Risk and Reward

Jonathan Zasloff ponders the Democratic leadership's electoral strategy, considers some theories as to why what they've been doing makes sense, rejects them, and says:

[T]hen we have only two more options:

1. The Senate Democrats are brain-dead; or
2. They are so cynical that they would like the war to continue through 2008 to give the Democrats an issue.

Or maybe both.

It's not quite that cynical. If, as people keep expecting to happen, some clutch of Republican members get freaked out and turn against the war, Democrats will gladly take advantage of the political cover that provides to join with them in forcing withdrawals on a bipartisan basis. But that's not happening, and there's no appetite for riskier more confrontational tactics because it's hard to see the political upside.

That, in turn, is part of the reason there's a lot of hostility to outfits like MoveOn that are really pushing the envelop. If such groups secure enough power and influence, then suddenly the risk pressures run both ways, and pull different Senators in different directions which is risky on its own terms. And risk, of course, is something the vast majority of politicians despise.

Is this an immoral approach? I think so. As they see it, though, it's Republicans who made this mess and while Democrats will gladly try to clean it up if Republicans are completely removed from power, it's not fundamentally their responsibility to run risks in order to resolve a problem they (often inaccurately, especially in the Senate where there was a ton of support for the war, but that's another story) don't see themselves as responsible for.

Comments

If Reid doesn't think that a drawn out filibuster is going to actually change the positions of any Republican senators, than isn't he looking at the following choice:

A. Theater, that ultimately fails to acheive it's goal, but prevents the accomplishment of anything else; or

B. Hang back, use conference as the vehicle with Iraq, while trying to see what they can get on other issues.

You can say that he's wrong about either the likely effect of a public filibuster, or the ability to get a single bill passed on some other topic, but I'm not sure that immorality is really in play here.

It's not just a matter of there being no political upside in running a risk, but you also have to account for the lack of policy upside in engaging in theater.

Posted by CharleyCarp | September 22, 2007 9:56 AM

"and while Democrats will gladly try to clean it up if Republicans are completely removed from power, it's not fundamentally their responsibility to run risks in order to resolve a problem they ... don't see themselves as responsible for."

Y'know, the point you keep ignoring is that if we were to imagine that the Congressional Democratic leadership tomorrow decided they desperately wanted to cut off funds for the war, how would they conceivably get 51 and 218 this Congress to do so and hold firm through a veto/resubmit showdown?

-----

I don't think the Congressional Democratic leadership has been particularly smart in the way they've been unwilling to symbolically stand with the base.

But it's crucial to remember that the problem has been symbolic, not substantive. There's no way to cut off funding this Congress without substantial Republican support that passes a rudimentary vote-counting smell test.

Omitting this point creates a weird depiction of the scene.

Posted by Petey | September 22, 2007 9:56 AM

Is this an immoral approach?

Alternatively, the Dems might think that there are larger problems with the Administration and the Republican Party as now constituted than simply the support for the invasion and the prosecution of the war in Iraq. They might believe that they must hold political power, if only to keep it out of Republican hands, for the greater good. Is that a justification that seems self-serving? Yeah, a lot. But that doesn't make it inaccurate.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 22, 2007 9:57 AM

I don't think the Congressional Democratic leadership has been particularly smart in the way they've been unwilling to symbolically stand with the base.

I agree with this. On the other hand, it wouldn't be crazy for a politician to regard those elements of the base who are now complaining as not really part of their base, but rather mercurial and unreliable allies. And unrealistic: the Sausage Factory is now and has always been deeply dissatisfying to those looking for clear swift action. It's the nature of the thing.

Posted by CharleyCarp | September 22, 2007 10:02 AM

The results so far are what should be expected from a dope like Bush. As any rich kid will do, he is going to dump the whole heap of crap on someone else to solve.

Posted by william l fell | September 22, 2007 10:04 AM

Back in '03-'04, there were calls by some for the Democrats to do the "responsible thing" and come out in favor of tax cuts, invading Iraq, cracking down on civil liberties, and shrinking access to government services specifically because the Republicans were doing a bad job of all of these things or going about them in the wrong way, and the country was going to suffer from the Republicans' incompetence in implementing Republican policies. I countered that this was a misguided idea because it was fundamentally not the job of Democrats to do the Republicans' job for them.

