I was annoyed by MoveOn’s decision to deal with Iraq war legislation in a pragmatic and incremental fashion. I see a fundamental disconnect between their grassroots organizing and rhetoric on the one hand, and the pragmatic lobbying that led them to endorse Pelosi’s rather weak bill on the other. A similar annoyance among many of MoveOn’s members is the subject of Farhad Manjoo’s latest article in Salon, MoveOn moves in with Pelosi.
The article is worth reading. I felt compelled to comment on the story, and I reproduce my comment here. I wrote recently about the difference between politicians who are leaders and those who are just along for the ride, which I think informs this issue, as well:
I always find it distressing and absurd when politicians bemoan
that only so much of their agenda is politically possible, then
proceed to do absolutely nothing to actually move the goal posts of
possibility by spending their political capital. I am bemused by
Congressional Democrats and their apologists who point out that
only so much progress on ending the war can ‘pragmatically’ be
made, and thus we must compromise and accomplish what little we
can.The political calculus they’ve summed is merely what currently
is, not what might be. The only way to change that equation is to
push the system beyond its tolerance through symbolic acts,
changing the terms of debate, or direct action. It seems Democratic
leaders are very distrustful of those who seek to change the
political environment, and not terribly effective at doing any of
this sort of political work themselves. They’ll logroll with best
of them, but they won’t make legislative politics a real blood
sport in the way the GOP does so well. This disconnect between many
of our office-holders and our activist base is one of the great
weaknesses of our party.Even the harshest critics of Democratic anti-war activists can’t
point to a lack of commitment on their part. They have done massed
demonstrations across the country, contacted their political
representatives until they are blue in the face, and put their
dollars where their hearts are. What is lacking is a commitment by
MoveOn (whose job it is) and elected Democrats (whose job it is) to
truly represent their foot soldiers. This agreement to compromise
between MoveOn’s leadership and the leadership of our elected
Democrats was an utter failure to represent their constituencies.
Perhaps they feel they know better, or are better placed to judge
what is possible – or possibly they are just too limited in
perspective to see beyond the beltway on this issue.We don’t need a Focus on the Family-type grassroots lobbying
heavyweight on the left that tells us what to support. We need
MoveOn to enable and cohere the sentiments of the grassroots and
represent those views to those in power, no matter how unpopular,
or ‘unrealistic’ those views may be. Pariser’s move to cut Lee’s
Amendment out of the MoveOn dialog because it couldn’t pass was a
betrayal of the organization’s mission to make yesterday’s
impossible, today’s inevitable.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This bill, not perfect, passed the House and will be vetoed by the president; Lee’s Amendment wasnt passing the House or even the Democratic caucus as a whole. Not even all of the Progressive caucus, let alone the other Democratic caucuses, would vote for immediate withdrawal. Certainly no Republicans would vote for it. After it failed, the next bill up would be the president’s favored bill- with no restrictions and no end dates- which would pass for sure(conservative Dems vote their conscience).That bill would not be vetoed and the president would have free rein to leave troops in Iraq through the end of his term.
All Lee’s Amendment would do by failing is let it be the Congress that failed to end the war. By failing to pass, Lee’s Amendment would show the American people that Progressives are too weak and the Democrats are too fractured (again). The president would gain a political victory. Repubs could regain seats in ’08 because the Dems didn’t end the war- even within a year’s time.
This bill, however, got all but 18 of the Democrats. It also picked up 2 Republican votes. Since no bill with a end date would escape a veto, the point was to get a bill passed in the House making clear that all Democrats(Blue New or Prog) stand for some date certain- whether immediate or next aug. And that Republicans stand for no date at all. Five members of the OIC voted for the bill because they agreed with this strategy. Now the president either vetoes a bipartisan bill funding the troops because he refuses to set any date to end the war, or he ends his war before his term is over, obeying Congress’ orders- something he wont do.
As for the wishes of the electorate, look at the polls. 60% want to start leaving by the end of next year. The vote does reflect the will of the voters. Congress is doing it’s job. Immediate withdrawal is certainly the most moral position; but it only has 20% support in the country. If the most moral position is not achievable, if the war can’t be stopped immediately, and the only alternative to the aug ’08 deadline is the bill with no date and no conditions, the best we can do right now is show that Dems favor withdrawal and Repubs dont.
The headlines tell of a united House majority opposing the president by setting a deadline to end the war. The Progressive Caucus is now stronger in the Democratic caucus In 2008 we can build a bigger progressive majority as we marginalize Repubs. 2006 was a start, not a completion, to growing a progressive movement.
Since when is MOVEON.ORG an elected representative of The United States Government?
Its as NUTS as The Federal Election Commission SAVING ON STAMPS(discountinuing mailing required documents to Candidate Committee’s) by having all candidates use FAX MACHINES to retrieve documents required by McCain Feingold(Two certified NUT CASES)to be filed with the F.E.C. under penality of stiff fines.
Maybe the 25 BILLION used for the IRAQ WAR BILL for SPINACH AND PEANUTS; and 100 BILLION for the Troops; should have funded the F.E.C. to BUY STAMPS!
Today brought back memories of 1967 when we defunded the Viet Nam War with me being DRAFTED faced with NOTHING to fight with!
The War in Iraq is something that could have been fought later on in this century but at a much higher cost of life there and here at home.
I felt sick to my stomach as I felt what the men and women in Iraq fighting for a War that has been sold out to 25 BILLION DOLLARS worth of SPINACH ETC. buying off 6(SIX) 6 votes to win a PORK FILLED MESS you and I must pay for if we loose the War in Iraq or now if we win the war on Spinach!