After Petraeus, Conciliation: The Report Must Not Derail a Moderate Democratic Strategy
On the heels of General Petraeus' report, there is no doubt a temptation in the Democratic camp to dismiss the more unsavory findings as the work of a political lackey. The general did not recommend a substantive timetable for withdrawal, much to the ire, though not surprise, of the Left. Also unsurprisingly, he argues that there has been modest progress.
The situation in Iraq is deteriorating, improving, or staying the same, depending on who is asked. To dispute minor improvement accomplishes little. If the Democrats are serious about winning in Iraq, building their majority, and taking the White House, they will "stay the course" -- the moderate course of the past few weeks, that is.
After months of demanding a hard-and-fast deadline for an American troop withdrawal, Harry Reid recently changed his tune, calling for a strongly bipartisan approach. The move was both sound policy and shrewd politics; it puts the security of American troops first, and ultimately sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2008.
Gone is the posturing and preaching that marked Reid's pronouncements earlier in the year (when he announced solemnly that the war in Iraq was "lost.") The new Reid appears better in touch with reality: Democrats simply do not have the votes to force a unilateral withdrawal, and advocating such a position is bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party.
The Petraeus report must not distract from this logic.
The electorate has had it with the war in Iraq -- close to two thirds want an orderly withdrawal of troops to begin immediately. That being said, the American people understand that to withdrawal completely and unilaterally without a clear strategy for pacifying the country is risky.
Petraeus, of course, argued this very point before Congress on Monday. His personal approval ratings -- coupled with findings this week that the public most trusts the military to make decisions on Iraq -- ensures that the Democrats could shoot themselves in the foot by resurrecting the divisive rhetoric of early 2007.
Indeed, what Reid has recently advocated -- a bipartisan approach that takes into account relevant recommendations of the Iraq Study Group -- is overwhelmingly supported by vast majorities of the American people. An orderly drawdown of the troops must take place on a schedule that is agreeable to the military and not just the political leadership.
This movement away from unilateralism, threats of filibusters, all-nighters, and rhetorical excess could well win the 2008 election for the Democrats. Bringing back acrimonious and partisan tones could prove disastrous.
Polling from Penn Schoen & Berland shows a strong desire for the parties to work together to develop coherent, long term strategies to fight terrorism and protect American interests around the world.
Right now, Democrats clearly have the '08 advantage. The American people are fed up with George Bush and the Republicans. Democrats have opened up double-digit leads on party identification and the generic congressional vote.
But the Democratic Party is also vulnerable on Iraq, where the lead over the Republicans dropped 10 percent in August to a narrow four percent margin. Rather than harp on the withdrawal, the Democrats should continue to strike a bipartisan tone and refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues. This will help them carry the day in November 2008.
The only way that the Democrats will lose the 2008 election is through self-inflicted wounds. The electorate is demanding a fundamentally different methodology to policymaking. Partisanship will mollify only the base; conciliation must rule.
Hopefully Senator Reid's approach of late will not be thwarted by the Petraeus report. On the contrary, it must carry over to other foreign policy and domestic issues.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"If the Democrats are serious about winning in Iraq, building their majority, and taking the White House, they will "stay the course" -- the moderate course of the past few weeks, that is."
I will take issue with a crucial point suggested by Mr. Schoen. In all honesty, other than the former Democrat Senator Lieberman I cannot recall a single Democrat who has ever suggested "winning in Iraq." While I recognize it is a huge supposition, what would be the outcome relating to the Democrat if the situation in Iraq were to improve and stabilize?
Take me, for example. (And I do not mean in the Sen. Craig way, either) I'm 50 years old. I remember the turmoil of the 60's and early 70's over Vietnam. Also I can clearly recall the failed diplomacy and military assault on Iran by President Carter. Like many in my generation, Democrats and a strong, successful military is an oxymoron.
Why do you think the Republicans could so easily "Swiftboat" Kerry? There was not a whole lot of evidence available, either to prove or disprove the charges. But because it so perfectly fit the Democratic stereotype, augmented further by Kerry's congressional testimony, it resonated with my generation.
