When hundreds of thousands took to the streets throughout the country last week in protest of the House of Representatives immigration bill it was a defiant act demonstrating a belief in American democracy.
It is but one more example of a curious phenomenon in our country's brief history where those on the underside of life remind the dominant culture of the democratic ideals it claims to represent.
While there are those that maintain there is no such thing as elasticity in the US Constitution, those brave architects of the Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights movements would not only beg to differ but have been vindicated by history.
There is something about being outside the mainstream that rob individuals of the false sense of comfort--leaving them no alternative other than to accept their current fate or cling to the hope embedded within the Constitution.
This latest public demonstration says to America that it must not take a short cut for the sake political expediency and midterm election gain. Rather than taking it cues from the former East Germany by building a wall, it should find its answer within the wells of democracy that were dug deep by its Founding Fathers.
Arizona Senator John McCain, who along with Senator Ted Kennedy, comprised the major components of the less draconian legislation passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee acknowledged that the demonstrations throughout the country had an impact on the thinking of his Senate colleagues.
This is what has been missing in Iraq. The only demonstrations to date have been those that include burning effigies of President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
It is a misnomer to exclusively equate the tangible act of voting with the seeds of democracy. Free elections indeed play a part, but it is the intangible desire for democracy that serves as the fertilizer for self-determination.
Such desires cannot be forced upon a people nor find its genesis from the outside. However noble the neo-con philosophy of bringing democracy to the Middle East, without those intangible desires that can only come from the Iraqis themselves, the United States is in the perilous position of serving simultaneously as occupier and liberator.
Just as the internal cravings for democracy have been absent from the Iraqi cause, they have been dormant with a large number of Americans. Imagine what could happen if the silent majority who are opposed to the war in Iraq followed the example of those who took to the streets in opposition to the proposed immigration laws?
According to the latest Newsweek poll a mere 29 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling the situation in Iraq. Yet, we continue down the paralyzing road of the stay the course.
If the polls are correct, why are the 65 percent that oppose of the way the president is handling the situation in Iraq not besieged by moral outrage? Why are there not numbers in opposition to the war taking to the streets like those in opposition to the House immigration bill?
After three years, it is clear that only the American people can help Congress locate the requisite courage that has been missing since the inception of "shock and awe."
We must accept the fact that the best possible outcome in Iraq will not absolve us of the morally challenged notions that led us into war or the subsequent torture policies at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
Every additional piece of information that is uncovered further connects the dots to the reality that this was a premeditated effort that had little to do with the official reasons given.
If large numbers of protestors can sway members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to rethink draconian immigration laws, surely it can encourage Congress to give serious consideration to Rep. Murtha's redeployment plan.
How long can we ask our troops to the bear the burden of political shortsightedness and deception for an outcome that appears less and less achievable?