It's why the "veto proof majority" (4.00 / 2)

is complete fantasy. As is impeachment.

You want to end the war? Get the yes votes from today to agree not to fund it anymore.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 23:36:00 PM CDT

The Law of Inertia (0.00 / 1)

You've set this up as a clear-cut struggle between anti-war forces and pro-war forces. That gives too much credit to the strength of pro-war forces. And I'm not sure the threat of a primary challenge is the key factor. A bigger obstacle to anti-war forces is simple inertia. Whenever you're asking a representative to switch positions on an issue as big as the Iraq War -- particularly in opposition to a president of their party -- you are going to find huge resistance to change. Don't underestimate the power of the status quo. It's the political equivalent to Newton's First Law: "Unless acted upon, a body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion..."

The key question is: How do anti-war forces "act upon" Members of Congress who support the war?

Poll numbers showing public opposition to the war aren't enough. However, if anti-war forces can demonstrate to a representative that their continued support of the war threatens the status quo, ie their seat in Congress, we will overcome inertia and see movement. It is only when that threat becomes tangible enough will we see a critical mass of pro-war representatives switch positions and oppose the war.

So I submit that the fact that anti-war votes in the House are fewer than the Democratic vote says more about the unorganized nature of the anti-war forces than the strength of the pro-war crowd.

---

by: Spike @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:42:36 AM CDT

perhaps (4.00 / 1)

It is only when that threat becomes tangible enough will we see a critical mass of pro-war representatives switch positions and oppose the war.

I'll be interested to watch.  My sense is that there is a tangible threat... if you oppose the occupation.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:22:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tangible Threats (0.00 / 0)

There is "...real fluidity in our political system brought by Bush's unpopularity. Basically, he's turning a lot of red areas blue, and potentially putting a whole bunch of seats in play..." - Matt Stoller

This astute observation more effectively captures the point that I was trying to make.

---

by: Spike @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:03:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We can't discuss party discipline because (0.00 / 0)

we're a nation of political stupidheads. 

Seriously, party discipline is self-sacrifice of the individual for the group.  We, as a group, are unable to employ that equation in the service of anything but religious faith.  Politics is mysterious and vaguely shameful

It's always been this way, imho.  Politics is icky, and the only thing that can mitigate the stink is religion.  Americans, for the most part, would rather change a poopy diaper than spend 2 minutes discussing secular ideology with someone who they were not absolutely sure agreed with them in every detail.

Sorry to go big-picture, but the only solution that makes any sense to me is to focus on political education, or civics if you want to be old-school, the same way we have on sex education.

---

by: klondike @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:06:49 AM CDT

General elections are the problem (0.00 / 1)

The problem is that in a lot of places primaries would make the seat damn difficult to hold. If, for example, we primaried Boren, there's every chance the nominee would lose the seat.

Personally, I'd argue that the risk is worth it - if disloyal Dems realise that their party will take them down if they cosy up to the right, no matter what the cost, then they'd be less likely to take these stances - but I suspect I'm in a pretty small minority there.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 16:53:49 PM CDT