Unless this generation is an incredibly different breed, it seems very unlikely to me that the results of this war will significantly alter public perceptions of the Democrats. Honestly, think about it. If the Democrats were to successfully withdraw the troops, how does that show military "strength"? If the withdrawal were unsuccessful, it reinforces the stereotype. And if, by the needle in the haystack chance, the war is prosecuted successful there is no way the Democrats gain.
So if you asked me, and you probably wouldn't, where that leaves the Democrats? I would have to answer that nothing they do from here on out, short of an orderly withdrawal, really matters perception- or election-wise. Not to beat a well used drum, but the Democrats are essentially to America's defeat or retreat.
The reason Kerry was so easily swiftboated was because he didn't fight back.
The reason congress has such low approval rating is because the Democrats won't fight the Republicans.
The public has turned against this war. isn't that obvious by noeW?
"what would be the outcome relating to the Democrat if the situation in Iraq were to improve and stabilize?"
That would be wonderful because we could then BRING THE TROOPS HOME.
"Why do you think the Republicans could so easily Swiftboat Kerry? There was not a whole lot of evidence available, either to prove or disprove the charges." ???
RIDICULOUS You didn't bother to check it out and swallowed the BS hook line and sinker.
What's your plan for a "military" "win" in Iraq?
Maybe start with a definition.
Those democrats shouldnt be called "moderate"; rather, they should be called either "bush-supporter/war supporters" democrats, or they should be called "timid" democrats. To say they are moderates would imply a soberness they do not deserve to claim to have.
It takes 41 Senators to prevent an appropriations bill from coming to a vote. So it's not a question of whether the Democrats HAVE the votes, it's a question of whether the Democrats will USE the votes.
The approval rating for Congress is even lower than Bush, because they continue to enable him. If Democrats continue to "stay the course" along with Republicans, the public will see little difference between the parties, and the Democrats will have pissed away their advantage.
Look back at 1968, for God's sake! Hubert Humphrey was far more progressive and less hawkish than Richard Nixon. But as LBJ's Vice-President, Humphrey's association with Johnson's Vietnam policies cost him the election.
If Democrats continue to take the votes of their progressive base for granted, they're in for a rude awakening in 2008.
I am confused by the term "progressive". Is Hillary a Progressive? Russ Feingold? Are antiwar Democrats progressive?
I am a Liberal. I am antiwar. That puts me way out on the left wing fringe.
So where are the progressives? Are they in the middle? Are they right of center?
I would say that virtually all progressives are opposed to the Iraq War. I consider myself progressive, but not a pacifist. I opposed the Iraq War all along, but believe that military force is justified in some circumstances, when other options have been exhausted.
There are also anti-war conservatives and moderates. "Progressive" refers to issues beyond the Iraq War, as well.
Beats me Marlyn. Progressive is just another label. And I'm retired military, but opposed to the war in Iraq and have been all along. I hardly think it makes you or I members of the left wing fringe.
I see myself as a social libertarian who believes government does have a place and responsibility to improving and safeguarding the lives of its citizens. I favor universal health, conscription, the right of workers to organize and to collectively bargain, a woman's right to choose provided parents are given a say in the case of a minor, etc.
I see myself as a typical American, neither right or left in all things.
By her actions Hillary is a corporatist advocating globalization at the expense of the American worker. Why would Chinese businessmen give she and her husband money if they didn't want something in return?
All I know about Feingold is his opposition to the war. He comes across as principled.
You can go to each member of Congress' web site and you can fact check how they actually voted on legislation to find out if they are walking the talk.
At this stage the public perception is that the Dems are weak and ineffectual. I suspect few of us (on either side) see any virtue in bipartisanship if it compromises us more than it unites us.
Churchill said it well:
"So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."
Churchill had a parliament. You folks chose a republic. His government was a fluid conversation of ideas among parties of varying persuasions. Yours is a seesaw of attitudes.
America cannot be governed by a 51 per cent majority. You planned it that way. You are stuck with bipartisan government. So, get at it.
