[lbo-talk] Cong Dems lose momentum on Iraq

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Mon Feb 26 11:00:53 PST 2007


On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Doug Henwood quoted the Note saying


> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238>
>
> All of American politics 2007 (and, of course, most of 2008) will be
> determined by the fallout from Democratic efforts on Capitol Hill to
> force President Bush to change course in Iraq.
>
> The implications of Democrats' success or ? under today's
> conventional wisdom ? failure to force the White House's hand will
> carom far and wide.
>
> The overall Democratic strategic imperative remains the same -- use
> public opinion to pressure enough Republicans to go to the President
> and demand a change -- knowing that Democratic votes and voices alone
> won't do it.
>
> This strategy has run into a number of problems, however, both
> political and substantive.

I think this is fundamental misreading of both strategy and effect. The Democrats Prime Directive is to use the Iraq war to turn the country more against the Republicans -- to make the 2008 election like 2006 election but more so. The image of them making a thousand efforts and failing to make a dent, and Republicans not joining them is perfect for them.

Arguably if they actually had an effect and changed something, it would be to their electoral disadvantage. On current steady trends, the country will even madder and more exasperated about Iraq in 2 years than they are now -- which is the Democrat's dream scenario, the issue that could nationalize and partisanize all elections and hand big margins to them. If there was a pullout, then they'd be launching into the unknown; if things got worse, it wouldn't be as great an issue; and if a sizeable amount of Republicans were identified with the anti-war effort (and early on, they actually seemed to be more effect and in front than the Dems) it would muddy the "It's all their fault, we're innocent" message.

So from a cynical, self-interested view that is only interested in getting more Dems elected, this is so far going perfectly and they can keep it up the rest of his term. It's easy, it's predictable, it's all upside.


>From the point of view of actually improving things in Iraq, it's an
impotent failure. But does anyone really think that's more important to a political party than electoral self-interest?

Michael



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list