Seasoned Discontent

[H2O Man]

"And so we argued and so we disagreed – all dedicated, intelligent men, disagreeing and fighting about the future of their country, and of mankind. Meanwhile, time was slowly running out." – Robert F. Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis


In the past week, we have witnessed two closely related issues being discussed on the national stage, and on the Democratic Underground: (a) the war of occupation in Iraq; and (b) the 2008 presidential primary contest. The two issues overlap, of course, and the synergism has resulted in some interesting discussions and debates on this forum.

There is a simple formula that can be used to both understand and conduct political campaigns. It might be as useful to those who are active in the anti-war campaign, as those who are supporting a presidential or congressional candidate. In each case, the public can be divided into three general groups: (a) those who will always support your candidate/cause; (b) those who will always oppose you candidate/cause; and (c ) the "undecided," who often determine the outcome of a given contest.

In a politics, one aims part of the message at Group A, in order to secure the investments of time and money needed to run the campaign. Little or no effort is made to communicate with Group B (in fact, they are used as a "prop.") A significant amount of the message is aimed at Group C, in the hopes of at very least getting their attention, and possible support in the future.

We see this in both the democratic and republican primaries today. Those who are running 2nd or 3rd recognize that, in the months ahead, others running behind them will likely be forced to drop out of the race. Hence, care is taken to send a message to their supporters, in hopes of finding unity in the future. This is why it is not a given that the front-runners this early in a primary have it sewn-up: even with impressive statistics, it will still come down to individual states. We are in an open contest, folks.

Now let’s consider the debates about the war in this context. The administration brought out General Petraeus, then President Bush, and finally VP Dick Cheney, to sell their plan for a never-ending military occupation of Iraq. General Petraeus was used to reach Group C; Bush to insult Group B; and Cheney to reassure Group A.

The response to the administration’s stated objectives in Iraq have been mixed. We do best by separating them into a couple groups, and even sub-groups. First, we have the democratic candidates for president. Their responses seem to me to be restrained, and aimed largely at disagreeing with Bush and Cheney, but being cautious not to offend those who respect General Petraeus, if only for his position.

The congress has similarly been put in check, by the fear that Group C will conclude that disagreement with General Petraeus is equal to being disloyal to the nation. The fact that the military is supposed to answer to civilians in our Constitutional democracy is largely lost when honest discussion is replaced with jingoism. This is not to say that there are not a few brave, honest, and sincere democrats in the House and Senate. But it is to say there are only a few with all three of those qualities.

The general public has expressed concern about the war of occupation in Iraq, and made their desire to bring our soldiers home known in the 2006 congressional elections. Since the democrats became the majority party in both houses of congress, however, the funding and troop level has increased significantly. The public recognizes that the responsibility for the war lies mainly with the administration, but they know that congress plays a significant role.

Some of the most vocal opposition to the administration’s immoral war has come from groups that are not identified as being either democratic or republican. These include MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and outspoken individuals such as Cindy Sheehan. Many of these people view the war in Iraq as being part of a larger diseased system, and that the corporate influences that benefit from this war for oil exercise too much control in both parties to be considered simply a republican issue.

It’s worth noting that the republicans are attempting to use the anti-war message of this group, and associating it with the democratic candidates, when they attempt to speak directly to Group C. We see ads in the paper that claim that Senator Clinton, for example, is somehow tied to a MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times.

This weekend, a rally in Washington DC included a large group of anti-war Americans. The group included a wide range of leftists, liberals, and progressives, including but certainly not limited to grass roots democrats. It reportedly did not include any democrats from congress, nor any of the candidates running in the primaries. There was also a smaller group of pro-war Americans, encouraged by the messages of General Petraeus, President Clinton, and Dick Cheney, there to disrupt the anti-war rally.

As a grass roots democrat, I am proud of those people who went to Washington DC to exercise their rights that are provided for by the Constitution. I’m concerned that the people who are isolated in the halls of Washington, and who are focused on getting their message out for 2008, are not listening. When I get phone calls, e-mails and letters every week, asking me to send a donation to this person or that group, but which do not allow for any human interaction that allows me to state my opinion, I begin to feel like it is only my money that is of value to them.

I recognize that I am only one person. However, from participating on DU, from watching the reports on the rally, and seeing the MoveOn ad, and from talking with my family and friends, I know that I am not alone.

For several years, I have spoken of the reasons that it is important for congress to impeach VP Dick Cheney. There are many other DUers who believe the same as I do. Most if not all of those anti-war patriots marching in Washington, DC believe much the same. Of course, there are other DUers who believe otherwise. A few make rational cases for their beliefs. Others rely upon ignorance of the Constitution, or histrionic arguments that the democrats would harm themselves by focusing on Cheney’s behavior. That suggests they are unaware of the cases of Rumsfeld and Gonzales, who showed the weakness of the administration, not of democrats.

