The Agony of Victory

Sometimes defeat comes wrapped in "a surprise victory," which is how the Washington Post described Senate Democrats' "bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation."

Furthermore, and less speculative than defeat wrapped in victory, any time the modern GOP appears to be acting reasonably -- such as not filibustering the Democratic funding-plus-withdrawal plan, whose "language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago" -- then it probably has something colossally nasty up its sleeve.

In short, the recent Democratic "victories" -- whether labeled minor, major, or surprising -- would seem, when all is said and done, to be the product of a rope-a-dope strategy.

The opposing view, which has emerged as near-prevailing wisdom, is that Congressional Republicans have thrown the White House from their train; saying, in effect, the war is Bush's problem and they won't be weighted down by this unpopular, uncooperative administration any longer.

I don't buy it. However embattled and besieged it may now be, the GOP understands that solidarity has always been its singular key to success. A monolithic mindset -- conceived, xeroxed and disseminated by its strategic Machiavellis -- has for decades managed to trump internally independent thought and action for the simple reason that solidarity has repeatedly proved itself. Which is to say it has been, by and large, electorally successful. The alternative -- the Democratic version of party politics, which is to say, the herding of cats -- speaks for itself.

The Post article went on to report that "Democratic leaders think [Tuesday's] 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto."

A veto, it should be added, that for the White House and supposedly demoralized GOP comes with the happy "So what?" of insurmountability. V-e-t-o doesn't normally spell victory, and v-e-t-o p-r-o-o-f, in this instance, likely spells trouble for you know who.

Knowing that the war's funding is inevitable, Democrats will divide and desert their present unity in the post-veto phase. Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, will hang together -- funding, yes; withdrawal date, no -- giving the appearance of principled and consistent unity.

Meanwhile the White House will be the one declaring victory -- naturally "in support of our troops," no matter how many must die to affirm that support.

From now through 2008 the president and his still-enabling Congressional minions will demagogue the Democrats into scorn and humiliation. How dare they attempt to "micromanage" our brave boys. Sadly, the public's enthusiasm for this sort of balderdash is all too durable and easily rekindled.

And the Democrats, having finally refinanced the war, will project more than just the appearance of weakness, division and rudderlessness. For they will be, in striking fact, weakened, divided and rudderless.

So, a "surprise victory" for the Dems? I'd wager their real and biggest surprise is yet to come, however much I may earnestly hope I'm wrong.

Comments

[bruce morris]

Great article as always! BUT, I don't get why the Dems cannot just use the simple line that they have funded the troops and the President refused to fund them by vetoing; that Bush wants to leave our soldiers in Iraq without armor or bullets. The Amrecian people want the hell out of Iraq, but they want to pull out slowly and fully fund the troops while there. This is exactly what Congress passed. If the Democrats cannot hang tough when their position is both right and popular, then I will be finally convinced that the Dem power structure is a facade put up by the super rich to make it look like we have more than one political party, when we have only one: the party of those already in power.

[Tom Coomba]

hey pm...when will americans realize that they have to rid themselves of the executive branch of government? It's a haven for dictatorial largesse and a failed experiment by the founding fathers to institute checks and balances.no future president will rescind the unitary executive privileges your current president has instituted.
i've been writing to buzzflash about this for years. in a parliamentary democracy nancy pelosi would be the prime minister and the business of government would be decided in congress and the senate.
no one seems to be listening. here's my latest letter to buzz:

Serving at the “Pleasure” of the Populace

The president’s cabinet consists of handpicked, unelected cronies culled from big business. These guys serve at the “pleasure” of the president. Wouldn’t it be nice if they served at the pleasure of the general populace?

The executive branch of government is an ideal vehicle for the advent of tyranny. The current unitary executive is a prime example. There is a disconnect between the president and the populace. Executive privilege illustrates the “we’re all equal, but some are more equal” concept of government.

I’ve been advocating parliamentary democracy for some time, (OK, harping on it) but nobody is picking up the thread. Imagine the country being lead by the leader of the party that gets the most votes in an election. Imagine governance being conducted in open debate on the floor of congress. Imagine cabinet ministers being picked from elected representatives of the populace.

Think about it. The executive branch must go. The founding fathers never anticipated that their system of checks and balances could be subverted in this way.

[Helen Rainier]

Tom,

And I thought I was the only one who was thinking along these lines. Our government needs serious reform. One of the ideas I thought about is to run Congress on a lottery basis from federal voter registration lists. Each state would assign all registered voters a "number." When the time comes for senators and representatives to rotate, numbers would be picked. People whose numbers are picked would spend one term in office. Then change.

All members of the president's staff would have to be confirmed by Congress.

All political appointees would have to come from senior civil servants. No more patronage appointments.

Budgets would have to be voted on by the people -- it's our money, after all.

Businesses and corporations would no longer have the same rights as individuals.

Public financing of campaigns and media would have to "dedicate" and "donate" time and space for political campaigns as a public service.

These are jsut a few of the thoughts I've had.