing fact that Kerry said he'd still have voted for the war in - August of '04. Certainly, it doesn't seem to have won him the election. As Atrios has said more than once, supporting this war meant supporting Bush's war. Anything else is childish fantasy.
What worries me is a suggestion from comments - that the only way the people will perceive the costs of this war is from body bags coming home. If people are unable to understand the costs on the victims of these wars - the other side - or even the opportunity costs to this war, then I fear the next big mistake won't be that far off.
June 3, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
"I'm profoundly skeptical that the American people have learned this lesson."
Me too.
"To put it simply, war as anything but a last resort is deeply sinful."
You tell 'em. Start in Mississippi or Waco. "The American people and our soldiers are deeply sinful." Sounds like a campaign slogan to me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 3, 2006 7:36:09 PM
The Mood of the Country ...Digby on the South, and not surrendering in the Third Civil War
Damn. I guess this is where I rant, and Ezra calls me crazy.
1.) This attitude, tho perhaps morally correct, will not save a single life, here or abroad.
2.) The polls more likely reflect the economy, the lack of savings and real wage declines, than deeply-held opinions about the war. When people are unhappy about their jobs, they hate everything. Vietnam never dropped below 50% popularity, even when Nixon was at 26%.
3.) HRC, and Kerry, understand the South and the country in ways you may never equal. Hillary is not Bush, and she is doing the best and will do the best that it is possible to do. If elected, she will save lives.
4.) Progressives, gaining the Presidency or a majority in Congress, gain nothing. Dems will not filibuster monsters, Republicans will filibuster everything. You want liberal judges, UHC, tax increases, sane energy policy, you are going to need dominance. I happen to believe we are approaching emergency conditions, we don't have fifty years to gain some control.
5.) I am not willing to sacrifice my social or economic agenda. Gay rights, women's rights, decent wages and economic mobility. no, never. But I want that dominance.
For thirty years I have watching the peace wing of the Democratic Party avoid tough decisions and get their butts kicked and lose everything. So the only option I think I have is to offer national security, fireworks and parades, with I hope a minimum of damage and guilt. YMMV.
6.) I don't trust you or Finegold or "Human Rights Campaigns" or "Marshall Plans" to protect me or my family. I don't trust you to protect anything I value. You don't appear willing to kill.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 3, 2006 8:20:30 PM
"I don't trust you or Finegold or "Human Rights Campaigns" or "Marshall Plans" to protect me or my family. I don't trust you to protect anything I value. You don't appear willing to kill."
That would be a rational assessment, if you ignored the words "as a last resort" in my post. I don't deny that wars are sometimes necessary, and I supported and support the war in Afghanistan. But the war in Iraq was self-evidently not as a last resort - in fact, war seems to have been the first resort. Bush went to war just because.
I agree with you - as I said in my post - that fewer people would die under competent Democratic administration, and that this was important. But if the lessons learned amount to "Democrats will administer evil more effectively" then I think we're lost.
You're right though, it probably makes a lousy campaign slogan.
Posted by: John | Jun 3, 2006 9:48:51 PM
At the very time when the last state to oppose U.S. dominance is a fading memory ( U.S.S.R. ) the fragmentation of opposition ( divide and conquer ) is posited as the greatest threat. Well, yeah. That being the U.S. has no history as a benevolent despot, long ago Marshall Plan to the contrary.
I honestly think that a bunch of loons who have been planning and marshalling their forces for decades have the establishment of the Fourth Reich well underway.
Posted by: opit | Jun 3, 2006 10:12:41 PM
I can see one of 3 scenarios playing out over the next 10 years.
1.) the Dems scrape together a bare majority in Congress, investigate the Republicans, literally, to death, elect a President in 08, and gradually build a dominant coalition of the sane, with a properly sanitized opposition party, to build a future for the country, based on advancing technology, and reduced carbon emissions, etc.