I recognize that I am only one old man, and that even though I am unhappy with much of their behavior, I will continue to support the democratic party. But I also am aware that I have sons, and nieces and nephews, who are politically and socially aware. Some of them were marching in Washington DC yesterday. All of them oppose the war.

Robert Kennedy was fond of this quote from Goethe: "The destiny of any nation, at any given time, depends on the opinion of its young men, under twenty-five." Senator Kennedy knew that these young people were Group C. The democratic leadership needs to understand that, too ….. and that there are a large number of voters who are not willing to sacrifice them for the continued and increasing insanity called the war in Iraq.

[porphyrian]

1. It feels like the Democrats have been ignoring Group A a bit too long.

I don't suffer being taken for granted long.

[H2O Man]

5. It is not

in the best interests of the democratic party to have a leadership that expects their only interaction with the grass roots to be when they pass the collection plate. Sadly, this is all too often what is happening.

[countingbluecars]

2. Thank you for this post.

K&R

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you

for reading it, and giving it a "K&R"!

[Me.]

3. The World Turns Upside Down When A Con Is The One Speaking The Truth

This weekend Hagel said, 'Bush’s Iraq war policy is a dirty trick, dishonest and irresponsible' and that's the truth of it in a nutshell. I guess i's no holds barred for him now that he's not running for either the senate or the presidency. Greenspan has basically said the same about *. And yet the spin goes on. 'Petraeus won the week for *, he's able to hold onto his war for at least a bit longer, that terrible Move-On ad, the dems have been outfoxed yet again, you shouldn't insult a man with medals on his chest or ask him pointed and hard questions, the war was a lie but we're there now, we broke so now we own it'. Blah, blah, blah into eternity.

I can't figure if the dems simply can't get their act together, want the mess to continue because it makes them look good ot of they are just the stupidest, most incompetent group of mother f*****s we've ever came across. I can make a case for each scenario. And please don't squirt that we don't have the votes business at me. Just once I'd like to see the dems place a hold on a bill. Cockburn has just done it, why have the dems not done so in my memory.

As to all the ranting about the dems and not the Cons? I never expected them to be anything than what the sniveling bunch are. However, the dems as good as promised that if we got them elected they'd change things.

My point with this little rant it, if we could just figure out what is going on with the dems, we, the 'netroots' would be able to come up with a more effective strategy to get them off their butts. Obviously yelling and grumbling isn't the key, they don't care what we think any more than that felon in the WH cares what they and the country thinks. If we could just figure out why, when they have nothing to lose, they've done nothing.

[H2O Man]

4. I am concerned

that the democrats in congress are being played in such a manner that in the 2008 elections, the republican party will be able to showcase more outspoken anti-war "leaders." A year ago, the very suggestion would have been considered a joke. But it is beginning to take shape.

[Me.]

7. But With The Country Being Against The War

with the exception of the rapidly dwindling base, how is that a problem? Does the snow job continue, and if the people in this country are against the war, a majority, why would they buy the message? Another thing, economics....we can't afford to continue this....don't people tend to vote with the pocketbooks? How can the Cons turn this against us, again and again?

[H2O Man]

8. The public went

to the voting booths last November, to make their wishes known. The Bush policy in Iraq was the #1 issue in the elections. The democrats won a significant number of seats, and became the majority in both the House and Senate.

Since then, the congress has given President Bush every penny he has asked for, and supported his "surge" that increases the number of troops occupying Iraq.

There is no evidence that this congress will take any step to limit the Bush-Cheney war of occupation in Iraq. Some of the media attention to congressional opposition to the war involves a couple republican leaders. It may be what some Group C voters think of in 2008.

[Me.]

9. Have You Any Opinion As To Why The Dems Have Not Fulfilled Their Promises?

Also as to group C, there may be two other factors which come into play. The economics of the war, billions upon billions going to Iraq and corruption. It is little commented on, how much of a factor Republicon corruption was an influence, but it was to a healthy degree. That too, along with the war, has remained unabated. It, combined with what will be increasing violence in Iraq, more deaths may turn the tide, though with little help from dem leadership. The horrible number 4000 is approaching fast.

[H2O Man]

13. There are people

in positions who advise the candidates on how to run the party. They make decisions based upon their own political calculus, and they believe that it is better to offend the liberals and progressives who might be able to bring support from environmentalists and other groups who the leaders view as "leftist," rather than offend the conservative democrats and corporate donors.

A few months ago, I wrote an essay titled "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" It was about how the democratic leadership blew the opportunity to expand the base by welcoming the Rainbow Coalition in 1988. It meant seating Jesse at the table, and they couldn't bring themselves to do it. There had been a good lead for the party in the polls, and it evaporated. It disappeared, fast.