Doug, Doug, Doug. Your logic is so painfully flawed. You said:
-But the Democratic Party is also vulnerable on Iraq, where the lead over the Republicans dropped 10 percent in August to a narrow four percent margin. Rather than harp on the withdrawal, the Democrats should continue to strike a bipartisan tone and refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues. This will help them carry the day in November 2008.-
Seems to me that the narrowing of the gap is from the Democrats caving in to the R's stay the course crapola, not the reverse. Where did you get your opinion from? Look at the facts. Think again. Only the Republicans agree with you.
We heard this same talk about gradual, "orderly" withdrawal in Vietnam in 1968. (A gradual withdrawal that didn't prevent the destruction of Cambodia and millions more dead.)
"Strongly bipartisan" is an oxymoron.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... Moderation in the pursuit of freedom is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater.
"Walking away from this invasion like a hit-and-run driver is immoral and will lead to the final decline of America's legitimacy among other nations.".
First this war was planned by neocons and was no accident.
Second if you find yourself in a hole STOP DIGGING.
"if you find yourself in a hole STOP DIGGING"
Right, and if the hole was somebody else's house, you stop bombing, fill it in, repair the house, pay the reparations, apologize and change the way you live in the world.
Read McGovern and Polk:
http://www
“....Democ
Doug Doug Doug - You sly old salt.
- the stank you clearly aren’t smelling is a Republic’s frustration. Enjoy 2008!
First, just what do you mean by "moderatio
"Moderation" would be dandy if it actually meant a meaningful date, meaningful drawdown or redeployment. Something! But it has yet to mean ANY of those things. Why would it be different now?
Isn't the time to say "NO!" upon us, if not past due?
Mr. Schoen:
With all due respect, sincerely, this is precisely the message that the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is so furious with. While I have no doubt that it will fly beautifully with the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, we need no more Lieberdems or blue dogs.
We have been sold the line that perfection is the enemy of the good for twenty years, and have ended up watering down our values to the point where our Representatives no longer represent us. If the leaders of the Democratic Party no longer like Democrats, they are more than welcome to refile their Party designation as the Nixonian Republicans they appear to be.
I, frankly, would rather spend another four years in the weeds with honor than see those for whom I have respect triangulate themselves into deals it sickens me to be a party to, in a vain effort to become more popular with a group that doesn't appear to have any guiding moral light beyond that which their lizard brains tell them to do at any particular second of the day.
This war, unregulated globalization, voodoo economics and so many other issues that our Party has been seduced into supporting are wrong. It is high time that someone stood up and loudly and boldly proclaimed that the mushy middle needs to start voting with their minds, not their guts or lizard brains.
Nippersdad--"the mushy middle needs to start voting with their minds, not their guts or lizard brains". It ain't the guts or lizard brains, it's the CASH from the moneyed interests. WE need to start agitating for public financing of elections, the way MOST countries of the world do (airwaves are owned by the people, not the corporations).
Danny:
Hear hear! I totally agree. The problem is that as long as the "mushy middle" (and I say that for lack of a better term) continues to vote for people who are embedded in the revolving door of modern day, so called "centrist" politics, we will never get public financing of political campaigns, or any other progressive measure passed for that matter.
One reason people voted for Bush was because they bought into the fallacious concept that "their (tax) money belongs to them and they know better how to spend it." It did'nt occur to them at the time that the fundamental premise that governments run on taxes (and that bridges don't stay up by themselves) would be an issue just because George's faith based government policy required that God will provide.
Everything has it's price. George's unattainable promises got us a whole lot of dead people and debt to Red China (among other things). I'm glad they knew what to spend their money on.
Similarly health proposals that are predicated upon the existence of status quo insurance conglomerates will not really change the cost dynamic, yet the frontrunners' policies all treat them as moot.
It is going to take both actual thought and loud voices to fix the revolving door mess we see today. The middle does'nt get it and right wing Dems will never help them to.
For example: Tonight on the News Hour, Mark Shields came out and said that the Democratic base (as represented by MoveOn, anyway) are'nt even Democrats! He is attempting to marginalize his own Party's base over one word in a headline! Either he does'nt get it, or he does'nt want to.
"Democrats simply do not have the votes to force a unilateral withdrawal, and advocating such a position is bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party."
What the f@#$. Who says a unilateral withdraw is bad for America?
