Solidarity

Josh Marshall wrote yesterday evening about the paradoxical political benefits of GOP congresspeople standing by Bush on Iraq even though the war is hugely unpopular:

As long as that's the case, as long as the vast majority of Republicans oppose Democratic attempts to end the war, that will keep Democrats (not saying it's right, just observing the dynamics) from really going to the mat over it. And as long as Democrats don't force a major confrontation that keeps it all sort of murky in the public mind who's for or against.

Now, Josh thinks this logic will break down eventually, especially because if it does break down "no one wants to be the last one to the door." This is all no doubt true, but I also think it's worth dwelling a bit on the paradox. It seems to me that one of the big lessons -- if not the big lesson -- of the past 15 years worth of legislative politics is that there are huge political benefits to party unity as such. Vote against the Clinton health plan and watch it pass, and you're screwed; but if everyone just stands and opposes it, not only does the plan fail, but the president becomes unpopular because he's a failure who can't solve the big issues.

This sort of thinking turns the traditions of the American system on their head, but I think it will persist into 2009 and beyond since the benefits seem real enough to me.

Comments

Alternatively, you could unite the party in refusing to make a budget compromise with Pres. Clinton and then have the public blame your Republican Revolution for the subsequent government shutdown. My point is, if you unite your party you better make sure you're on the right side of the issue, public opinion-wise.

Posted by Algernon | June 27, 2007 8:51 AM

I don't have any relatives fighting in Iraq. However, I do have many fellow human beings dying over there, both American and Iraqi. How about we look at this through the prism of just how many goddamned people are going to die while we debate who's standing with who and for how long? Do you think there might be a great many people that don't give a damn about the political dynamics of Republican vs Democrat, Bush vs the base, Pelosi vs Boehner. Sure, ultimately those factions and individuals will decide how this all ends. And while they maneuver for political gain and avoidance of blame someone's loved one comes home in a box. I'm so fucking tired of Country Joe's refrain ringing in my ears I could scream.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in Viet Nam so
put down your books and pick up a gun we're
gonna have a whole lotta fun

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Viet Nam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

Come on generals, let's move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go out and get those reds
cos the only good commie is the one that's dead and
you know that peace can only be won when we've
blown 'em all to kingdom come

Come on wall street don't be slow
why man this war is a go-go
there's plenty good money to be made by
supplying the army with the tools of its trade
let's hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
they drop it on the Viet Cong

Come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to Viet Nam
come on fathers don't hesitate
send your sons off before it's too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Iraq like Viet Nam? How goddamned stupid do you have to be to even ask?

Posted by steve duncan | June 27, 2007 9:03 AM

Bush won't have any trouble with Republican votes to fund the war in September. There's just no benefit to it. If a GOP Senator like Susan Collins changes her mind, she gets the Republicans mad at her for caving to the Dems. That would be a huge negative for her. She might even get a tough primary opponent. That's what happened to Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter when they bucked their parties.

It's not like Collins is going to get a break from the Democrats either. Her Democratic opponent in 2008 is going to be extremely persistent in asking her why she supported the President in May but changed her mind in September. And what's she going to say? The facts on the ground in Iraq aren't going to be much more discouraging then than they are now. She was already on record as being sceptical of the surge. "I wanted to give Petraeus a chance" isn't much of a campaign slogan.

If somebody like Collins (who I was acquainted with in college) supports Bush on Iraq, their support will slowly bleed out. But if they bail on the war, they risk a collapse of their Republican base with no compensation from independents or Democrats. It's going to be tough for Republicans all around, but their best bet seems to be to stick with Bush.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 27, 2007 9:05 AM

Party unity is like being in a criminal gang -- it gives a warm feeling until the hammer falls.

The real problem is not Republican unity -- it is the cowardice of the Democratic leadership. If they pointed out the truth with any degree of passion, they could have the country howling for the heads of the Republicans and their supporters. Instead, they resort to weak, sickly jibes that impress no one.

One of the strangest things I discovered working on campaigns is that Democratic candidates are advised to NOT attack "Republicans" --because half the voters are registered Republicans and would be offended.

