Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
August 10, 2007 5:16 AM
How to End the War? Make GOPers Decide Between Bush and Their Base
One of the major reasons why Democrats have not yet been able to pass legislation slowing down or ending the Iraq War is because they have remained within their archetype (aka. the role low-information voters perceive them as reflexively playing). The strongest bills they have proposed have all been straight-up "antiwar" bills - that is, they bring the troops home to end the war and that's about it. True, that IS the antiwar movement's goal (a goal I wholeheartedly support) - but the problem with it as the stand-alone legislative strategy is that it doesn't allow Democrats to play outside their antiwar archetype on Republican turf, nor does it make the average Republican incumbent all that uncomfortable, because it doesn't force Republicans to make a choice between loyalty to Bush and loyalty to their conservative base.
Right now, the antiwar movement's strategy is a battle of attrition. Keep pushing standalone antiwar bills, and hope that public opposition to the war will force Republicans to peel off. It certainly may work - but to echo Robert Redford's famous line in The Candidate, there is a better way - at least in terms of a legislative strategy that gets our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Think for a moment about which issue Republicans have been trying to one-up and out-conservative each other on...Got it in your head? Right - it's illegal immigration. On that issue, the least offensive Republican proposal from a racist/xenophobic perspective has been the effort to beef up border security. A look at recent congressional votes shows that beefing up border security has the widest bipartisan support among all the immigration-related proposals being considered.
So here's the concept (which, though I'm not 100 percent sure, I don't think has been tried yet in Congress): How about when Congress reconvenes in September, Democrats bring a bill to the floor of the House and Senate mandating that, say, 25,000 National Guardsmen be taken out of combat in Iraq and be immediately redeployed to guard America's porous domestic borders - both southern and northern? If Democrats wanted to get even more creative, they could additionally mandate that some of these National Guardsmen being redeployed be immediately sent to forest fire emergency zones - many of which are in Republican states right now.
Think this through for a moment. All of a sudden, the illegal-immigration-obsessed Tom Tancredo wing of the Republican Party, which also happens to be the most reflexively pro-war wing of the GOP, would be forced to choose either the Iraq War or beefed up border security. All of a sudden, we would be having a debate about two very real, very pressing priorities, rather than theoreticals and hypotheticals, and we would be discussing exactly how the misuse of our National Guard as a wing of the regular Army harms our ability to deal with the domestic challenges the National Guard was originally established to deal with.
With the war so unpopular, far-right, law-and-order, "tough on immigration" conservatives would be hard-pressed to vote against this kind of bill, potentially providing a veto-proof majority in support of it. And if they didn't vote for it, Democrats would have a flip-flop campaign ad all set for 2008. You can just hear the voiceover: "The Republicans who told us they support border security voted against Democrats' bill to secure our borders."
Obviously, this is not an ideal way to end the war. As Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has said, there are very legitimate concerns about the downsides of militarizing our domestic borders. But Durbin has also said that "Democrats are willing to support any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including the deployment of National Guard troops." And most if not all would be willing to accepting the potential downsides of an increased military presence at our border (downsides which could be minimized if managed properly) as the price to end the war in Iraq.
And that is precisely what this bill would do. With Bush having recklessly stretched the military so thin, taking 25,000 national guardsmen out of the Iraq deployment rotation would compel an end to the war.
In the legislative arena where making law is making imperfect sausages, this is a strategy designed to break apart the Republican coalition by playing offense on their archetype as "tough on immigration" conservatives. Rather than pursuing only the attrition strategy of digging in on the antiwar archetype and hoping public pressure converts a few Republicans (a strategy that could take months of even years), Democrats have to target one GOP weak point that will make Republicans decide between Bush and their base. This strategy laid out here does precisely that, and would have the very real potential of getting a wave of Republicans to vote yes, thus getting our troops out of Iraq right now.
UPDATE: For the record, I feel that with as sensitive an issue as immigration, it is important to reiterate that this is not ideal, but it is a legislative strategy that tries to use the imperfect world within Congress to get something done on the most pressing national security issue of our generation - and in a way that leverages the most bipartisan piece of the divisive immigration debate to make it happen. There is no doubt that the Tancredos of the world use the border security issue to mask their underlying and deplorable racism, and thus I think we all understand why many immigrant rights advocates now hear the term "border security" and automatically think that the person saying it is just trying to shroud a racist instinct in something more politically palatable. But I think this is a very important point: I think, for instance, taking money from racists, surrounding yourself with racists makes you a racist, and proves that you are using talk of "border security" as a way to shroud a racist agenda. But I don't think that simply being for better border security at all of our ports and borders means you are automatically racist. That alone does not make you a racist - it just makes you concerned about national security. You can quite legitimately be for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are currently here, for increased legal immigration, and against the growing anti-Hispanic racism in this country while also believing it's a problem that thousands of miles of our northern and southern borders are completely unsecured. Furthermore, I think if people are automatically accused of racism merely for bringing up the concept of improved border security at ALL of our borders - I think that hurts not only the ability of us to discuss these issues rationally, but hurts the credibility and the case of those who are very courageously trying to fight racism.
