The New York Times reports that once again, despite previous assurances that they would not, the Democrats in Congress have caved in under threat of veto from President Bush. When the American people elected a Democratic majority to both the House and Senate in 2006 it was assumed by most that the Democrats would end the war. A few weeks ago I watched Nancy Pelosi on one of the Sunday talk shows. The interviewer asked her why Congress had not acted to end the war during the last two years and her response was this:Â The President will veto it and the Democrats don’t have enough votes to override.
This is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. After being out of power for so long, they have become so concerned with the political consequences of their actions that they no longer have the courage of their convictions. Ultimately, one could even argue that the Iraq War might never have happened if the Democrats had not rubber-stamped the authorization to invade Iraq fearing negative publicity and criticism of their patriotism.
Don’t get me wrong. Every one of those Democrats would have been sharply criticized and likely called anti-Americans for voting against the authorization of force, but that’s no reason to go to war. Fear of political backlash is not a valid reason for any vote a politician makes. Should Congress move forward with impeachment proceedings against our president? Should the war continue to be as fully funded as President Bush requests or should Congress reduce funding in order to force the President to bring some troops home? Should telecom companies be given retroactive immunity for any past crimes they may have committed against the American people? These things should be decided on their merits, not based on how many votes it will cost Democratic Congressmen.Â
This is the Democratic establishment and it infuriates me because it’s only a slightly better alternative to the Republican establishment. The Democratic Party could be so much better, so much braver. But I don’t think they want that. They only want to be just different enough from the Republicans so that Americans will continue to vote for them as the Republicans screw up our nation. This is the party of Bill and Hillary Clinton, two people that I once admired and now disdain. Their time is over or should be. It’s time for a new generation of Democrats. A generation that seeks to be not just incrementally better than the alternative, but one that attempts to be bold and brave and fearless. If the President threatens to veto legislation that is important, make him veto it! Don’t be afraid to fight the good fight. Don’t be afraid of losing.
The problem with the Democratic establishment are that if they stood up for what they really stand for, 80% of America would vote against them. Their ideas are so far in left field (no pun intended) and so against the way the majority of Americans think that they have to cloak them in a “cone of silence” and hide behind the “we’re not George Bush and we’re against the war” platform that they’ve been stumping for.
I can agree with you on one thing, though. The Democrats need to start running on issues that really matter to everyday life (taxes, the economy, social issues). At least then if I disagreed with them, I would at least respect them.
As for my thoughts on the “war”, that will have to be fodder for a different post. 🙂 Perhaps I’ll put one on my own blog and you can read it and comment there.
I’m not so sure and I’m never convinced by the “Candidate X is too liberal/left for the American people” argument. Rather than characterize the sum of their positions, I’d rather look at their stance on 4 or 5 specific and important issues.
I’m so intrigued to find out what you think about the war that I’ve subscribed to your RSS feed! Let it rip!
🙂