The same principle should hold when the positions are reversed, and the Democrats' strategy here is simultaneously cynical yet reasonable. I think that Democrats fundamentally respect the constituents of the Republican Senators, which is to say-- the Republicans were elected to do a specific job: namely, stay in Iraq and even expand the war. It's not the job of the Republicans to help the Democrats do something that they can't do for themselves -- end the war -- when the Republicans were specifically elected by their voters to do something else (stay in Iraq in order to fight the people who attacked us on September 11th, which is what most Republican voters are thinking).

That said, the Democrats would do better to symbolically appease their own base while letting the Republicans fly off a cliff trying to appease their own.

Posted by Tyro | September 22, 2007 10:06 AM

Does Matt Yglesias give a damn about any of this? I doubt it. The Iraq War and the controversies that swirl around the Bush maladministration are simply a feedstock for Matt's torrent of blog observations. This is a Matt's job: to comment on the unspeakable. He shows up, types his thousand words, reads the replies, then does it all over again.

Matt appears to be trying hard to become one of the Very Serious people, who regard high crimes as just another feature of the permanent government. "Dems" are just another team, wearing colored jerseys and appealign to their fans. Matt hovers above the fray, dispensing clever insights.

There is cholera in Iraq. How about some clever observations about cholera, Matt?

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 10:08 AM

Petey, you don't seem to understand how things work if you actually get serious. You can deny that member's state a very large amount of federal income. You can block ever bill they sponsor, co sponsor, or support. You can initiate congressional investigations into their wrong doing (and they have all done something wrong)

Don't pretend there's nothing they could do. There are things they could do. But right now, they seem to want to hide the fact that they don't want to end the war by using Republicans for cover. That won't work after 2008, and if they insist on pursuing this agenda, they will be a minor party by 2010.

Posted by Soullite | September 22, 2007 10:14 AM

"Don't pretend there's nothing they could do."

There's plenty they can do. I just don't think they conceivably have the votes to end the war.

"But right now, they seem to want to hide the fact that they don't want to end the war"

I have no real idea whether or not they want to end the war. But as stated, they don't have the ability.

-----

I'm not defending the precise political choices the Congressional Democratic leadership has made. I voiced one specific criticism upthread, and I think one could expand on that one criticism quite a bit.

But one shouldn't let that confuse the point of what is within their abilities to substantively accomplish even if they played their cards perfectly.

Posted by Petey | September 22, 2007 10:22 AM

Does Matt Yglesias give a damn about any of this? I doubt it. The Iraq War and the controversies that swirl around the Bush maladministration are simply a feedstock for Matt's torrent of blog observations. This is a Matt's job: to comment on the unspeakable. He shows up, types his thousand words, reads the replies, then does it all over again.

Yes, that's what bloggers do. And people like you read them, and make comments. And the green grass grows all around and around. This is like bitching that newsmen are just there to profit off of the fact that news keeps happening every day.

Matt appears to be trying hard to become one of the Very Serious people, who regard high crimes as just another feature of the permanent government.

And what are you, a revolutionary? High crimes are a permanent feature of revolutions, too.

"Dems" are just another team, wearing colored jerseys and appealign to their fans. Matt hovers above the fray, dispensing clever insights.

Last I checked Matt was a liberal/progressive blogger, in the fray on behalf of progressivism. Your characterization of "Dems" happens to be accurate.

There is cholera in Iraq. How about some clever observations about cholera, Matt?

WTF is this supposed to mean?

Posted by Bill | September 22, 2007 10:39 AM

"it's not fundamentally their responsibility to run risks in order to resolve a problem"

How about a responsibility to the people who elected them? How about a responsibility to the soldiers who are still there? I recognize there's the possibility that they may be playing a longer game here, but it looks pretty craven and self-serving to ignore the will of the majority of the country to do whatever it takes to end the war just to keep the war under Republican ownership.

The real question becomes which is worse: Ending the US presence in Iraq by any means necessary and being labeled as defeatists and responsible for the potential fallout? Or making a bad situation in Iraq worse by our continued presence?

Posted by Trevor | September 22, 2007 10:39 AM

I still believe that Democrats gain by waging hard political battles and perhaps even winning some, as with the Social Security fight. This not only demonstrates spine, it demonstrates competence. It's difficult to argue that Democrats are more competent at managing policy and cleaning up the GOP's epochal messes when they strike out at the plate each time they come to bat an important piece of legislation.