2.) the Dems scrape together a bare majority in Congress, but are stymied in their investigations, in a triumph of the Imperial Presidency; the Dems elect a President in '08, but, being the responsible Party, the Dems, try to cope with the disasters of the Bush years; the Dems raise taxes and people hate it, the Dems withdraw from Iraq and are blamed for "losing the Middle East" and humiliating American power with an "unnecessary" retreat, the dollar finally collapses under the weight of Bush's accumulated deficits, etc. The Dems are blamed, and the Republicans return to power in 2012, with solid majorities, and remain in power, amidst a fascist State, until 2042, when worldwide environmental catastrophe results in economic and social collapse in North America.
3.) the Republicans hold on to power in the '06 elections, "keeping the cork in the bottle" demoralizing and enraging the Left. The Left fragments and radicalizes. Failure in Iraq and in the economy falls on Republican shoulders, and the Left reunites for a successful Prez campaign in '08, pushing an agenda for radical social and economic change, including confiscatory taxes on Corporate executive hyper-compensation, public financing of election campaigns and a break-up of the giant Media conglomerates.
For half or more of the population, their impressions of the success or failure of a policy or course of action are concrete, immediate and largely irrational (with respect to real economic and political cause and effect). Symbolism easily overcomes substance, anxiety about change overcomes hopeful risk-taking, and memories are very, very short.
Bush's unpopularity has a great deal to do with the price of gas. Democrats, of course, being the idiots that they/we are, should be saying that Bush's Iraq War policy was always aimed at curtailing Iraqi oil production and raising oil prices to benefit his favored constituencies, Exxon/Mobil and Dubai, but they are not.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jun 4, 2006 4:52:49 AM
bob,
#1, #3, #4, #5, and #6 hit the bullseye, of course. And progressives should take them to heart. But #2 is a bit wide of the target.
"2.) The polls more likely reflect the economy, the lack of savings and real wage declines, than deeply-held opinions about the war. When people are unhappy about their jobs, they hate everything. Vietnam never dropped below 50% popularity, even when Nixon was at 26%."
Nixon hit 26% because of Vietnam, even though the war itself polled higher.
Bush is at 32% for many reasons, but primarily because of Iraq.
Lesson: The American people don't like losing wars. They punish leaders who lose wars. When they're led into losing wars, they become unhappy about everything.
-----
And a few final notes:
#3 is a lesson progressives should try extra hard to take to heart. I'm opposed to HRC because I think she'll have great trouble leading Dems to an era of dominance. But she ain't satan. If you can't tell the difference between HRC and Bush, or Blair and Bush for that matter, you need to radically recalibrate your political sensors.
#5 is a decent diagnosis. Choosing the correct solution here is the key. If you want Democratic electoral dominance with a minimum of damage and guilt, I invite you to find your way onto the JRE bus.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 4, 2006 4:54:47 AM
"Bush's unpopularity has a great deal to do with the price of gas. Democrats, of course, being the idiots that they/we are, should be saying that Bush's Iraq War policy was always aimed at curtailing Iraqi oil production and raising oil prices to benefit his favored constituencies, Exxon/Mobil and Dubai, but they are not."
You're very close here. I agree entirely that Dems should be making linkages between Iraq and gas prices for '06. The public already has a vague sense of this, but making it explicit would really help bring the tide in.
However, your formulation, correct in reality or not, would come off a bit too tin-foil hat-ish. The talking points are something along the lines of:
- The administration claimed the Iraq war would lower gas prices. It's raised them.
- The administration's friends in big oil are happy about this. Are you?
You keep throwing it out there, and let the GOP have fun refuting it.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 4, 2006 5:03:28 AM
The problem with Petey and bob's prescriptions is that they both rely on the existence of Democratic dominance. The instant that Democratic dominance evaporates (or never comes about in the first place), we're left with incompetent Republicans taking advantage of the attitudes that so-called "national security"[sic] Democrats have inculated into the public, that made "pre-emptive" wars acceptable and popular. We're seeing a lot people who are effectively out to treat the symptoms, not the disease. The symptom is that the public was taken advantage of by a demagogue who goaded the country into an unnecessary war. The disease is that the public thought that this was perfectly acceptable in the first place. I don't see the solution as being merely electing someone who promises to demagogue the country into unnecessary wars on the condition that he will execute them well.
