Losing Faith – Love Dance (great indie jangle-pop – you should get the whole record)
The Democrats finally appropriated funds for Iraq, giving Bush a (relatively) clean bill. The best response I’ve seen is from hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, in particular this paragraph:
And yet, as I said before, I also really worry that if the Democrats had not passed a bill that Bush was willing to sign, he really might have left the troops to run out of money, or ammunition, stranded in Iraq, and blamed it on us. This would have been wrong: the President obviously has it in his power to ensure that the troops are safe. But, equally obviously, just because something is wrong doesn’t mean this President will not do it, any more than the fact that no remotely decent person would imperil our soldiers to score political points means that this President would not do so.
Yes, this bill is a capitulation, but is not the disaster declared by some in the netroots. I would have voted no, and applaud those who few who did, but I can understand very well the mentality of the Democrats who did not. In fact, their votes to provide funds are in some small way a demonstration of an important characteristic of moral judgment in a complicated world: the ability to take responsibility for dealing with problems caused by other people.
People like to say “support the troops: bring them home” and they are absolutely right. But at the same time, we all understand that failure to pass any appropriations will not cause Bush to end the war. So, even if it’s entirely his fault, it is a knowable consequence of not appropriating any money.
Part of the reason why I’m a Democrat is that our party doesn’t operate on the “I’m not responsible for eminently predictable terrible consequences of my actions” philosophy that characterizes Bush and his cronies. The Democrats are grown ups, and at some point that does require at least an admission that you have to be the one to “cave” because your adversary will continue to be bullheaded and arrogantly put others at risk.
Now, today was not the day to do so, which was represented in the votes by Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, but it’s still an important decision, and I can’t blame those who came down on the other side too much. Like it or not, Bush is president and we can’t just feel satisfied with ideological purity if that means refusing to pay attention to what the lunatic-in-chief might do in response. As I said, I think passing this bill was terrible, and I’m glad at least a few stood against it, but let’s also recognize that the forces at work make it a tough decision.
One other thought on the bill…
I’ve heard people saying that this makes it hard for them to explain “why someone should vote for a Democrat” presumably because it demonstrates there is little daylight between us and them.
Rubbish, I say. This all seems like a GREAT argument for why you should vote for a Democrat. The vote proves that a Republican president will continue this war indefinitely, even if the majority of the public doesn’t want it, and even if the Democrats in Congress fight to end it. At the end of the day, there’s too much power tied up in the presidency and you simply can’t count on the will of the public or of individual people in Congress to beat that. And that means the only sure way to end this mess, and ensure we don’t get stuck in another one just like it, is to ensure that the person at the top is rational and committed to ending the war so we’re not stuck trying to mobilize 300 people in Congress.
Put simply, if a Democrat were president, this war would be over over over right now (and wouldn’t have been started in the first place). If you can’t use that to make a case for a Democratic president, then I don’t know what could possibly help.
* * *
This week’s Obama-watch: Andrew Sullivan suggests he might be the Reagan of the Left. Now, that’s may not be much of a compliment to me, but coming from someone like Sullivan, it’s quite a declaration of Obama’s ability to unite a wide range of people behind some progressive ideals and goals.
Other Obama news: he continues to support subsidies for coal-to-liquid technology, which is annoying though nowhere near the disaster that Matt Stoller insists that it is.
Seriously though, will anyone fight for subsidies to help develop effective mass transit programs? Talk about an easy way to reduce oil consumption, reduce congestion, and do something about the incessant suburbanization of America’s cities.
* * *
Finally, you want any further proof that elections matter, check out the Court’s most-recent gutting of the principle of equal protection in the majority (5-4, of course) opinion on Ledbetter v. Goodyear, written by its newest member. Scott Lemieux gives the run-down on just how ridiculous this one was. And you can be sure Sandra Day O’Connor would have come down on the other side.