Losing four key votes this week -- with the Dems in control and inexplicably refusing to force a public filibuster -- does not inspire confidence in the party's skills in combating terrorism.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | September 22, 2007 10:44 AM

I still believe that Democrats gain by waging hard political battles and perhaps even winning some, as with the Social Security fight. This not only demonstrates spine, it demonstrates competence. It's difficult to argue that Democrats are more competent at managing policy and cleaning up the GOP's epochal messes when they strike out at the plate each time they come to bat an important piece of legislation.

Losing four key votes this week -- with the Dems in control and inexplicably refusing to force a public filibuster -- does not inspire confidence in the party's skills in combating terrorism.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | September 22, 2007 10:44 AM

The real question becomes which is worse: Ending the US presence in Iraq by any means necessary and being labeled as defeatists and responsible for the potential fallout? Or making a bad situation in Iraq worse by our continued presence?

The real question is, are there in fact any means by which the Congress can "end the U.S. presence in Iraq." Answer: no. (For one thing, do you think they would just up and board the windows of the multi-billion dollar embassy compound they've built? Not to mention the permanent bases?) Not when the executive is against it. Congress signed over its war-making imprimatur a LONG time ago. Their only real power with regard to making war is via the expression of its unpopularity before it commences. If its a popular idea, as Iraq was, it's over. They'll vote for it. You can always vote to start wars but the reciprocal ain't the case. Once they're started it's in the hands of the commander-in-chief. He's certainly still subject (arguably) to the political popularity of a war, but the point is it's HIS call to make, not theirs.

And even with a Democratic president it would be virtually impossible to completely leave Iraq. I think scaling back to guarding the embassy is the best we can hope for. We're there for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Bill | September 22, 2007 10:54 AM

What is the Atlantic all about? Its mission is to make money. A magazine makes money by attracting readers, who, in turn attract advertisers. Does the management of the Atlantic care about the Iraq war? Perhaps, but that is not their job. Their mission is to serve up a bubbling stew of controversy that attracts the maximum number of readers. Rendering a moral judgement on the Iraq war would alienate the savage 25% of Americans who believe war is our finest export.

What commercial bloggers, like Matt, are paid to do is keep the hamster wheel of controversy spinning, by constantly emitting observational tidbits and inviting lively exchanges of opinion. This is a business process; it is not civic discourse. The last thing the Atlantic and Matt want is closure on Iraq, because that would require building a new hamster wheel.

But every thoughtful and informed American has reached closure on Iraq. It ranks among the major war crimes of this new century. To continue "debating" the wisdom of the Iraq war is simply to feed attention to enterprises that profit from it. To comment cleverly on the dimensions of this atrocity is to exploit the destruction of a nation. You can recognize the character of those who continue to deal with the subject of the Iraq war by how much they have to say about it.

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 11:20 AM

>There is cholera in Iraq. How about some clever observations about cholera, Matt?

>WTF is this supposed to mean?

That the writer wishes to parade his self-righteousness for the rest of us to admire.

Posted by tdraicer | September 22, 2007 11:31 AM

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men." -- Ezekiel 25:17

Bush is an evil man, and the publisher of the Atlantic is a selfish man. The selfish man profits from lively discussion of the evil man. One mechanism of this business is the establishment of stream-of-grokishness blogs like Matt's that alternate clever political analysis with YouTube links to bouncy pop music. Such fun!

These Atlantic blogs are a kind of discursive ADHD, where a torrent of posts consistently outruns any resulting constructive dialog. It's the journey, baby, that is its own reward. And here's another cool YouTube track!

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 11:45 AM

While I agree with Bill (and, by extension, Petey) here:

The real question is, are there in fact any means by which the Congress can "end the U.S. presence in Iraq." Answer: no.

Even assuming that we could, for the sake of argument, force withdrawal, I think Trevor misses a third possibility when he puts up this dichotomy

The real question becomes which is worse: Ending the US presence in Iraq by any means necessary and being labeled as defeatists and responsible for the potential fallout? Or making a bad situation in Iraq worse by our continued presence?

What he's missing, I think, is...does the way in which the Iraq war is ended matter? What if the rate at which troops are withdrawn, the strategy employed both militarily and diplomatically while they withdrawl, the overall diplomatic posture towards and engagement with regional players all are significant factors in the long-term well-being of Iraq. I think it's somewhat obvious prima facia that those factors are relevant (though I'm open to hearing arguments for otherwise).

