Voting for War, Again
Voting for War, Again
Two days ago, over 90% of the 71 members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress voted to essentially give Bush and Cheney the money they need to continue the wars in
Why did the other 65 â€œProgressivesâ€ vote for the Democratic leadershipâ€™s flawed bill? Utlimately, it came down to one thing: their calculation that â€œpractical politicsâ€ necessitated its passage. If it had been defeated, so this thinking went, it would be seen as a victory for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans and a defeat for Pelosi and their leaders so, under the reasoning that a slice or two of the loaf is better than nothing, they went along to get along, helped along by a variety of threats and bribes.
Given that Bush has made clear that he will veto any legislation that reads as if it will prevent him from doing whatever he wants to do when it comes to the prosecution of his illegal wars, the Democratic hope is that his doing so in this case will dig him and the Republicans deeper into their political hole. Then, as the 2008 election looms, political pressure from Republicans concerned about huge defeats in November will either lead to a change in war policy or those huge electoral defeats, at which point the Democrats would expect to be in control of both the White House and Congress.
There is a logic to this â€œpractical politicsâ€ line of reasoning, to be fair. If you accept that the U.S. Congress does not really represent what the U.S. voters want, but instead, functions at best under the Democrats as a kind-of power broker between them and the corporate and other monied interests who hold the real day-to-day power, then taking this donâ€™t-take-principles-too-seriously approach make sense.
The fact is that the Democratic Party is in no way a progressive political organization. It is a coalition that goes from pro-war Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman on the right of the party to those like the Anti-War 6 on the left. It has been that way for a long time.
Who was the architect of the massive escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965? Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. Who was doing everything they could to prevent the passage of voting rights and civil rights legislation? Southern Democratic Senators like John Stennis and Strom Thurmond. And the examples could go on.
So within the context of â€œreally existing politics,â€ it is not surprising that a chunk of â€œProgressivesâ€ decided to stand by their leadership instead of standing up for what they say they believe in, the speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The percentage who voted for continuing the war is surprising, but, then again, it was an extremely close vote.
Thereâ€™s another aspect to â€œreally existing politicsâ€â€”the belief on the part of the Congressional Progressives that the progressive movement generally is not organized enough to punish them to any significant degree for their actions. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
Thisâ€”the state of development and organization of the progressive movementâ€”is what we really need to be concerned about if we donâ€™t want to see this same old, same old continue for years and years to come, whoever is in control of Congress.
That is why the U.S. Social Forum (http://www.ussf2007.org) coming up in three months in
That is why the initiative recently undertaken toward a major fall mobilization linking the anti-war and climate movementâ€”(http://www.NoWarNoWarming.org) â€”is such a potentially significant development.
And that is why progressives need to be looking for political options outside the Democratic Party box, why the prospect of a Green Party Presidential candidacy by someone like a Cynthia McKinney, rumored to be seriously considering this option, should be welcomed and applauded.
In a column I wrote a few days after the November elections I said that â€œthe most important thing we need to do is refuse to let Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer set the agenda for us and what we do. We should be openly demanding what justice, peace and survival call for, organizing ourselves to be effective in pressing those demands on elected officials of both corporate parties.â€
We should all take up the slogan that has emerged out of the climate movement for the upcoming actions all over the country on April 14th. We need to Step It Up! The handles to do so are out there. Letâ€™s grab onto them. See you in
Ted Glick is active with the Climate Crisis Coalition (www.climatecrisiscoalition.org) and the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org), where his over seven years of Future Hope columns are archived. He can be reached at email@example.com.