It’s still the war, stupid.
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Iraq
After reading many Iraq anniversary posts and watching the truly excellent but really depressing Frontline documentary “Bush’s War” (highly recommended), I decided to post a personal retrospective tracking my own evolving views on the war over the last five years. It was also time to update my post of a year ago “It’s the war, stupid.” In 2002 I was among the 70% leading the cheers. By 2006 I was among the 70% against. The post is long, so I’ll just excerpt it here -
This is how the post starts…
Two grim milestones over the last week - a five year anniversary and 4,000 American lives. I have been reading through a variety of posts, articles and essays marking the anniversary and analyzing how we got here. Since 70% of Americans supported the war, many of us have reason to reflect on our personal acquiescence in the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
John Cole simply presents an unvarnished litany of what he got wrong saying “…you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. D*MNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004.” Most notable in this theme is the Slate compilation of “liberal hawks” recalling their support and asking the question “Why did we get it wrong?“ Andrew Sullivan participated and explained his high visibility support of the war. Blogenfreude calls the series a “wankfest” and at his Cynics Party cross-post a commenter called the series an exercise in “armpit sniffing” [NOTE: last two links are rated "R" for strong language]. Hard to argue with either assessment. Glenn Greenwald notes “…not a single one of them appears to have learned the real lesson worth learning from the whole disaster”, while also noting that not everyone got it wrong in 2003.
There is no need for me to wonder or speculate about how I felt about the war five, four, three or two years ago. I left a digital trail…
This is how the post ends…
Now, I am coming to the conclusion that there is a lot less than meets the eye as far as any practical differences in the Iraq policy of the three major candidates remaining. We know we have to significantly reduce our military presence in Iraq. We just can’t afford it. The military is stretched to the breaking point. A large majority of Americans think it was a mistake to go in and want us out. Regardless of who wins the election, within two years of a new president taking office our military presence in Iraq is going to be down 65% from where it is now - plus or minus 15%. And that plus or minus - that is the sum total of the practical difference between the three candidates. But… and it is a big “but” … McCain is “leaning in”, and both Obama and Clinton are “leaning out.”
All I wanted out of this election was an anti-war fiscal conservative in the finals, preferably a Republican or Independent in order to maintain divided government into 2009. I was pushing Chuck Hagel until he flaked out, which left me with Ron Paul by default, but I really hoped Bloomberg would drag Hagel back in. When Bloomberg went back to counting his money (I understand he is also involved in a local government on the East coast somewhere) that hope died.
So I find myself impaled on the horns of a dilemma.
The choice now:
- RED PILL - Divided Government (good) but Permanent War (bad)
- or -
- BLUE PILL - Single Party Democratic government (bad) with expanded majorities, possibly a filibuster proof Senate (really bad) and either Clinton or Obama at the controls of a Cheney designed unitary presidency (really really bad).
Pick your poison.
Yeah, yeah, I know - The Democratic party intentions are good. But the unintended consequences of single party government are going to be brutal, as it always is.
And if you want to read the long missing bit in the middle…
You’ll find it cross-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
That’s why you’ve GOT to go with Ron Paul!
March 26th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Adam, Somehow, I don’t find that helpful.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Take the Blue pill - it’s always worked for me.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
MW you hit the nail on the head with the single party rule issue. I keep trying to tell people that divided government is good. It was what was great about the Reagan and Clinton administrations. It forces compromise and slows down decision making which was the intent of the people who founded this country. Good government needs to be slow and inefficient. There needs to be the voice of dissent, even if that voice is wrong. I am a die hard libertarian Paul supporter but there is no way in hell I would want the libertarians to control all three branches of government at the same time. It breeds group think and speeds up the legislative process to the point of irresponsibility. The past several years should provide an excellent example of exactly what is wrong with single party government. The belief that swinging from Republican to Democrat is somehow going to be better is lunacy. Further believing that this is going to bring about any positive change is from outerspace. It’s not about the parties themselves, it’s about one group, any group controlling the reigns of government. It is always a bad idea.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I don’t find one party rule a problem right how - strong leadership will be needed these next 4 years or so. Anti-war, pro-American, and the ability to make the tough decisions will need to be the rule, not the exception. Too much has happened these last long 7-8 years, and most of it needs to be undone - that will take a congressional majority in order to do it quickly. Our prestige internationally is ruined and will require a focused effort to rebuild. The entrenched corporate interests will need to be squeezed - that takes alot of power and alot of agreement without compromise. I guess what I’m saying is that with the right people in charge one party is precisely what we’ll need. Republicans are small minded bullies who use power to harm = Democrats want to follow rules, negotiate, and come to an accord as a group - I’m not as worried about a single democratic party in control as I am of a single Republican party in control.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:15 am
mw,
TerenceC might be more optimistic than realistic, but he made some good points and that deserved more than a snarky outtake from an old Who song.
