The only certainty among Democrats is that they don’t stand united for immediate withdrawal and, following that, they can’t figure out what should be done in Iraq. All of this probably explains why while President Bush’s poll numbers plummet, the Democrats’ numbers don’t float upward.
Critics on the left are ready for battle and armed with moral clarity. MoveOn is talking about a “tipping point” and getting signatures for a petition calling to “bring the troops home.” They must feel vindicated: The organization stood against the war from the beginning and now they watch as the American public catches up.
But vindication after the fact doesn’t always help. It’s just too late in the game for ethical clarity on this issue. Once you’ve gone and invaded a country and destabilized it to the point of pandemic violence, you lose any chance of washing your hands of it. The German social thinker Max Weber called this the first lesson of an “ethics of responsibility”: When you create a mess, any quest for an immediate and clear-cut solution vanishes.
Now, Iraq isn’t Vietnam and it’s just too early in the war to draw parallels. Nonetheless, Vietnam does offer us the obvious lesson that sometimes staying involved in a difficult situation can itself become ethically dubious...Democratic Party confusion, seen in this light, is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the inherent ethical complexity of the situation. Sure, some of the debate among Democrats is political posturing. But most of it is legitimate confusion. In fact, Democratic confusion is the right message — if explained to the American public in the right way.
After all, a major problem in Iraq all along has been Bush’s style of leadership — a steadfast determination based on an absolute faith that things will turn out OK. And there is also the Republican Party’s iron-fisted unity that deems any ethical questioning of the war as unpatriotic. Now is the time to lead while admitting confusion and disagreement. And now is the time to say that the admission of complexity and the search for a middle ground between two viable ethical positions is a noble cause.
There is something to be said for this approach. The Republican approach has been "iron-fisted unity" as he calls it, and for the Democratic party to suggest to the voters that mere debate on Iraq is warranted is a revolutionary change by itself. I don't think he's arguing that Democrats and liberals in general should just muddle along arguing with each other about whether it's right to pull out, with those in favor of staying calling the other side unrealistic or ignorant, or those in favor of withdrawing returning the favor by accusing the other side of being "for" war. Instead he's saying that Democrats should try to control the debate on Iraq by engaging the voters in the debate, instead of agreeing on a selling point to the public. The simple fact is that the Democratic party is divided on this issue, and there won't be any single approach that all Democrats are going to agree on anytime soon (unless Iraq dramatically worsens in the next year.) And since there's little liklihood of a unified approach, why not try to at least engage the public in the debate?
7 comments:
Well, in a perfect world, yes. But I agree that it's going to be disastrous politically for Democrats not to have a more unified position on Iraq by the midterm elections and definitely by 2008.
Well that's exactly it though; what's that position going to be? I for one don't agree with talk of withdrawal, though that's the way the political wind is shifting. So if we're talking about withdrawal, what kind and over what time period? What position would most, or even half, of Democrat voters support?
Most polls show Americans are in favor of withdrawing most troops in a year, year-and-a-half. I think Democrats who are saying we need some kind of time table are on the right path. Especially considering the fact that the administration is going to pull troops out by the mid-terms anyway. They are going to come home one way or another, so I don't see how it would be unwise for the Democrats to agree with it now as opposed to waiting for the Republican leadership to do so.
Well...not to be too cynical, but I should like to think that Democrats would lead public opinion, not follow it. To me, this is exactly the problem Dems have on national security. It's not that I think you shouldn't watch polls to know when you're dangerously wrong, but Dems could learn a thing or too from Bush on this. You don't gain even the apperance of leadership, let alone actual leadership, by following public opinion. Dems should have never voted for a war that they themselves personally were against because they thought politics dictated so, nor should they all be calling for withdrawal because they think that's what Americans want. Being better then Bush at getting out of Iraq is just not a strategy I would follow. That doesn't mean I believe withdrawal is the incorrect strategy; it just means I think the Dems yet again need to control the debate and the initiative on this, and not merely respond to Bush's weakening numbers on Iraq.
Well, I didn't mean to suggest that Democrats should simply follow polls. For one, I also agree that withdrawal within the next 18 months should be the plan. But I guess my cynical, political point-of-view is that if we are going to withdraw anyway, than the Democrats should be taking the lead rather than Republicans. Is it really going to be wise for Democrats to be advocating keeping/putting more troops into Iraq?
Well people get disgusted with the Democrats precisely because they play such self-serving politics. Not that the Republicans don't, but they at least appear to offer a course of action instead of just riding on someone else's coat-tails all the time. Democrats need to have a vigorous debate about what's right, not what's politically expedient. I'm pretty sure they could capitalize on that with the American people too.
Well, again, I'm not arguing that the Democrats support a position for political reasons that I don't support anyway. But politically it's better, and if that gets them on that side of the issue than that's what I should support.
Post a Comment