The art of the legislative arena - an imperfect arena at best - is to find a way to stay true to your own ideals, while wedging the other side into the position of feeling like they HAVE to support you. The least offensive thing that the Tancredo wing has hung its hat on is better border security. Now, we all KNOW that this wing uses border security to SHROUD its racist motivations - no one denies that. But what I'm proposing is calling their damn bluff. They say they aren't racists and really just for "controlling the borders?" Well, OK, here's what they publicly say they want - now are they going to vote for it or not?
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- "Center-Right Nation" Meme On Tape
- "Center-Right Nation" - Election Day Watch
- Promoting the Guy Whose Lies Boosted Ratings & Killed Thousands
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Mark Penn Edition
- Mandate Watch - Bellwether Races/Initiatives To Watch Below the Presidential Contest
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Doug Schoen Edition
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch
- Writing Lessons
- Court Says Colorado's Katherine Harris Is Violating Federal Law With Voter Purges
- NEWSFLASH: America Doesn't Like Its Jobs Shipped Overseas
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008 -
October 2, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Sirota you're a genius...seriously...I've always been a proponent of some sort of military draft tied to a bill...but this is much more subtle and probably more effective.
I think this is a seriously bad idea!
Nothing that obscures the direct conflict between the forces of peace and war can be allowed. We have to keep beating both Republicans and Democrats with growing opposition to the war and give them NO graceful exit. This will take longer, but it is the only meaningful goal.
In 2003 after the fall of Baghdad we started hearing all sorts of war-mongering stories in the press attacking Syria for "supporting terrorism" and openly warning that "Syria's next." If Iraq hadn't descended into such a cataclysm we would have invaded Syria and if that were successful, Iran by now. Cheney still wants to attack Iran before Bush's term expires and may yet get his way.
After Vietnam the American people never accepted the lessons of that war, that invading and occupying other countries that have not directly attacked you is wrong and immoral as well as self-defeating. Partly this was due to working-class resentment of the "counter-culture" and white racist backlash over the civil rights movement. Instead we got the "Powell doctrine", which basically said "don't invade unless you get it right this time."
But 5 years after the fall of Saigon we elected Ronald Reagan and elevated the neo-cons to power, where the immediately tried to undo as much of the post-Vietnam consensus as they could. Bush II only completed the job. We're now back to the 50's and 60's consensus about the use of American power, which is dysfunctional and dangerous as well as immoral, because the world has changed a lot since 1960 and is a lot less tolerant of American imperial pretensions.
Bush ignored the Powell doctrine, but would it have been better if they'd gotten it right, if we had a SUCCESSFUL imperial conquest that would only lead to more and more, until we're "remaking the middle-east?"
We have to fight this political battle out on the most basic level of peace versus war and beat down the Republican war mongers and force every reluctant Democrat to embrace peace.
That will take longer, but unless we win that battle this time we'll get the idiot bastards who brought us Iraq back in a few years to have another try! Already they're trying out their "stab-in-the-back" theory in anticipation of losing the war. And we can confidently predict every step of the revisionist history we'll be subjected to that attempts to blame Democrats and pacifists for "abandoning the troops" -- just before victory of course!
If we don't want to re-fight this battle all over again in a few years we'd better get it right this time!
Its was the Democrats(Kennedy and Reid) and Bush who pushed so called immigration reform to the fore and generated a firestorm of public outrage aimed at Congress. Tancredo just rode the wave created by open border Democrats and their corporate buddies.
And your idea won't fly politically. Democrats are hostile to any attempt to secure the border since they are terrified of offending their growing hispanic base. And I don't see the Dems offending groups like LaRaza and the illegal alien activists .
Besides the GOP base will see it for the shameless stunt it is. The GOP base knows from past experience that the Dems are the enemies of border and port security so there's no way the base will believe the Dems on this. Hence no pressure to their GOP to support the Dems.
As long as the Democrats keeping caving in to the GOP on the Iraq war one spending bill after another while at the same time REFUSING to try and overcome filibusters and vetoes by REFUSING to reframe and stick to ideas, the Bush/Limbaughian GOP will keep getting its ways and the Democrats will look like just another pile of BATTERED and SEVERELY ABUSED spouses !
As far as the GOP base is concerned, there are two bases:
1. The fake social conservative base that rails about guns, abortion, gays, flag-burning, patriotism, affirmative action, illegal immigrants, school prayer, creationism vs evolution, religion, etc ...
2. The actual base that fights to enrich the coffers of the wealthy/business elitists at all costs and yes, they're libertarian all the way at least on the economics.
#2 couldn't possibly succeed without distracting the voters with #1. It's going to take a 3rd party to forces these two bases to tear each other apart because as I see it, they keep cooperating behind closed doors and winning by putting up fake wrestling matches (thank you 3rdoption for enlightening me) to keep the public distracted even as the country continues to fall into TOTAL DISARRAY.
Why else would the media choose to hide the DISASTROUS effects of Bush's "tax cuts" with the Chandra Levy goose chase back in 2001?