And that ten point drop in the polls was in August, I interpreted, as frustration in the general populace with Democrats inability to do something more radical to get us out Iraq. Not a public desire for a more moderate position. Heck, the Democrats have already given him more money for the war, his surge, etc, etc.., how much moderate and stay the course can you get??? And the public, myself included, hated it. That congress was elected to get us out of Iraq in 6 months to a year, NOT agree to a ten year gradual "drawdown".
What the heck does "unilateral" mean here? There is Iraq, and the US invaded. Now should we require Iraq to withdraw so we can? In spite of the Bushist blather, it is Iraqis whom we are killing, and Iraqis who want us out.
The point is that the US under Bush (not God!) did wrong. It is wrong to let the wrong doing go on.
Agreed. I am deeply disappointed by the "moderate" Democratic response to a national and constitutional crisis.
The mess belongs to those who began the war. To make that assumption that the responsibility falls on us, "the American people," is part and parcel of the old statist myth: "we are responsibl
To subscribe to the myth of collective responsibility is to fall into the trap that we have some servile obligation to shore up the greedy coven of political incompetents - dems and reps - who got us into this into the first place. Get the troops out now; get out the equipment and the public goods; leave the mercenaries and the contractors there to fend for themselves. Cruel and irresponsible? Not any more than the pain and suffering that will fall on the heads of the Iraqi people as result of another one, two, three, four, or decades of U.S. occupation.
The historical lesson here is derived neither from Vietnam nor Korea, but rather from the American occupation of the Philippines in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the ensuing slaughter by guns, disease, and starvation of the Philippine people who would have been a lot better off had we not invaded in the first place, despite Spanish colonial rule. What we see in Iraq is a failed state but a resurgent nationalism amidst the chaos and bloodshed. The Iraqis, just like the people of the Philippines of the last two centuries, don't need a colonial godfather; they need the room that a U.S. withdrawal will bring. Our occupation can't repair, it cannot stabilize, it can only further pain to country that Bush Inc. and his Democratic allies shattered by their occupation.
The Dems have a rare opportunity and I do like what Mr. Reid has been saying recently.
1. It's Bush's war and it's a fiasco
2. The only way forward is with Bi-partisan support, through policy and strategy changes that follow the leadership of Dems.
Sort of a "you made the mess, you can help us clean it up" approach.
The comments I read here about the so-called "Democratic majority" in the Senate are coming from people who are bad at math. With Tim Johnson out and Lieberman essentially a Republican on Iraq, the majority has been 50 Republicans v. 49 Dems.
Senator Webb is showing us the right way towards the door with his proposal for an ammendment that will extend the stateside time of soldiers who are deployed. It will be difficult to vote against such a bill when public sentiment is in favor of anything that will provide relief to what is perceived to be an exhausted fighting force.
We need more creative ammendments like this that shape the strategy.
This is tantamount to doing root canals and fillings in a tooth that needs to be pulled. We know it's inevitable that it has to come out but we have to find ways of mitigating the pain while we build the majority needed to decisively enact change.
Those of you in states where the Republican is up for election in 08 take note. You cannot fight hard enough, work long enough hours, pound enough pavement or work enough phones to get that person replaced with a Democrat. What is at stake here is a slim majority in the Senate and more importantly, the lives of our brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq.
I am at a loss when people try to present this type of reasoning and claim it as logic.
The Dems, if they tried could so quickly turn this around on the Republicans, and in 08 the only Republicans in office would be those not up for reelection.
Iraq is costing us roughly 10 billion a week. Our "goal" is to rebuild it with new schools and hospitals, yet after all those billions what have we to show for it? Our great grandchildren and their children inherit a greater burden each day we are there, oh and they will attend classess that are over crowded and temporary FEMA trailors because that is all the school districts can afford.
Then remind Americans bluntly about all these "patriotic" flag waving Republicans who never wore the uniform and feel like Rep Boehner that the costs for Iraq in life, limb and national debt is "insignificant". Better yet rerun the comments of Dick Cheney in 06 and 05 where he stated the desires and opinions of the electorate didn't matter. Very Democratic don't you think?