Then things break down differently. Sorting long-term outcomes, best-to-worst, you have more than "stay and make things worse" and "leave and make things better"

Instead, you might have (assuming sound military strategy), in no particular order

"Leave gradually with little/no diplomatic engagement"

"Leave quickly with little/no diplomatic engagement"

"Leave gradually with intense diplomatic engagement"

"Leave quickly with intense diplomatic engagement"

and, of course,

"Wait a year and then do one of the 4 above"

Obviously, this is over-simplified, but if you're catching my gist, you're probably seeing what I'm thinking, which is that it might be better for Iraq in the long run to put withdrawal in the hands of, say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards or even Bill Richardson, than it would be to somehow force withdrawal by denying funding and leaving the entire process, both in terms of setting mission and diplomacy, to George Bush. Indeed, should cutting off funding force withdrawal, it might force withdrawal in a way that mitigates what good we could do via the withdrawal process, in terms of, say, the humanitarian crisis, using withdrawal as a diplomatic tool to exert leverage, etc.

At what point do the chances of Bush's incompetence and the limiting options for a de-funded war end up destroying the chances of withdrawal being leveraged properly become so prohibitive that it becomes better in the long run to leave the job to someone more qualified? I feel like that point is drawing close. I think a lot of good can be accomplished if withdrawal is done properly, especially in regards to diplomacy with Iran. I don't think any of that good will come about if the withdrawal happens under Bush's watch. So you have to weigh the cost difference of "withdrawal under Bush" vs "withdrawal under someone competent" againt "cost of remaining in Iraq until someone competent is Commander in Chief". And the closer we get to 2009, the smaller the cost of waiting becomes, and, as a result, the more attractive it becomes to simply ride it out all the way.

And now I feel like a completely cynical asshole.

Oh, and for the record, I think HH's moralizing is somewhat myopic and incoherent.

Posted by mopper | September 22, 2007 11:48 AM

This is a business process; it is not civic discourse. The last thing the Atlantic and Matt want is closure on Iraq, because that would require building a new hamster wheel.

To comment cleverly on the dimensions of this atrocity is to exploit the destruction of a nation.

Your position is that Matt is a war profiteer? That seems like a very curious position to take.

To continue "debating" the wisdom of the Iraq war is simply to feed attention to enterprises that profit from it.

If we all stop criticizing the war in Iraq, does it really exist?

Posted by Observer from Mars | September 22, 2007 11:55 AM

The accusation of "moralizing" is almost as painful as that of incoherence. What could be more incoherent than Matt's Atlantic blog? Note that these blogs are classed as "voices," not "discourse" or "dialogs" or "explorations" or "reflections."

We are supposed to gravitate toward Matt's distinctive "voice" because we like the way he sees the world. Reading Matt's blog is an identity statement. Matt's cleverness is supposed to be a model for our own less perfect voices. Matt is our inspirational focus. We don't expect his voice to actually say anything. It is its reassuring continuity of fashionable tone that is meant to attract us. It is socially conscious - but not too much. It is principled - but not excessively so. It is moral - but not moralistic. It is focussed - but not myopic. What a fine, rich voice we have here.

A voice does not have to be coherent, and that is why Matt breaks into the equivalent of scat singing, and serves up YouTube treats and offhand remarks of every sort. This makes his voice even more appealing.

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 12:03 PM

What is the Atlantic all about? Its mission is to make money.

Actually, it isn't--for the last twenty years (or more), the Atlantic has run at a loss. It continues to exist through the largesse of its deep-pocketed owners, who presumably see it as a valuable intellectual forum.

Also, HH, you seem to be outraged that Matt would write about the political mechanics of withdrawing from Iraq, rather than---what? Posting videos of himself bellowing in rage at the magnitude of the atrocity? I can only suggest you re-read Aesop's fable about belling the cat.

Posted by James Gary | September 22, 2007 12:04 PM

The war is, and is going to remain, a disaster. Suppose that the Democrats are not going to be able to do much between now and the blessed moment when Bush is booted out no matter how hard they try. (I'm not sure this is true, but let's suppose.) It seems to me they should still work relentlessly to end the war, if only to build public support for and understanding of the hard choices that will be required to get us out of that unholy mess. As it is, the Democrats may well come to power having meekly acquiesced for the most part to the war for six years. Will they now fearlessly embrace policies that, right as they may be, will have costs and will be vulnerable to attack? Or--horror of horrors--will they try to manage the war better, just long enough for public memory of the Republican responsibililty for this disaster to fade, so that when we finally do withdraw with a whimper, leaving Iraq in some kind of shambles--which seems to inevitable no matter when we go--the Democratic party will have the blame all to itself?