Posted by: Constantine | Jun 4, 2006 8:08:05 AM
To put it simply, war as anything but a last resort is deeply sinful. I'm profoundly skeptical that the American people have learned this lesson.
To be honest, I don't think we ever will. War is exciting and all-consuming and lends gravity to lives that are mostly filled with the trivial and the mundane*. It's a gigantic emotional outlet, at least temporarily broadens the nationalist tribe and/or papers over policy differences, encourages many to view government (read: military) expenditures more positively, and allows us to ignore our own ignorance & apathy in favor of setting others on what we think is the right path. It's an incredibly selfish indulgence that we can pretend is noble, and I doubt Americans are going to give anything that good up anytime soon.
*Most of these points apply to civilians who are quite safe from ever having to actually fight, although the emotional catharsis factor is undoubtedly more serious within the military, and for good reason once the march to war has started.
Posted by: latts | Jun 4, 2006 9:18:38 AM
The correct lesson to learn is that, even in the best case scenario, wars are acts of savagery and brutality that one population inflicts on another, and they need to be used only in the direst cases, if at all.
Sweet Jeebus.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 4, 2006 9:47:24 AM
bob:
If we build a coalition based around the South, we will have more wars than otherwise, and we will give away parts of your social agenda. You know it and I know it. And if we nominate HRC, we will build a coalition around the South. HRC isn't a monster, but she's a bad outcome. And, as the Dem coalition is in flux, and she could be setting us up for a while, she could result in a very, very bad outcome.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 4, 2006 10:01:14 AM
Progressives, gaining the Presidency or a majority in Congress, gain nothing. Dems will not filibuster monsters, Republicans will filibuster everything. You want liberal judges, UHC, tax increases, sane energy policy, you are going to need dominance. I happen to believe we are approaching emergency conditions, we don't have fifty years to gain some control.
Bob, how does this even make sense? If we gain a majority, we gain nothing. But you somehow want "dominance." Unless you are relegating "progressives" to the so-called "extreme, angry left-wing hippie peaceniks." Who, by the way, don't really exist now and never really did, at least in the way that the right-wingers wish to portray it.
You may not trust Marshall Plans to save you and your family, but the Marshall Plan itself did a hell of a lot to keep you safe. Germany was a war machine, spitting out conflict long before WWI and WWII. The Marshall Plan helped to finally delegitimize the warlike elements of German society, as well as a whole bunch of the rest of Europe.
I understand that the US President and Congress have a constitutional responsibility to exercise force, when necessary, to secure the interests of the United States. It is actually possible for me, and others, to recognize that while hating war. Denouncing our misadventure in Iraq and calling for the end to the propaganda phrase "War on Terror" with its promise of endless bloodshed is not some hippy-dippy peacenik bullcrap. It's real-world understanding of the capabilities of the USA and what is really needed right now in the real world instead of neo-con fantasies.
Hillary might know more than me about the south. Or maybe she did at one time. But I live 4 miles from the Old Confederacy, with plenty of relatives still in it. I think I know the south better than John Kerry. And what I know is that if we do need the south to build dominance, then the Democratic Party will never achieve dominance. So let's just give up now.
The south has spent the last 140 years trying to drag the rest of the country into the cultural and economic shitter along with them, out of nothing more than spite and a feeling of victimization because they lost an immoral, unprovoked war. Southern antipathy toward Democrats has nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with guns, nothing to do with abortion, except insofar as abortion touches upon the real reason: Democratic allegiance to equal rights and protections under the law for all people.
