The IMF-War Supplemental Bill: Different Voices Paint Different Pictures

by: Phillip Martin

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:44

I wrote this as a personal reflection point; I don't presume to know or be suggesting any statistical or methodological pretext in this post. I just wanted to raise the observations of one node in the network.

I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

Ron Paul's speech on the War Funding Bill (antiwar.com)

As a lifelong Texas Democrat, I don't know if there's anything that pains me more than having to cite Ron Paul at the beginning of my first post written for OpenLeft. But the man has a point -- what the heck just happened?

I read the national blogs -- the "short head" of the political blogosphere -- regularly, but not fervently. I browse the stories on Google Reader, go to several sites to comment on interesting posts, but my real focus is on state politics. I write for Burnt Orange Report down in Texas, and if I only have 30 minutes a day to focus on blogging politics, I'll focus on state politics and not really pay attention to national politics.

This is all by way of saying that I just lose some stories. I just do. And, for whatever reason -- my recent graduation from grad school, job hunting, blah blah -- I had no idea that nearly 2/3 of progressives who pledged not to fund the war have totally changed their minds until KT got all of us over at BOR involved.

But now what? I can do little more than read the coverage. And that's what this post is about -- the different tones in coverage that are now recorded and part of the "history" of this particular Congressional milestone. But I'm not talking about Democrat vs. Republican (as all the major papers will report), or even Democrats vs. Democrat (which is the more obvious discussion for Democrats to have). No, I'm talking about the difference in tones among Democrats that wanted the "No" vote, including:

1. The thoughtful: Supplemental Still on the Brink? (David Waldman, Congress Matters)
   
2. The motivational: Whip Count: The Final Total, or How We Went from 0 to 32 (Jane Hamsher, FDL)
3. The wearied: House Passes IMF-War Supplemental (Chris Bowers, OpenLeft)
4. The bitter: In Congress: 32 Heroes, 21 Frauds (David Swanson, Opednews.com)

These are not the whole spectrum of tones, I'm sure -- just the ones I interacted with right away when I was reading about this tonight. And I don't mean to pigeonhole any/all of these voices as solely existing in that tone. Those descriptors are relevant to this set of observations on this issue, with the hope that a simple case-study may generate an interesting discussion.

So here's the question: in light of the fact that I wish I had done more and am displeased by the outcome, how do I react/respond to the various rhetoric of the coverage provided by those whose goals I agree with?

One of the biggest memes the netroots is constantly fighting against is the idea that we mindlessly participate in an "echo chamber." Yet I would argue that each of those posts has decidedly different tones, and that each tone influences an activists' perception on the work that was done in distinctly different ways.

Ultimately, the dividing line among these voices has little to do with any talking points -- because each group supported the same side of the same issue. Instead, the dividing line amongs the "progressives of the progressives" appears to be those who appreciate emergence politics, and those who don't.

The thoughtful and wearied posts are in the middle of the emotional spectrum on this issue, but each ultimately hold onto some belief and/or positive outlook on the work that was done.

The thoughtful: Supplemental Still on the Brink? (David Waldman, Congress Matters)

That the supplemental is on the brink of failure -- but only on the brink -- when there are 178 Republicans opposed to the IMF funding and 80 or so Democrats supposedly opposed to war funding without timelines attached is either a testament to the ability of the administration and House leadership's vote whipping abilities or a raw embarrassment to the ability of the anti-war and/or responsible war factions of House Democrats to hold their numbers....

The fact that enough of this anti/responsible war coalition is still hanging together in opposition to put the supplemental in jeopardy is largely the result of outside work -- netroots work, to be specific -- led by Firedoglake and the use of their Citizen Whip Count Tool. It's a great accomplishment in itself, and it's something I think we can replicate in the future.

The wearied: House Passes IMF-War Supplemental (Chris Bowers, OpenLeft):

This is definitely disappointing. However, it is still impressive how close this effort came, that the Democratic leadership was delayed for as long as they were, and that President Obama had to eventually start whipping votes himself...

Even though I definitely could have helped more, and even though this defeat is in no way the fault of the people who worked so hard to fight the supplemental, I am pretty sick of moral victories. Let's work to make sure there are none of those the rest of the year.

These two posts each express clear regret with the outcome, while still stressing (to some extent) the success that was achieved. As someone who fundamentally believes in emergence politics, I like their realism, though Bowers' "I am pretty sick of moral victories" comment -- as devastatingly true as it is -- makes me feel more disheartened than the Congress Matters piece. Still, I'm happy to read it -- as I am to read Waldman's direct language in his hovering account of the entire episode.

Ultimately, both Bowers and Waldman champion the element of emergence politics, while acknowledging the defeat.

The motivational: Whip Count: The Final Total, or How We Went from 0 to 32 (Jane Hamsher, FDL)

I am just incredibly excited and energized by what happened. We all knew we were going to "lose" eventually, but "winning" was never the goal.

Just remember:

They had to hold it open 10 extra minutes and after the Dems hit 218 and there were five GOP votes that scurried in under the wire.

We made the President of the United States himself whip to get the votes. [...]

I'm very proud to have worked with every single one of you. This was going to be a rout. They had to work for it.

Let's do it again.

Hell yeah! Jane Hamsher, who by all accounts helped lead the charge of all of this, got me excited to join the next fight. Her post details exactly how the momentum was built -- thus empowering me with data while letting me relive the battle. By detailing the step-by-step, small fight by small fight process of the 32-person battle, I connect to the narrative of the struggle and feel a longing for having missed out.

Though -- like Bowers and Waldman -- Hamsher's focus is on the success of emergence politics, its less worried about all of that. It is not weighed down with thought -- its action! And as much as I love the long thoughtful writings of bloggers (I mean, come on -- are you reading this meta-post?), I still just want to see some action. I want to kick some butt, too -- and Jane's post certainly inspired me to want to feel that way more than the other emergence politics posts.

Then, there was the other voice...

The bitter: In Congress: 32 Heroes, 21 Frauds (David Swanson, Opednews.com)

Of course the bulk of Congress and the bulk of civic organizations are not mentioned here at all because they are proud war mongers or they are groups that never involve themselves in the struggle for peace even when it's safe to do so. The worst offense is not necessarily hypocrisy. The worst offense is promotion of militarism.

I don't connect with the peace activist who appears to view his cause as the only one. He would argue that I am a "war monger" because I missed out this story for the totally non-selfish reasons of graduation, family, job interviews, etc.

No, I don't think so. That kind of declaration can only be counterproductive. Empathizing with others in defeat is one thing; polarizing others in defeat is quite another. If the lesson of this experience is that we have to do it ourselves, then does it make any sense to make ourselves -- and others who may want to join us -- just outright miserable?

Let's fight the establishment and change things, sure -- but we can't conquer all the fiefdoms at once. And the ones whose gates we do crash, we're not going to claim total victory in the first battle. To quote my favorite Texas artist, Robert Earl Keen, "It's a long, slow burn."

And yes, moral victories can get tiresome. But if we learn from them, stay positive, and continue the path of emergence politics, then aren't we the better for it? The better we evaluate who will always be with us (which I think yesterday's events helped us do), the sooner we can assess which are the most constructive and effective ways to move forward from here. Continuing the long, slow burn will require thoughtfulness, motivation, and weariness of being pulled down the wrong path.

Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, excessive bitterness is a refuge for the weak. The groups that will be honest with me, inspire me, and teach me will always earn the bulk of my respect. The groups that put politics over policy and exist in silos of their own self-importance will always earn the bulk of my dismissal.