Posted by J | September 22, 2007 12:06 PM

the Congressional Democratic leadership tomorrow decided they desperately wanted to cut off funds for the war, how would they conceivably get 51 and 218 this Congress to do so and hold firm through a veto/resubmit showdown?

Someone on earlier threads made the excellent point that it doesn't take 51 and 218 to cut off funds, it takes 51 and 218 to enable the war funding.

I am more than happy to see MoveOn push the envelope. It's nice to see the pressure come from the left and I will support primary challenges against Dems who won't risk fighting for what the people have demanded.

Posted by Just Karl | September 22, 2007 12:08 PM

For what magnitude of horror is silence appropriate? How bad does Iraq have to get before it is considered bad taste to chatter about it? Is it impolite to ask Matt Yglesias to render a final judgment on this horrific war and the devils who launched it, and then to simply stop using the war to crank up blog traffic for the Atlantic?

How are we served by theater criticism of the political posturing over the Iraq War? How are we improved by discussing the depravity of the US government? How are we mended by comparing Democratic and Republican presidential candidates?

Be sure to take a look at the Allstate ad at the top of this page. If you don't personally need insurance, be sure to mention Allstate to your friends. You are in good hands with Allstate.

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 12:15 PM

J, that's the kind of why I don't think they really want to end the war. The war could yield MAJOR dividends if they harped on it. Yet they don't. They don't force votes that could later be used to remove Republicans.

The only reason I can think of for that is that they don't want too many Republicans to actually lose. They want to be able to convince as many people as possible that they are really trying, and simply failing. They can't do that if they have 60 votes. Therefore they do not want to get 60 votes.

Look at it from their perspective: They're every bit as much comittee chairmen and speakers with a 53 person majority as they are with a 61 person majority. But with a 61 person majority, they would actually be forced to choose between Americans and Corporations.

Posted by Soullite | September 22, 2007 12:53 PM

Trust me Soullite, they would really, really love to have 61 votes, because if they are as craven as you suggest, they would have no problem continuing to "choose" corporations over Americans.

But I think your point may be that the Dems can only win a bunch of senate seats that have been in GOP hands for a generation (and thus get to 61) by leading some sort of quasi-marxist revolution.

I tend to think that is a pretty stupid plan.

On the substance of the post, Petey is right, it is a simple matter of votes. And the GOP members have in fact been forced repeatedly to vote in favor of endless war, so the Dems strategy hasn't been a politcal failure at all, in terms of 2008.

Posted by Andruw | September 22, 2007 1:19 PM

Wow, HH's argument may in fact be the dumbest I've ever heard. And I've been reading blogs for years, so it's not like I'm sheltered from dumb arguments. It's so dumb, that it must be a joke. Or maybe some perverse new trolling strategy? If HH would also like to see Natalie Portman naked and petrified, then it would all make sense.

Posted by Walt | September 22, 2007 2:16 PM

What's this about "argument?" Argument is part of discourse, the constructive exchange of views aimed at an improved understanding of a question. This process has nothing whatever to do with hearing the Atlantic "Voices."

The voice of Matt Yglesias is a commericial commodity that delivers value to the consumer. With sufficient nurturing, it will eventually be available in a broad array of formats and outlets. The goal of a media "voice" is to exfoliate a personal industry. Tom Friedman and David Brooks have shown the way, and Matt is following humbly along the path they have blazed.

After all, we can't just have an egalitarian rabble of Internet citizenry exchanging views and attempting constructive discourse. How would that drive eyeballs to advertisers? A nice voice will fill the hall with appreciative listeners, and everyone will pay attention to words from the sponsor. This is a business, people!

Matt can already imagine the sunny uplands of cable news sound bites and TV political panel discussions ("Are Bloggers For Real?"). The Matt Y. brand is smart, but not too savvy. It's cool, but in a hot sort of way. It's got a buzz, but gives a clean high. Matt is seeking personal success, and we are here to help him actualize.

