First, let me explain why there is no compromise on Iraq. For a while, I was extremely worried that what I term the Iraq blurring Strategy would allow the governing coalition I listed above (George Bush, Bush Dogs, congressional Republicans, and anti-MoveOn, anti-Reid-Feingold Senators) to appear as though they were in favor of withdrawal, not actually conduct any withdrawal, but get re-elected and stay in power. They would be assisted in this process by a media and political elite that would not challenge their false claims to support withdrawal and desire to end the war, that would demand votes on meaningless, toothless withdrawal bills to provide political cover without ending the war, that would cause Democrats to support large, undefined, residual troop forces in Iraq, and that would, through the entire process, seek "bi-partisan compromise" above all else. This strategy would keep the working conservative majority in power not by ending the war, but by making it appear that it wants to end the war.
However, the more I think about it, there simply is no compromise to be had on Iraq at this point within the electorate, which makes me far less worried about the blurring strategy. For the 30%ers who support the working conservative majority, even talk of making withdrawal from Iraq as a "goal" is reprehensible. Even Republicans in Democratic districts who come out in support of compromise solutions to end the war that lack binding timelines are threatened, and not just idly threatened, with losing the endorsement and support of conservatives:
The chairman of the Onondaga County Conservative Party, Austin Olmsted, said Walsh's decision could put him at risk of losing its endorsement for the first time.
"I wasn't shocked or stunned by his remarks," said Olmsted. "It's kind of what I expected from him. He looks at his position in Washington as a career path. He's not serving in a capacity as our congressional representative. He's serving as a career. Most of the people I spoke with feel the same way. It's a very sad event."
Imagine, if you will, several dozen bizarre Cindy Sheehans demanding endless war at every single town hall meeting for congressional Republicans. That is what congressional Republicans are facing right now, as there is no compromise from the right on Iraq. None. Zilch. Nada. Not even for toothless bills that don't actually mandate any withdrawal.
For the rest of the country, there is no compromise on Iraq, either. Mere talk of possible future withdrawal is no longer acceptable to the country. Nationwide, the particularly mendacious blurring strategy where bush and Petraeus are selling a forced end to the escalation as a voluntary withdrawal is still viewed as not going far enough by a 50-36% margin nationwide:
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"President Bush has proposed reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels by the summer of 2008. Do you think by next summer he should remove more troops than that, remove fewer troops than that, or is that the right amount to remove?"
Remove all now (voluntary): 3%
Remove more: 47%
Right Amount: 29%
Remove Fewer: 7%
Depends (vol) / unsure: 14%
"Remove all now" and "Depends" were not even given as options, and yet they still ended up as notable choices anyway. Even in this skewed poll, the country still rejects the Iraq blurring strategy currently proposed by the conservative governing majority. Among those who have an opinion, by a 58% to 42% margin, the country thinks the Iraq blurring strategy does not do enough to withdraw troops. It simply isn't working with the electorate. Talk of withdrawal from Iraq simply is not good enough for those who favor withdrawal, as now also evidenced by Republicans approving of the Democratic controlled Congress more than Independents and Democrats:
Democrats and Independents have heard talk of withdrawal before, during the 2006 elections. They disapprove of the lack of progress on the matter, so why would they buy mere talk of weaker withdrawal a year from now? They have heard that one before.
The failure of the blurring strategy can also be seen in how the original practitioner of the Iraq Blurring Strategy, Joe Lieberman, would now lose an election to Ned Lamont. Lieberman was already an anomaly anyway, since the lack of a serious Republican candidate in that race provided him with massive support from the Republican base that other "bi-partisan" politicians would never receive. This is on top of Lieberman's national profile as a "bi-partisan" guy that very few other politicians can rely on, and his long-standing "in" with the Democratic base as the former Vice-Presidential nominee. No one else attempting the blurring strategy can count on notable support from Democrats, hard-core support from the Republican base, and a well-established image as a centrist compromiser. Lieberman has every advantage going for him in the blurring strategy, and it still wouldn't work for him.
So, in short, I do not think that there is any compromise to be had on Iraq, and as long as a politician attempting an Iraq blurring strategy is facing a candidate willing to call out bullshit withdrawals for what they are, I don't think the strategy will work. The country simply isn't having it, even if the media and political elite will continue to try and jam it down people's throats. This is extremely dangerous for the conservative governing majority, because when any governing majority is in the minority on the dominant issue of the day, and it is unable to compromise with the majority on that issue, it is removed from power. This is actually why the media and political elite are calling for " bi-partisan" compromise at all costs on Iraq (and other issues), because if they fail to convince the majority of the country that they have developed an acceptable compromise with them, then there will be a realignment that brings an end to the working conservative majority. This is why, for example, that the Fed Hiatt's and Washington Post's of the world have begged and demanded Harry Reid to allow the Iraq Blurring Strategy to go forward, as the Iraq Blurring Strategy is the only way for the conservative working majority to avoid suffering the fate of the Iraq realignment in Washington, D.C. "Bi-partisan compromise" is code for "we want to make a phony deal on Iraq with the electorate in order to stay in power."
Democrats have an absurd number of Senate and House targets still on the table even after the 2006 wave. Further, Democratic candidates for President all lead Republican candidates for President. Now, I now that many of the Democrats who are positioned to win these races would feel quite comfortable within the conservative working majority. However, just as with 2006, despite the influx of a sizable number of new Bush Dog Dems, a majority of the Democrats who are positioned to win would also be a part of a progressive governing coalition. When Democrats win, progressives take the lion's share of new seats as, for example, only 11 of 41 freshman Democrats this year in the House are also Bush Dogs. that was enough to keep the conservative working majority in place in Washington, but only starting from a position of a sizable Republican trifecta and Bush in the White House. With progressives already in possession of the House leadership, most committee chairs, and between 175-185 votes in the House, a second wave election, combined with a Democratic President, would end the conservative working majority, and give progressives more say over public policy than conservatives on virtually every single issue. No more FISA's. No more Schip vetoes. No more filibusters on the minimum wage. No more arguments over Habeas Corpus. No more regrets on judicial nominees like Alito. No more debates over whether or not to withdrawal from Iraq, but rather debates over how much and how fast. It would be the Iraq realignment, and at least temporarily remove the working conservative majority from power in Washington, D.C. And it could be even better than all this, considering that even FDR did not campaign as a strong progressive in 1932, but when he had huge majorities in Congress, he immediately acted like one upon taking power.
The only thing that can prevent this is the Iraq Blurring Strategy. As I indicated above, I don't think that the strategy will be a major problem for Democrats as long as they are willing to run on real withdrawal, and as long as they are willing to call out the Iraq Blurring Strategy in so doing. Democrats who do that will win in large numbers, and Democrats who do not will struggle. The key is making sure that we get enough Democrats to do the former through pressure in the media and activism in the primaries. We have to keep pushing the residual forces argument before more Republicans can argue that Democrats, especially our nominee for President, wants to keep an indeterminate amount of troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. We have to run primary challenges to particularly intransigent and useless Democrats, like Lipinski in IL-03 and Boswell in IA-03, while also targeting as many open seat primaries as possible. And yes, of course, we must continue to build infrastructure, because even if the media and political elite see their preferred governing majority defeated in 2008, they will do everything possible to regain power as soon as possible afterwards.
Basically, it is Iraq Blurring Strategy, or completing the Iraq Realignment. The odds currently favor realignment, but a lot of work still needs to be done. We must defeat the blurring strategy at all costs, because I firmly believe the electorate will take care of the rest from that point.
|