The only way to win the in the South is to abandon the Democratic Party's core values of individual liberties and rights for all people, regardless of race, gender or with whom one shares a bed. Not water down the message, not downplay certain parts, but abandon our core values. The question that you, I and all the rest of us have to answer is just what price are we willing to pay for political dominance using a southern strategy, and are we naive enough to believe that, once achieving said dominance, we will somehow revert back to the ideals we were willing to sacrifice in the name of political power.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 4, 2006 10:33:42 AM
the storm showed that neither big federal government nor federalism – greater state powers – can cope with large-scale disasters.
I don't agree with Zogby on this. I think Katrina demonstated that the Bush administration was unable to protect the country in a time of crisis. They'd stripped FEMA of all its authority and put a hack in charge. They watched for days after the storm before realizing that they were supposed to do something. The Democrats need to pound on this point. If you want the government to be there in times of crisis, you'd better not leave it in the hands of the Republicans.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 4, 2006 10:37:08 AM
Hillary is not Bush, and she is doing the best and will do the best that it is possible to do. If elected, she will save lives.
I've been thinking about this some more, and it just doesn't work. Hillary as president will assure us of several things:
-No meaningful work done on health care. She was burned by this.
-No meaningful work done on behalf of gays. Bill was burned by this.
-Lots of faux-macho posturing and saber-rattling in order to overcome her two HUGE national-security deficiencies: that she is a Democrat and a woman.
-No meaningful work done on abortion rights. How will she win reelection if she just shows that she really is a feminazi closeted dyke who hates men?
Hillary is listening to the people who were with her and Bill when Bill was president. She is pandering because she believes that she must overcome all of the Democratic "deficiencies" in order to win the presidency. But her pandering, her experience as First Lady, and her desire to win another term will make her little more than a placeholder, someone who will likely not even work with a friendly Congressional majority because of the "damage" it might do to her in the almighty south.
My point is that a Hillary presidency will sacrifice all that we stand for, and will maintain a high level of American militarism. All pain, no gain.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 4, 2006 11:12:54 AM
To me the paradigm is Truman. Just how did Harry manage to get the Marshall Plan thru(and there was a lot of resistance, pass domestic programs like the GI Bill of Rights and huge tax increases, and as impressive as anything in the 20th century, integrate the Armed Services? Facing a Republican or conservative Congress?
The Marshall Plan was great, but Truman also created the National Security State that Gore Vidal hates and that we still live with today.
And the heartland persona, Plain Talk Harry, probably helped a lot. I don't think the South is that impossible, but it isn't easy. We don't have to surrender everything. Remember, again, Truman integrated the Armed Services without breaking a sweat.
Calvin Coolidge was as Yankee as they come. We don't need a Southerner, just someone who looks like one.
I have no objection to Edwards or Clarke. They will emerge or not, all they have to do is win somethng.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 4, 2006 11:43:31 AM
This is what worries me most about HRC:
"A close friend of mine who worked in the inner circle of John McCain's last election recently told me that he/she's increasingly convinced that even if the human being elected President is a great person, and has enlightened thinking in some arenas, and is pragmatic and centrist deep down, what may matter more are the people around the President. Those with power in the "president's court" often have more to say about the personality and priorities of an administration than the office-holder himself."(TWN.)
If you like where the Dems have been for the last six years, then you won't worry much about the Democratic Party as she will shape it; if you don't, then you will.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 4, 2006 1:36:23 PM
We don't need a Southerner, just someone who looks like one.
I am really sick of the idea that a southerner is somehow our nation's ideal. That southerners are "straight-talkers" who stand by their "values," while people from the Northeast or the West are, apparently, lying sons of bitches who don't believe in anything.
If you want a Democratic presidential candidate who speaks plainly, stands up for what he/she believes, and holds true to a set of values over a long period of time, look no further than Howard Dean or Russ Feingold. Or Paul Wellstone, may he rest in peace. Or JFK, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and I'm hoping Barack Obama. Not one of them is from the south, not one of them speaks with a Texan drool, not one of them thinks it necessary to put on a cowboy hat and pointlessly clear brush in order to show their "connection" with the people.