If the Dems were seriously interested correcting the abuses of the last 8 years, I’d hand them keys to all three branches in a heartbeat. The scary thing is that we are handing them the keys to a Dick Cheney-Karl Rove-Dave Addington empowered presidency–a presidency with no restrictions.
The cynic in me thinks Clinton is fighting so hard to be president RIGHT NOW even though it seems clear she has lost not because she wants to help people, but because rarely in our history has so much power been centered on the president. Hilary doesn’t want to risk waiting and seeing it diminished
That’s the cynic.
That said, I know you love the notion of divided government and by and large I agree with that simply because divided government requires compromise….but compromise is not the best solution. In compromise, both sides lose
Insread, what we want is collaboration or cooperation. 16 years of Clinton and Bush have so polarized the parties that seems like an impossibility today, but our founding fathers did not envision a divided government. The co-equal branches were supposed to watchdog each other, not the parties.
Parties are inherently self-interested groups with agendas, and the primary agenda is the gathering and keeping of power followed by whatever goals the party loosely has as a platform. Neither party, thanks to the aforementioned polarizing, really represents the good of everyone.
Preferable to a two-party divided government would be a no-party government with civic-minded adults who have no interest in lifetime jobs in the government.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Gerry,
But it is my favorite song!
That said - you are right. Working on another post and taxes now, so I’ll get back to Terrence later, as his comment does deserve more. I’ll say one thing now - I don’t find his comment “unrealistic”. I see it as a simple straightforward rationale for an unfettered exercise of power. It is the identical rationale one hears from all partisans on the right or left. “We are obviously right, they are obviously wrong. We need all the power so we can steamroll their obstruction and get things [the things we want] done!”
I also do not find it optimistic. I find it frightening.
You on, OTOH, I do find unrealistic, as well as misunderstanding our history. Unrealistic because this…
… has never existed in this country (maybe anywhere), and never will. It is based on an unrealistic notion of human nature. Moreover, the founding fathers also had no such expectation. They expected that people were people and given the opportunity, would misuse government to further their own selfish or ideological agendas. Your negative description of political parties is realistic, and exactly what the founding fathers expected out of fallible humans with their hands on government power. The separation of power into co-equal branches was designed specifically to moderate that impulse of human nature. For clarity on this, I suggest you spend some time with Federalist #51 by James Madison:
I have seen it written that the founders did not anticipate the rise of political parties in this system. If so, then this may be a defect in the constitution. Not because parties fighting are contentious and - well - “partisan” and slowing government action - that is all good. That is exactly how our system was designed to work. The problem is that they did not anticipate how a sufficiently strong single party in control of both the legislative and executive branch can override, bypass and make irrelevant the checks and balances built into the constitution. If it is a defect in the constitution, it is a defect that voters can remedy by always voting for divided government. For more on this notion of single party government overriding constitutional checks and balances, reference this Harvard Law Review article entitled Separation of Parties not Powers by Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes.
Or - reference The Who:
March 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I said–[b] Preferable to a two-party divided government would be[/b] a no-party government with civic-minded adults who have no interest in lifetime jobs in the government.
I never said it exists, has existed or ever would exist. That does not mean we should not strive for it.
Here’s the rub–your ideal of a two party, divided government when you get right to its core is this: it is the system that will do the LEAST HARM. That is pretty cynical.
My ideal–whether it is a two party system working together or a single party working to achieve the best interests of everyone will do the MOST GOOD.
Naive? Probably. But only unrealistic if I expect the cotton candy clown to wrap it up and hand it to me in a shiny box.
I read your post on our own site as well as all the links to previous posts…and even read a few more. There was a time when you were not so cynical, it seems, about the George Bush and Co. running the show…maybe not happy about it, but prior to 2004 you seemed at least willing to see where it took the country.
OK, you got burned by the wrong people. I could have told you that if you were willing to listen back in 2001.
Now, do I want a dominant single party in the next election with either Clinton or Obama at the helm? No. Will I vote against either of them simply because maintaining two parties will mean LESS HARM.
That is not only too simple, it’s absurd. I said in my first post that by and large I agree with your premise as you have laid it out historically (no need to send me link hopping to other people who agree with you), but it is a very stupid reason to vote for McCain.