As a result of the elections, it seems that now both parties will be involved in respective internal tugs of war. This is perhaps a refreshing departure from what the Democratic answer to Karl Rove, a man by the name of Rahm Emmanuel, calls “the politics of polarization”. Rather than bitter partisanship between two diametrically opposed parties, it seems that we have entered a new era of American politics which may be characterized by internal party civil wars. Among other issues, Republicans have to internally debate the issue of immigration reform and Democrats, for their part, will have to sort out just how far left and “progressive” their own party is. As I have previously pointed out, many of the Democrats who won last Tuesday in the closest races are not of the far left liberal progressive ilk. Many consider themselves to be "moderates" if not conservatives, which results in a blurring of the lines that usually can be relied upon to distinguish between members of each party. For example, former Republican Jim Webb, who defeated George Allen, is more of a conservative than the liberal Lincoln Chaffe who ended up being punished for being a member of a party of which he rarely holds the same opinion with.
It will be more illuminating, and in the end more productive, for each party to conduct these internal debates than it ever was to launch vitriolic attacks against the opposing side of the aisle and never arriving at a party platform.
Enter the lovely Kirsten Powers, a Democratic strategist who seems to understand that the modern day electorate prefers a more reasonable, less far left leaning Democratic Party. On her blog, she defends Joe Lieberman against elements of her own party who discarded him for essentially wanting to fight a more pro-active war on terror. And on election night, she pointed out that many of the Democrats who won in close races are considered “blue dog” Democrats who are essentially conservatives that refer to themselves as Democrats for various reasons. It is people like Powers that may yet save the viability of the Democratic Party by, among other things, making the point that there is room in the Democratic Party for those who advocate an aggressive and pro-active war on terror. I encourage you to peruse her writings @ Powers Point.
3 comments:
Ahh activist...so enigmatic. Ok I'll bite, what do you mean this time? You commented on other posts than this, if that's what you mean.
Did you manage to read the part of that article where Kissinger warned that a premature withdrawal (which is favored by Democrats) would invite disaster?
He said, "A dramatic collapse of Iraq — whatever we think about how the situation was created — would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region,"
In any event, I agree that we need a political solution in Iraq. The military phase of the war is over and we have prevailed; now the Iraqis must demonstrate a desire to live in freedom. The Iraqi people have to determine if they would rather live in peace or face endless Iraqi on Iraqi bloodshed. At the moment, they seem to desire the latter choice. If that is the case, then there is not much more we can do for them. However, politicians setting an arbitrary time table in Washington, as Kissinger points out, would invite disaster. It is up to the military to decide if and when we withdraw forces.
Kissinger is an idiot. As is Young Activist.
In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the problem WAS/IS the political. That's why the military actions are so important.
That is why we need more troops. To wipe Iraq clean of EVERYONE. That is the mindset we needed to employ in '03. Wipe Iraq clean and start over.
Post a Comment