In all my dealings with southerners, I have been appalled at how close-minded they are, at how "southern charm" is usually just a way of acting until they know how "safe" they think I am regarding their true feelings about minorities, at how many code-words and cultural landmines there are regarding the myriad of slights and offenses they think they have received at the hands of the rest of society.
Again, let's make our choice. We either stand for equal treatment and rights under the law for all people, or we pander to the south. We either maintain the integrity of the Democratic party, or we pander to the south. Anytime we claim to be committed to Democratic ideals and values, and then throw in a "however" that leads to the things we "must" do to win the south, it shows a lack of true commitment to Democratic ideals and values.
You either believe in civil rights, or you don't. It's very simple. Make a choice, people.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 4, 2006 3:27:18 PM
"We either stand for equal treatment and rights under the law for all people, or we pander to the south."
We can do both. Them Southrons have a veto, a democracy can collapse if even 10% of the population challenge the legitimacy. See: Sunnis, Kurds, Iraq. But the Southrons are a simple folk, and can be tricked with simply a baseball cap and a corncob pipe.
And some of the leadership in progressive values has come from "Red" or rural areas. La Follette, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, McGovern, Carter, Clinton, Gore. Wellstone might have worked. Not necessarily Southern, and maybe little concession in values.
I think the "heartland" myth is even stronger than it was 100 years ago. You are just going to have a real hard time getting perceived urban sophisticates elected these days.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 4, 2006 4:18:17 PM
We can do both. Them Southrons have a veto, a democracy can collapse if even 10% of the population challenge the legitimacy. See: Sunnis, Kurds, Iraq. But the Southrons are a simple folk, and can be tricked with simply a baseball cap and a corncob pipe.
I certainly share your views of the mental abilities of these people. But tricking them with "simply a baseball cap and a corncob pipe" requires that they not have a kneejerk hatred of you based upon your belief that blacks and women are human beings.
If 10% of a country has a veto, then so does California, the Northeast, the Western states, the Midwest. Pick a group, pick a region, and they all have this "veto power." But no one ever does mention them, because we all know that the south is the problem child. The south is where the victims live, always complaining about the raw deal they have received at the hands of everyone else, never willing to do the hard mental and spiritual work required to pull themselves out of the post-Civil War cryfest they have been afflicting us with for 140 years.
No other group is mentioned because it is the south that has tried to exercise this veto upon democracy. The south is the one who has waged war upon our democracy, and has used the threat of doing so again in order to extort federal monies and national panding for a century and a half.
But regardless of all of the southern leadership the Democrats have had, the point is that the majority of southern whites hate Democrats. They hate us, they feast upon daily newspaper, television, radio, internet and dinner table conversations in which we are demonized, we are excoriated, we are vilified, we are painted as inhuman monsters, all because the Democrats support equal rights. All because of a simple belief, that color, gender and sexual orientation do not negate one's participation in the human race. And no one, not Wesley Clark, not John Edwards, not Al Gore, and certainly not Hillary Clinton is going to overcome that deep-seated, pervasive hatred against us.
We should nominate a presidential candidate from the south if that person is the best candidate, not because we think that doing so will somehow overcome the racism, jingoism and fearmongering that somehow passes as "culture" in the southern states.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 4, 2006 7:53:13 PM
I understand why Republicans continue to mischaracterize Kerry's vote and his August of '04 statement, but for the life of me I don't know why progressives do, even after setting forth an actual quote of what the man said about his original vote and his response to the challenge of whether he would still vote the same way again. He has said from the moment he cast his vote that it was not a vote to "go to war," but a vote to extend authority to use the military when and if he first did all of the right things, which Bush never did. I'd rather Kerry had said or would say now, "Hell no I wouldn't vote the same way today, now that I know we have a criminal for a president who will abuse the authority given to him and lie about it in the process," but it might have been just a little difficult to get elected then - or in '08 - with that kind of honesty.
Waxman for President. Now, there is an honest man.
Posted by: Robert | Jun 12, 2006 2:44:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