But often the opposition candidate is some new guy who is inoffensive and who doesn't have enough of a record to attack. He needs to be dammed because he is a Republican -- and because of the past malign acts of Republican LEADERSHIP -- not because he is an opponent. But the advisor class argue otherwise -- and lose election after election even in the most perfect environments for victory.

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 9:09 AM

Matt, I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of this new craze called party unity over the coming, well, decades, but Josh's take on the matter still seems basically correct. Issues matter. Public opinion matters.

It also strikes me that the merits of party discipline get a lot weaker if your party isn't in the majority. They don't go away entirely, but I imagine public opinion weighs much more heavily on your mind if you lack the power to actually impose your will.

Posted by Adam | June 27, 2007 9:31 AM

I agree with that comment about the Democratic leadership and adviser class. I've been engaged in an exchange on my blog and MyDD with Dan Gerstein, the "lead strategist" of Joe Lieberman's last campaign and he's adamant that being a Democratic strategist means that someone is relatively non-partisan. That's certainly not the case with Republican strategists like Karl Rove and his acolytes. Blows my mind.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 27, 2007 9:35 AM

The real problem is not Republican unity -- it is the cowardice of the Democratic leadership.

WTF?

How is one or the other the "real" problem? Sounds like two problems both of which are real.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 27, 2007 9:44 AM

Re "WTF? How is one or the other the "real" problem?"
---------
Because if Democratic leaders had the courage to attack Republicans --including Bush/Cheney -- for past acts which have badly damaged America then "Republican Unity" would become a major Liability for Republican incumbents -- instead of an Asset.

Our Democratic leadership is like the MOTHER of a badly beaten wife who assures the policemen that the brutal husband (Republicans) is really an ok guy who shouldn't be held accountable for his acts.

After all, the Democratic leadership THEMSELVES have NOT really suffered from the vicious effects of an eight-year Bush/Cheney Administration.

Many of the wealthy patrons of Democratic politicans -- the true paymasters of the Democratic advisor class -- LIKED the Bush Tax Cuts. LIKED seeing Muslims in Iraq slapped around. Did not really give a shit if 3500 US soldiers died because --like Bush and CHeney -- patrons like Haim Saban never get within 1000 miles of an active battlefield.

It is the CONSTITUENTS of the Democratic Leadership who have been badly beaten over the past 8 eight years. But the Democratic Leadership and their advisors don't seem to really give a damm about those constituents.

Poor Americans have suffered deeply under 8 years of Bush Cheney. Their sons have been sent to Iraq and their living standards have fallen.

So the first thing the Democratic leadership does on regaining power is to give the poor YET another kick in the ribs by voting to prolong the Iraqi war and by voting to let in 12 million more low-wage immigrants to take what few jobs there are.

Matthew is wrong. The REAL UNITY among America's elites is the COMMON agreement to kick the shit out of the 71 percent of the US population which makes less than $50,000 per year.

The New York Times is not a REAL newspaper -- it simply acts like one in order to prevent a real newspaper from gaining a foothold.

In the same way, the Democratic leadership is showing that it is not really an advocate for the American people -- it simply poses as one in order to prevent a real advocate from ever gaining a foothold.

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 12:48 PM

Yes, I'd strongly agree with most of Don Williams' analysis.

Conduct a simple thought experiment. Consider the top 100 individual donors to the Democratic party and its establishmentarian organizations such as the DLC. Have any of these individuals suffered in any respect from any of the policies of the current Bush/Cheney Administration?

Looking at matters in purely materialistic/objective terms, they're propably benefitted quite a bit from the tax cuts, regulatory cut-backs, and the other various policies which have boosted the value of their stock holdings. Now some may be unhappy over Bush's effectively repealing much of the Constitution, as well as his loud talk of social conservativism on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cells, but these things don't really impact their lives at all. And just as suggested, a good number of these donors were strong ideological supporters of the Bush policy in the Mid East.

So: the financial "owners" of the Democratic Party are mostly objective beneficiaries and to some extent subjective supporters of Bush's policies.

Maybe that helps to explain the peculiar political behavior and weakness of the Democrats...

Posted by RKU | June 27, 2007 1:06 PM