Be sure to check the ad for the Aspen Institute's upcoming Health Forum on this page. The forum is sponsored by Credit Suisse and General Electric. General Electric brings good things to life.

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 2:50 PM

HH, I am certain you don't realize that you are quoting a fictional, Hollywood Bible verse in service of your Very Serious moral point.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | September 22, 2007 3:13 PM

My quote is false. My point is false. I am false. All persons are false. Only Corporations can be trusted. General Electric Corporation makes military jet engines and owns the National Broadcasting Corporation, Universal Movie Studios, and the iVillage Website.

Matt Y. provides a valuable consumer service sponsored by the General Electric Corporation. GE brings good things to life.

Posted by HH | September 22, 2007 3:33 PM

"He shows up, types his thousand words, reads the replies, then does it all over again."

Uh, no, he doesn't. You've got it wrong.

He doesn't read the replies.

If he did, he might get a clue that most of his ruminations on this are irrelevant with a war in Iran around the corner.

Of course, he doesn't believe there will be a war in Iran, either. That way, he won't get caught supporting it like he did the Iraq war. This way, he can claim like Hillary Clinton "I just didn't know they'd screw up like that!"

This is what it means to be a "pundit" (or a wannabe pundit in Matt's case.) (I mean, he's even afraid of Natalie Portman, who probably wouldn't be as wishy-washy in her opinions.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 22, 2007 4:55 PM

There's a particularly good exchange over at TPM from some posters commenting about MJ Rosenberg's post about how the Dems can't get anything done about Iraq, but they can sure find the time to condemn MoveOn for criticizing "General Betray-Us".

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/20/why_are_senate_dems_afraid_of_a_real_filibuster#comment

This is why the Dems aren't getting anything done:

On September 21, 2007 - 1:25pm Larry H said:

The Globe Trotter/Washington Generals analogy appeals to me for a lot of reasons. The most profound reason of course is the inference that their performances were not really basketball games. Only the children in the audience believed that what they were watching was what it appeared to be. So much for Move-On.org. In contrast here is what an adult appreciation of the Petraeus show might sound like.

As to the Democratic majority and its behavior, I’d like to suggest this consideration. Imagine if you will a composite Democrat in the role of a Washington General. (No real Democrats were harmed in the creation of this composite.) Their money comes from the same sources that pay the Globe Trotters. Ford and GM, Boeing and Lockheed, Corporations A to Z do not have dueling boards of directors, one Republican and one Democratic. Only a child would think that the money given to Democrats is intended to produce a different outcome than the money given to Republicans. And our little Democratic composite must surely know this. Like any kid who aspires to play in the big leagues, he or she plays their heart out in real contests, all in the hope that some day they move to the “professional” stage where the game is no longer played and becomes theatre, very well-paid theatre.

Everyone knows that the Globe Trotters always win. Actually there was the occasional General’s victory, but that was just gris for the mill. Every player on both teams knows that their income and the whole enterprise depends on this outcome. And so it is in our Congress which, I would remind you, has a rate of incumbency as secure as anything the Russian Dumas displayed at the height of the Soviet period. But what if the Democrats actually legitimately won just one game. My little composite Democrat would be faced with the horror of expectations of a second victory. It is the implication of this second victory that frightens Democrats into submission. To pursue this second victory would be to forfeit the big financial support which bought them their constituency. My little composite would also immediately become estranged from their team mates by trying to win while the rest are content to continue the theatrical plot. Moreover the pursuit of a second victory inevitably begs the larger question, namely “What is the grand strategy?” By answering that question my little composite is about to create real enemies.

And so my little composite faces the simple fact that they would undo their whole little world in the pursuit of a single victory. In fact they would be challenging the entire enterprise. My little composite friend may be a lot of things but not a revolutionary. No. Rather give a speech about respect for the institution and leave things as they are. The Globe Trotters win, the children are happy and everyone gets paid.

On September 21, 2007 - 6:15pm ohiomeister said:

A bit glib, no? Why did the Dems bother to get out of the minority if that's true? Why bother with SCHIP or anything else? The funding of Dems and Republicans is also not the same. There are numerous books and articles that review where their funds come from. And if money was determinative, there wouldn't be any Dem majority either, since the funders could have just kept the GOP in power forever.

Look, it sucks that the Dems don't have the will to cut off funding, but they don't, and that's where we are. They are still better than the GOP.