Good idea David as one who has family in country on their 4th deployment since 9/11 anything that brings any number of our suffering ill served troops works for me..!
Also did you notice the National Guard at the Bridge collapse..?
No guess why they were not there in Minnesota they're in the desert junk yard sand trap hell hole of Iraq..!
The Republicans have refused to protect our borders Bush and Chertoff especially this is due to their wanting another attack so badly, so that they can inflict NSPD-51 and then establish their Unitary Dictatorship and suspend elections in 2008 so as to maintain "Continuity"..
Simple as that..!
Might bring the 'Blue Dog' Democrat coalition to heel as well, those folks who helped Bush pass continued funding for Iraq and extended 'wiretapping.' A good article, 'Blue Dog Democrats, Staunch Bush Allies' at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081007J.shtml naming the 47 Dogs along with their website. Beats me how they can claim to be fiscally conservative or 'responsible' and yet vote to continue pouring money down the drain in Iraq (ultimately a trillion dollars?). Congressional approval is at 15% the lowest since they started recording it in 1973, even lower than the previous republican rating. I guess the Blue Dog strategy is working real well (for the republicans).
That's not one of your better ideas David. Neocons like Dick and Nancy are always looking for places to post soldiers so that their buddies can make huge profits by supplying them with defective gear. Give the neocons an excuse to deploy another 25,000 and they'll just increase recruitment incentives, military budgets, and war profits yet again.
And America will go down the tubes even faster.
Blue Dogs are Republicans in sheep's clothing, who saw a chance to get elected over unpopular incumbents by calling themselves Democrats.
They make even the Republi-lites look liberal with their phony "centrism".
People will vote for them because they claim they are Democrats, but at the same time these liars will support Republican agendas just like every rubber-stamp neo-con in the Republican party.
We need to get rid of these liars.
It is a very good reason to send campaign contributions directly to the candidates of your choice and NOT go through the DNC/DLC, who are so enamored with gaining more "Democrats" in the Congress, they will support the very candidates who will stab the true base of the party in the back.
"Blue Dogs are Republicans in sheep's clothing" - Butte
Butte, my wife's sister learned that the HARD way unfortunately back in 2002. She met a few of the Blue Dog Democrats in person and while they sounded nice on the outside, the minute she asked any of them a question concerning economic issues or even the environment, war, health care, etc ... they would react in a hostile manner and within a minute ring up security guards to escort her out before she could ask another question.
P.S.: Speaking of Blue Dog Democrats, I can remember when Norman Sisisky, former Democrat US Rep of Chesapeake, VA, gleefully spoke against his party and PISSED off most of his supporters by accusing the party of being too "liberal" and not giving RAYGUN their "support" despite getting elected so many terms in a row by falsely promising to be an opposition. He died in office in 2001 but while his son publicly claimed his support of Louise Lucas, he secretly helped Corporate Trial Lawyer Randy Forbes win and later admitted that he liked Forbes over Lucas. Of course, Lucas got trapped in the culture wars such as race and abortion and never made economic issues central to campaigning. The district was later RIGGED to keep Forbes holding it longer of course. Of course, the Democrats could still beat the fucker if they'd get their issues straight but that's a goner thanks to DLCish domination from the likes of Warner and Kaine and now Webb's losing populism to make matters worse.
The Democrats blew their one chance at stopping the war when Pelosi and Reid took impeachment off the table.
Why? it is the only tool the Democrats had to remove the brains of the administration and the architect of the war - Dick Cheney. They had lots of stuff to impeach him but didn't use any of it.
Remove him and the whole administration goes down for the count.
Instead Pelosi reverted back to status-quo back room politics and taking bribes like her daddy used too.
And the Democrats are freaking out about Cindy Sheehan. G-d what a fucking bunch of whiners and losers. No wonder Cheney has nothing but contempt for them.
Now the Democrats have no leverage at all on putting a end to this war. Instead we're treated to desperate gambits like the one Sirota has thrown out that no GOPer would take seriously.
Oh, on the cutting off funding strategy, forget about it. Cut off the funding and all Bush will do is let our soldiers die from lack of ammo, food and water by the hundreds. Bush doesn't care and the military brass don't either. They'll just blame it on the Democrats. BTW this is one reason supposedly the Dems folded on the funding battle(I'm sure that Levin, Webb and others were told in no uncertain terms that Bush would let the troops be slaughtered). Cutting off funding would turn the military against the Dems in a very, very bad way.
Cutting off funding would turn the military against the Dems, but FENCED funding where the Congress dictates to the Chickenhawk in Chief exactly HOW the money is to be spent, and get those kids home, wouldn't.
Of course Bush could veto it. Bad juju with and election year coming up. OR he might just try to play games with the money and open himself up to ANOTHER impeachable offense.
Pelosi and Reid might claim that impeachment's off the table, but a grass roots movement could force their hands, because of the upcoming election year, and also the impeachment doesn't have to be initiated in the House.
Any state legislature can initiate an impeachment of a Federal official, and if Pelose & Co. ignore it they can open themselves up to a recall campaign, or even impeachment themselves.
Just something to think about.
Join the Discussion