Finally, show openly the winners of all these lucrative no bid contracts, and their vast contributions to the Republicans and ask "how much more profit based on American lives and wealfare is enough?" Show the children who cannot afford proper health care, whose mothers work minumum wage jobs, yes JOBS in the plural where 1 month's expenses in Iraq would aleviate all of those problems. In the closing seconds show pictures of Baghdad and New Orleans and ask which city deserves priority?
Then start bringing up bills for 43 to veto with deadlines and commitments not "benchmarks" that can be dismissed. See how long it takes for the right to realize they were wrong. Record and publicise Congressional votes.
If there are more then 10 Republicans left in Congress I'll be surprized. The drawback though and reasoning for caution as urged by Mr. Schoen here is then Democrats might have to assume responsibility then. Something they so far have not seemed to want to do.
This war also belongs to the democrats as much as Bush and the republicans. Some of these politicians are now peaking against this war because they are running for President.
If you are an anti-war democrat would you want to elect these people as President. The blood of the soldiers and the Iraqis who died in this war is as much on their hands as the Bush and the republicans.
Make all politicians democrats and republicans who were responsible for this war accountable. Being anti-war now is not acceptable
There is only one candidate who is truly against this war, Dennis Kucinich. By electing him you can take your country back from the corrupt politicians who are destroying this country because of their GREED FOR POWER and MONEY.
Who needs Senate math? All appropriations bills must originate in the House. Nothing goes to the House floor for a vote without Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval. Bush's plan for the indefinite occupation of Iraq could de-funded just like that!
I always get nauseaus when political folks discuss whether murdering babies will "play" in the polls.
It's as if everyone in the political class - those who benefit from our current corrupt system in which the corporate elite choose the politicians then bribe them, and the bribes are spread around to the supporting players - they all really think this is real life. In other words, there is no such thing as right or wrong. It's just how will it poll.
Even if another million Iraqis are killed in the next year, if it's played right, the Dems will poll okay. They should never worry about principles, morality, or doing the right thing. Oh, and that ten billion dollars a month of taxpayer money that's being pissed away in Iraq - never mind. I guess we can all work until we're 75 to pay. How much will it cost taxpayers to murder 2 million Iraqis instead of 1 million? How will that poll?
The Democrats should do what is right, which is to stand up against this illegal war and do everything in their power to end it. It is an international war crime. Innocent civilians are being murdered because Bush has decided the U.S. will turn Iraq into a U.S. colony. Babies are dying. Grandmas are being blown to bits. But I guess the polls don't bother with that kind of trivia.
Thank you.
This is garbage. First of all, I'm tired of this "we can't pull out without a plan" because its dangerous. That's a false argument probably dreamed up by Rove himself. Of course when we pull out it shouldn't be done without a plan. Doing so without a plan would be better than not doing it!
Also - The Democrats can stop the war any time they want. When Bush asks for more money they just don't have to submit a bill to Congress.
They have everything they need to stop this war now. So they should. Screw the political consequences. They're really blowing it already when it comes to how Americans view them.
I agree totally. I'd rather have them lose in 2008 than have this war continue any longer. Not that I think they would lose. I think they would win big by standing up for what everyone believes. And let's be real- we're causing most of this violence. The best way we can stabilize the country is to leave. Talking about politics like this makes me ill. People are dying every day so some politicians can save face.
NO! The Dems have been following a policy of conciliation (capitulation) since they were given the majority by the voters. This is not what the voters put them in the majority for! They need to stop enabling the president and stand fast by their principles. Stop the funding for this obscene war by not approving it. Capitulation is going to lose them both the presidency and the majority if they do not change their tactics!
Yes, we gave the Dems a very slim majority, 51/49. They need 17 Republican votes for a two-thirds majority. With a only 35% voter turnout could we partly have ourselves to blame? Could we have worked harder to vote in midterm elections, vote in a few more Dems, give them something more to work with?
Getting consensus behind the scenes, acting with some collegiality is part of the Dems unenviable job right now. We as private citizens can get out and demonstrate if we feel strongly about the war. March with us, twopenny. We're mad as hell.
Loading comments…
Posted September 14, 2007 | 03:43 PM (EST)