| First, the administration's "surge of facts" has already begun, and it's likely to be more effective than it should be. The conservative movement retains a large and powerful structural advantage in its ability to inject talking points into national security controversies. Their media are more organized and more effective. The administration's willingness to use the entire might of the executive office to push a single line is still rewarded. Their friends in the establishment media are still willing to take dictation.
Second, the nascent progressive foreign policy movement -- by which I mean not the ensconced hacks with neither the inclination nor the ability to counter malicious conservative propaganda, but emerging groups willing to mix it up on the ground -- are less mature than I had hoped. They have limited bandwidth, which they can successfully use on narrow issues, but they can't push back to the degree we need to effectively counter the conservative spread the zone strategem. They have done admirable and effective work on benchmarks and the idea that Al Qaeda is leading the Iraq insurgency, and some of the amendments, but adding Iran to the portfolio is too much. The emerging groups are simply too small; they need help.
Third, the Senate leadership isn't willing to reign in the caucus and focus its messaging. In light of the legacy advantages enjoyed by conservatives and the bandwidth issues of progressive forces, the leadership needs to narrow the debate. We just can't deal with five or six important amendments over a two week period, especially since the details matter so much. When media, activists, and experts have trouble distinguishing the various pieces of legislation on offer, there's simply too much in the pipeline -- especially since some of it is basically vanity legislation, on offer so that one Senator or another can get their name in a title, or to allow "moderates" a vote that better suits their centrist conceits. It's obviously difficult for the leadership to discipline the Democratic caucus, but there's no evidence that they've made an attempt.
Finally, Senator Levin's prominence in this process is a problem. He's just not a team player and his closed operation exacerbates the institutional deficit under which we labor by forcing us to respond to surprises, rather than giving us the ability to prepare. Despite the debate being managed by a Democrat, and a Democrat relatively good on the substance at that, conservatives have consistently been better coordinated and organized. Levin's alienation from progressive activists also leaves him behind the curve on some strategic issues, to put things charitably.
These factors, combined with the still incredibly poor instincts of the Democratic caucus, combine to produce things like the 97-0 vote in favor of Joe Lieberman's Iran Amendment. No one on the Hill or in progressive foreign policy circles seems to have had any idea that the amendment was going to be introduced (although the Weekly Standard got a heads up). A troubling number of people seem to think that the amendment was unimportant, or effectively neutered by Democratic modifications, suggesting a disappointing inability to learn from the Iraq debacle. Democratic Senators -- who voted unanimously for the amendment -- are apparently still enthralled to those pollsters and advisers who think mindless philo-militarism and sabre-rattling help in looking "strong" on national security. They also harbor a baffling credulity when it comes to sources -- like Kevin Bergner and David Petraeus -- that should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.
Someone in the Democratic caucus needs to stand up and say "stop" when things like the "bipartisan" Lieberman amendment hit the floor. The leadership did not see fit to do it. Nor did any of the Democratic Presidential candidates. Carl Levin endorsed the amendment, signing onto it without any input, after receiving the minimalest of assurances that it wouldn't authorize the use of force.
Had Democrats taken the time to consult with national security experts, they would have learned what they should have already known: that many of the assertions laid out in the amendment were far from settled. The amendment included a collection of cherry-picked quotes from suspect sources, yet was based entirely on the credibility of those sources. Democrats also would have had time to examine the strategic impact of the vote, which will undoubtedly be used to undermine efforts to get out of Iraq. And we would have had time to make our voices heard. |
