The War Party

[Warren Stupidity]

From the current issue of The Nation:

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.


The Strategic Class
Ari Berman
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

[mmonk]

1. It's time for leadership in America,

the kind that can bring back open government. Truthful government. No more imperial dreams.

[welshTerrier2]

2. are you suggesting there may have been ghost writers ??

[Dr Fate]

3. Those Democrats still think it's last year- they are out of touch.

They need to stop listening to the "strategists" who lost the last 3 election cycles and start listening to regular old Americans.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Yes but one of the points made

in the article is that the War Party has institutionalized its world view. If you want to pay your rent and be a 'strategist' then you have to tow the line. They've monopolized 'acceptable thought' and they ostracize independent thinkers. So everywhere you go in Washington, you hear the same basic world view.


If Hart is correct, then why does so much of the Democratic strategic class march in lockstep? There's no simple answer. The insularity of Washington, pressures of careerism, fear of appearing soft and the absence of institutional alternatives all contribute to a limiting of the debate. Bill Clinton's misguided political dictum that the public "would rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right" applies equally to the strategic class.


There is nobody else to listen to. You have John Conyers and the Black Caucus out in the wilderness, and essentially that is it. Everyone else is towing the line, worrying about keeping their seat or their thinktank job or their consulting business, or their potential for employment through the revolving door.

I'll add on to what Ari Berman says: it is going to take a much higher level of general dysfunction before the corruption in Washington collapses.

[Dr Fate]

5. Frustrating- but how many elections have they won for us?

Sooner or later they are going to have to look at theie own score-card and at public opinion.

I refer to them as "the strategists who lost the last 3 elections."

I just dont see how these guys are going to maintain their power if they keep on costing DEM candidates their jobs/power.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I don't really think they care about winning.

Here is the dark place I am in on the state of affairs. Essentially the 'game' is over (the game being serious contention between two competing political parties with different world views.) The Democratic Party Washington establishment is just settling for permanent 2nd place, they couldn't care less about upsetting the established order. They've got their K street careers, they've got the safe congressional seats to feed off of, and they have the punditocracy career path as well. As long as they don't make waves the ruling party will not go after them. Their only task, a task that they are enthusiastically devoted to, is to convince the blue state Democratic base that their way is the only way. So far they seem to be holding their own.

Lets see what happens to Krugman. His last essay in the NYT seriously crossed the line. Lets see where Dean ends up. The battle for control of the Democratic money machine is between Dean's outsider faction and the establishment. They have been maneuvering to isolate and marginalize him ever since he came out of nowhere last year. He's been getting sandbagged from the DLC/New Democrat side on a regular basis.

[Dr Fate]

7. I dont buy it. The quest for power & access to it trumps all.

People dont lose their jobs & access to the top on purpose.

I cant see why Kerry would be "in on" remaining a Senator instead of being the most powerful man in the world-it was in his grasp-he barely missed it- or why Edwards would be "in on" losing his job. Etc, etc.

I dont buy it- those top DEMs want power-and more of it-all politicans do- and if these "strategists" keep on making them lose it, there are going to have to be some changes...

The mentality you speak of probably does exist in some circles, I guess- but the reality is that this "permanent second place" slot gets more & more narrow- the more power and jobs these guys lose the more it becomes clear that it's not a good position for anyone.