We are seeing some similar dynamics today.

[Me.]

15. That Nasty Word....Liberal

I understand that is why the word progressive came so prominently into use, so they could get away with being associated with a word that means kind, generous and caring.

The stakes are higher than they've ever been for the world and I truly believe the people in Congress can't quite get a grip on that notion.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. that's a lot of water to carry, man.

very nicely put. The destiny of any nation also depends on the cold, rational, review of reality by its leaders, and chosing the best course among a collection of bad choices.

we, unfortunately, have neither cold rational leaders, nor are they making the hard choices. A hard choice would be reviewing and re-evaluating our whole relationship with Israel, and removing one of the major causes of stress in the middle east. Cheney would never let than happen.

[H2O Man]

12. One of the

things that sociologists have been able to determine about group behavior may apply to today. At first, this may sound like a stretch, but I think it fits.

"Riots" do not tend to take place when a group of people are pushed further and further down. To the contrary, the most common factor is a group that has been pushed down begins to rise, and has its hopes and expectations lifted. Then, when something snatches that hope away, the group dynamics lead to an outburst.

Likewise, liberals and progressives have been pushed down for the years of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2006, their hopes and expectations were lifted by the election of a democratic congress. The American people made it clear that they opposed the administration's madness in Iraq.

But in the nine months since the new congress took control, they have disappointed those people who worked the hardest to get them elected. Their greatest accomplish regarding Iraq has been to come up with excuses why they have not only failed to force the administration to reduce the level of occupation, but have instead assisted Bush in a huge increase, the "surge."

This is not going to lead to any rioting, but it will certainly make it far more difficult for grass roots activists to go into their community, and ask people to support certain candidates. I'm concerned that people on DU might mistakenly be attributing these potential difficulties to those who are not actually at fault. The problems the party faces belong to the democratic leadership. It is their actions -- and their inaction -- that is the root of the problem.

[Me.]

14. My Decision Is

to not give to groups (excepting Move-On) and to give to candidates themselves directly. We sent one to Al Franken and will continue in this vein. I will also, on second thought, give to Firedoglake's Blue America. They were pretty good in their choices of which candidates to support. A couple talked a good game and then voted otherwise. But there's been a lot of eye opening since the last election and hopefully there'll be less of that this time around.

[H2O Man]

16. That is a good

way to do things. I trust individual democrats to decide which individual candidates they want to support.

[snappyturtle]

11. If the democratic leadership doesn't know the importance of

young men, aged twenty-five or less, they will.........when the subject of a draft is even whispered.
I think the topic will come up.

[H2O Man]

17. The possibility of

a draft becomes a probability as we continue to increase the violence in the Middle East. There is no evidence that anyone in the administration has the capacity to be a peace-maker, even if they came to the point where they desired to do so. None of the republican candidates running for president have spoken about decreasing the levels of violence around the globe -- quite the opposite.

With the democratic candidates, it is worth our looking very closely to determine which ones are most capable of changing the direction that the current administration has led us in. If we do not begin to make serious changes, there will be discussions on the need for a draft.

[snappyturtle]

26. I agree. nt

[rosesaylavee]

18. My son and his friends fit that

25 and under demographic. They are not interested in this war for oil. They will be voting for the first time in 2008 and they are all against this regime and anxious to play a part as voters... not cannon fodder.

Sure do like the photo - are those relatives?

[H2O Man]

21. I am hoping

for a large turnout of young men and women in 2008. I'll tell my relatives and their friends why I think it is important that they vote for democratic candidates, though I am pleased that they will think for themselves and then vote their consciences.

The little boy in the picture is a relative. A few months back, when he and I were listening to the song "Old Man" on a Neil Young CD, he said, "Hey, bud, what's it like to listen to this and realize that it's your turn to be the 'old man'?" Kids these days! Here is a more recent photo of him:

[rosesaylavee]

24. He's been eating his Wheaties

I bet he will remember what he said to you some day in his future and cringe. Its a shock getting older. I keep thinking I am a young thing and then I pass a mirror. Yikes.

[Annces]

19. Nice post - thanks n/t

[KoKo]

20. This post requires some more thought...for what you say

that causes brain to need time to wrap around it.

I'm going to read and think..but will kick so this doesn't go to archives..

Thanks...!

[antigop]

22. k&r. n/t

[spanone]

23. H2O Man you speak such truth.

i agree and recommend....

[antigop]

25. And if those "young men" vote for a Dem in 2008 as a protest against the war...

and that Dem doesn't change anything, then what will those young men have accomplished?

[DemReadingDU]

27. thoughtful reading, thank you