On September 22, 2007 - 1:17am Larry H said:

Not glib I beg you but, rather, light handed. This is all a dark business that I find harder and harder to contemplate.

“They are still better than the GOP.” And they always will be. Just good enough to lose.

On September 22, 2007 - 7:56am DonnaG said:

And if money was determinative, there wouldn't be any Dem majority either, since the funders could have just kept the GOP in power forever.

I think Larry H answered this point in his analogy, " To pursue this second victory would be to forfeit the big financial support which bought them their constituency. My little composite would also immediately become estranged from their team mates by trying to win while the rest are content to continue the theatrical plot."

In other words, ohiomeister, to follow the analogy, the Washington Generals do need some 'wins' to continue interest in the 'theatrical' game. Interest would flag or disappear if the Globe Trotters were the only ones scoring.

Having read the 1993 book, 'Indispensable Enemies' by Walter Karp, which describes and explains collusion between the parties, I am inclined to appreciate the simple beauty of Larry's analogy, as far as it goes.

Your point about funding of Dems and Republicans not being the same has some validity also, but any differences in funding mainly track along topdog/underdog lines. Dem financing other than corporate funding comes from organizations representing the 'underdogs' of the overall economic system, while Dems who get re-elected do gain topdog corporate funding overtly or alternatively win covert corporate support by being [inexplicable to us] wimps/colluders in Congress.

Karp's book does a great job explaining how and why the colluding parties will work together to neuter any politician of either party who gains grass roots power, that being the only serious threat to the continuation of both parties' positioning of shared gamemanship in Washington.

But, on a somewhat different note, but with a view to today's topic of wimps....... I will quote something from Karp's 1993 book that seems very applicable today:

"The political benefits of an aggressive foreign policy are both obvious and manifold.........It enables the party oligarchs to silence independent voices and crush political insurgents on the grounds that they weaken national unity and give comfort to the nation's enemies. In the crises and alarms of an aggressive foreign policy, collusion between the parties scarcely requires a mask; it can parade itself as virtuous bipartisanship in the service of national survival. Under cover of an aggressive foreign policy the party oligarchs can serve their interests with an ease impossible in a peaceful republic. In the name of national defense they can dispense grotesque windfall privileges.....In the name of national security they can shroud government in the mantle of secrecy and infringe on the liberty of the citizens..........It is the citizenry who must now prove their 'loyalty' while the government taps their telephones, monitors their private mail and organizes 'patriots' to root out neighborhood traitors. Submission replaces independence, fear replaces hope, the citizenry acquires the habit of obedience and loses the habit of self-rule.........What an aggressive foreign policy accomplishes by slow degrees, a state of war accomplishes in a trice. Overnight it kills reform.....strangles free politics........ distracts and overawes the citizenry........ blasts public hope...."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 22, 2007 5:49 PM

Art Brodsky also has a masterful analysis of the Democrats stupidity on the MoveOn ad at TPM:

Theme Song of the Senate Democrats: "Let's All Get Fooled Again"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/20/theme_song_of_the_senate_democrats_lets_all_get_fooled_again

Money quote:

"The other way would have been to rally the troops. Democrats, especially skittish ones (which unfortunately is most of them), won’t put their votes on the line for MoveOn, so they had to be persuaded to vote for something else. How about the truth of the facts in the ad? How about the fact that Petraeus has actively cooperated with the White House in planning the PR offensive for the war? How about the freedom of expression? How about the fact that the ad was nothing more than a bullying tactic? Don’t like those, pick you own. The key would have been to make certain that whatever they did was not included in the view of the world constructed by the Republicans and was something around which all, or at least most, Democrats could rally.

Ah, but these are Democrats we’re talking about, aren’t we. I guess all that stuff about fighting for principle, exercising leadership, having some courage and not being afraid of Republican attack ads doesn’t apply. There is one thing that this crowd is good at -- making President Bush, who has a 30% approval rating, look good."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 22, 2007 6:00 PM

Oh, man, it's like running ELIZA against itself.

Posted by Senescent | September 22, 2007 6:36 PM

They still missed a big bet by not forcing the Republicans to actually go ahead and start filibustering the Webb Amendment. Of course they would almost certainly never be able to actually bring it up for a vote; but think how much more they could have (righteously) stunk up the GOP's public image by conspicuously trying to do so.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 22, 2007 7:18 PM