NO on the IWR merely a "symbolic" act.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

On another thread someone posted that voting "NO" on the IWR was merely a "symbolic" act of no consequence. While those that voted for the IWR were being "pragmatic".

Some "merely symbolic" acts that were "inconsequential" at the time in that they had no immediate effect:

- Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat and move to the back of the bus didn't end segregation.

- Gandhi weaving his own cloth didn't free India.

- Wayne Morse voting against the Tonkin Resolution didn't stop the war.

- The Boston Tea Party didn't didn't liberate America.

- A single Chinese man standing in front of the tanks stop the Tienanmin massacre.

- The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth didn't bring about the fall of the Roman Empire.

- John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry didn't free the slaves.

- Thousands of people burning their draft cards during the Vietnam war didn't stop the draft.

- The suicide of Seneca didn't unseat Nero.

- The storming of the Bastille didn't depose Louis XVI.

- The peace marches against the invasion of Iraq didn't stop it.

- The 23 senators who did vote NO to the IWR didn't stop the invasion.

And, many more examples of "merely symbolic" acts of conscience that weren't "pragmatic", "politically expedient", or "consequential".

I guess they shouldn't have bothered.

[killbotfactory]

1. Voting yes was correct AND politically expedient!

Sure Bush may have screwed up the handling, but all our democrats who voted yes would have done it the RIGHT way, not the wrong way like Bush!

Don't you feel safer now that Saddam is out of power?

[iowapeacechief]

2. Who said "merely" symbolic?

I love your point and your examples, but I suspect you are also skewing the argument. Symbols are a big deal; who said otherwise? I don't recall any Congress members minimizing the significance of the symbols involved in their IWR decisions.

[ShimokitaJer]

6. I think that's his point

Those who forgive support of the IWR because opposition wouldn't have made a difference are dismissing the power of the symbol: opposition on moral, ethical, and constitutional grounds rather than political ones

[ShimokitaJer]

3. Exactly. The Democratic party doesn't approve of activism anymore

Unfortunately, activism is exactly what we need when we are facing a corrupt leadership like the Bush administration. The Dems who preferred to shut up and toe the line were more worried about their own political futures than the future of their country. Bush was able to go into an unprecedented war of agression claiming bipartisan support... but what did we Dems gain?

Now, of course, the politically expedient thing to do is to deny ever supporting the IWR... which is, of course, what they are all jumping through rhetorical hoops to try and do.

[stopbush]

4. And if the majority in Congress had voted "No"

that would have stopped the invasion...and made the "yes" votes symbolic.

What idiocy.

[Bombtrack]

12. No it wouldn't have

Bush could have gone in without it, it just would have lessened the ability to get inspectors in

[Bombtrack]

13. dupe

delete

[JVS]

5. It was inconsequential because of all the collaborators who voted yes!

Kucinich voted no and he was right to do so! He deserves high praise.

[aquart]

8. Yes, he does.

[sangh0]

7. What a weak argument

and a distortion of history. Most of those "symbolic acts" had immediate, and far-reaching effects. Shortly after Rosa Parks was arrested, the Montgomery Bus Boycott began.

In contrast, shortly after the "No" votes on IWR, the US invaded Iraq. There's a difference between symbolics acts that spur action and results, and symbolic acts that don't. I'll leave it to the readers to figure it out for themselves.

on edit:

- Gandhi weaving his own cloth didn't free India.

Gandhi also backed his symbolic act with a program to boycott English made fabric. It cost the British dearly.

- Wayne Morse voting against the Tonkin Resolution didn't stop the war.

Right, so how does this demonstrate the value of a symbolic act that has no effect?

- The Boston Tea Party didn't didn't liberate America.

The Boston Tea Party was not merely a "symbolic act". It was a revolutionary action.

- A single Chinese man standing in front of the tanks stop the Tienanmin massacre.

And this shows the value of symbolic acts....how?

- The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth didn't bring about the fall of the Roman Empire.

It wasn't supposed to bring about the fall of the Romans. Jesus died for YOUR sins, and not to bring down any governments.

- John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry didn't free the slaves.

And it also turned many against the abolitionists. Good work symbolic act!

- Thousands of people burning their draft cards during the Vietnam war didn't stop the draft.

Not a symbolic act. It's an act that had profound effects

- The suicide of Seneca didn't unseat Nero.

And again, how does this demonstrate the value of symbolic action?

- The storming of the Bastille didn't depose Louis XVI.

An attack on the Bastille is just a symbolic act?

- The peace marches against the invasion of Iraq didn't stop it.

That's right.

- The 23 senators who did vote NO to the IWR didn't stop the invasion.

That's right. And note how you can't come up with one example of a politicians voting as a symbolic act that backs up your argument

And, many more examples of "merely symbolic" acts of conscience that weren't "pragmatic", "politically expedient", or "consequential".

I guess they shouldn't have bothered.

[aquart]

9. And your crystal ball knows which "symbolic" act will mean something?

How about you stand up for what's right and condemn what's wrong and deal with the fallout?

The Democrats who voted for the war have bloody hands, not to mention being proved so credulously naive as to need leashes and keepers.

[sangh0]

11. Try to stick to the facts

instead of speculating about my crystal ball. I responded to the specific examples that were listed, and the effects those acts had. You don't need a crystal ball to learn about history

[poskonig]

10. Hussein wasn't allowing inspections at the time of the resolution.

Remember?