This is one of those rare moments in history when the oligarchical consensus that rules the country is forced to reveal itself in all its nakedness. Just five weeks after an overwhelming majority voted for departure from Iraq, the big debate in the media is whether or not we should increase troop levels - at a time when the Army's going broke. And yet, there's no public outcry about subverting the will of the American people. Congratulations, GOP: Submission accomplished.
Here's a quick reminder: 7 out of 10 Americans want us out of Iraq within two years, and a majority want us out within six months. (You could be forgiven for forgetting, since you haven't heard much about it lately.)
Exit polls show that voters overwhelmingly made their decision based on Iraq. Yet as Arianna and others have observed, Harry Reid is indicating that he could support a "surge" - an increase in troop levels - provided that the Administration promised it would be only for a limited time, and with the purpose of withdrawing troops at a later date.
The "surge" can become the foundation for the Fourth Great Lie - which, like one of the the Great Lies that precedes it, involves that promise of "withdrawal" at some unspecified point in the future. So, while I hate to use a loaded leftist word like "oligarchy," what's a better term for a situation where a few people dismiss the expressed wishes of the electorate?
(And speaking of terminology, who coined this word "surge"? I prefer something more descriptive. Here's a suggestion: How about calling it "the Heave"?)
Atrios and a few other progressives have defended Reid on the ground that what he really said was that he supports any strategy that gets the troops out by the spring. But that's nuance, and will be overlooked by a media that's apparently eager to justify continued (or escalated) occupation. What's more, Reid isn't make this statement in a vacuum. He's saying he could support a "surge" from this Administration, with its track record for dishonesty and incompetence.
Reid's blunder is a slap in the face of the overwhelming majority of voters who put his slender majority in place (55% to 43% in the popular vote, which is a valid measure of the overall public's wishes). It's a continuation of the ruinous appeasement policies of his party's DLC/Hillary Clinton wing. I know what he's trying to do - avoid being tarred with future collapse in Iraq - but it plays into the other side's hands.
No wonder a "centrist" Democrat like Hillary Clinton performs far worse in the polls than an unnamed generic "Democratic candidate." Voters look to the generic "Democrat" to end the war, while they know that the triangulators won't. The appeasement strategy of the self-described "moderates," reflected by Reid's gambit, doesn't work.
But then, how could it? The press is once again solidly behind this Administration, after a brief flirtation with the Baker Boys. Consider their handling of the "surge" question. The media's "expert" of the day is suddenly Fred Kagan, veteran neocon from the Project for the New American Century, who has become the leading spokesperson for increasing troop levels.
Kagan's a historian, not a general or tactician, and his idea is dismissed as impractical and destructive to our armed forces by actual military leaders ranging from Abizaid to Schoomaker to Colin Powell. Never mind. He was given a lengthy segment on NPR, where he contemptuously dismissed the generals' concerns by saying that he was more concerned about "breaking the Army" emotionally - because soldiers will feel bad when the military "loses" in Iraq, or words to that effect. (I was driving, and nearly crashed anyway when I heard him being given so much credibility, so I couldn't take notes.)
But Kagan's idea, which is shared by the inconsistent and prognostically weak John McCain, is now the idea to debate. On Sunday Wolf Blitzer (who prefers to ignore the record on McCain and described him as "consistent") led a debate between Sens. Jon Kyl and Jack Reed on the "surge" concept.
Reed did well, and even addressed the spin about McCain's self-advertised "political courage" by subtly suggesting that he's playing to the neocons and the GOP's base with his "surge" talk. But Blitzer's premise put Reed on the defensive.
As Daniel Yankelovich has pointed out, the media is most effective at controlling what people think about, as opposed to what they think, and right now everybody's thinking about the "surge." What they're not thinking about is the fact that the Army is out of cash, and isn't able to properly prepare our soldiers for combat - at current levels, much less under a "surge."
Why is the Army broke? Part of it is bad planning, and part of it is that the GOP's big donors make more money from high-tech Air Force contracts than they do taking care of our troops.
And why are you thinking about a "surge," when we're not adequately supporting the troops already in place? Because the media decides what you think about.
Consider TIME Magazine and its silly choice of "You" as Person of the Year. Read the editorial justifying their decision, especially its description of the year's significant events. What's missing? The most dramatic American political realignment in a generation. But then, why be surprised? TIME is the magazine that rushed to advertise the "center" as "the place to be," just days after the election. (I don't recall them doing that in 1994.) Apparently they never seriously considered a Democrat or "The American Voter" as their selection.
But why should they? With the Inside-the-Beltway clique firmly back in control, and with the obeisance of people like Harry Reid, the American voter isn't likely to have much of an impact on world events. "You" may be the "Person of the Year" on YouTube, but when it comes to governance it's beginning to look like "You" aren't all that important.
That is, unless more elected Democrats find the courage to do the job the people elected them to do.
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Comments for this entry are currently under maintenance but will be restored soon.