My friend David told me once that growing up in the South he had the experience of people saying to him, "Jews are greedy," before "correcting" themselves by "reassuring" him that: "Of course, we don't mean you, David. We know you're not like that." To which my friend David said he would respond, "Well, if 'Jews' are greedy, then I must be greedy, because I'm Jewish. So in the future, instead of saying, 'Jews are greedy,' you should just say, 'Dave is greedy,' because when you say it about 'Jews,' you say it about me."
I was reminded of this because when Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse accused Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele of "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" after Steele criticized the Afghanistan war, Woodhouse wasn't just attacking Michael Steele; Woodhouse was attacking me and every American who is against the war.
That would be wrong, even if there were only five of us. But, in fact, there are many of us, and Brad Woodhouse has wronged us all.
In June, the Washington Post reported that 53 percent of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not worth its costs; 41 percent feel that way strongly. Two-thirds of Democrats, 53 percent of independents, and 35 percent of Republicans say the war is not worth its costs.
Just before Brad Woodhouse made his statement attacking Michael Steele, three-fifths of the Democrats in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the two Congressional Vice Chairs of the DNC, Representative Mike Honda and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, voted for an amendment introduced by Representative Jim McGovern, Representative David Obey, and Representative Walter Jones that would have required President Obama to establish a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In his attack on Steele, Woodhouse seemed to be encouraging Republicans to enforce "party discipline" on Steele to support the war: "The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job." Enforcing Republican Party discipline on Republicans to support the war in Afghanistan is not in the interest of the majority of Americans and the super-majority of Democrats who oppose the war. If a third, instead of 5%, of the Republicans in the House had supported the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment, reflecting the third of Republicans in the country at large who do not support the war, the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment requiring a timetable for withdrawal would have passed the House. With his attack on Steele, Woodhouse made it less likely that House Republicans will join House Democrats in trying to end the war sooner rather than later.
There is an extremely relevant recent precedent for this dynamic, which should give pause to every Democrat who wants to redirect resources from the Pentagon killing machine to creating and saving domestic jobs. In early October 2006, Republican Senator Bill Frist - then Majority Leader - while traveling in Afghanistan, said that Taliban fighters were too numerous and too popular to be defeated. "You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Senator Frist said. Democrats accused Frist of trying to "cut and run" in Afghanistan, AP reported at the time. "Senator Frist now suggests that the best way forward in Afghanistan is to coddle the Taliban by welcoming Taliban members into a coalition government, as if 9/11 had never happened," then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.
What was accomplished with this know-nothing partisan attack? Folks who might have thought Senator Frist's statement was an opening for sanity instead ducked for cover. Four years, many American and Afghan dead, and many billions of U.S. tax dollars flushed down the toilet later, Frist's statement is a commonplace, disputed by no-one who plausibly pretends to know anything, even U.S. government officials. As George Bernard Shaw might have noted, we've already conceded our willingness to make a deal with the Taliban. Now we're just haggling about the price. What needless death and suffering for Americans and Afghans might we have avoided if Senator Frist's obvious insight four years ago had not been shut down with a know-nothing partisan attack?
Imagine if Michael Steele were now caught on tape expressing his support for abortion rights and freedom from discrimination for gays and lesbians serving in the military. If Brad Woodhouse put out a statement denouncing Steele and demanding that Republicans compel Steele to adhere to Republican discipline, would Woodhouse not catch hell from Democratic supporters of abortion rights and the civil rights of gays and lesbians? If you care about issues, it's not in your interest for someone to "police the boundaries" of the other side. Red rover, red rover. Let another Republican refusenik come over.
Woodhouse is entitled to his views, but as a spokesman of the Democratic National Committee, he is not entitled to take actions that run counter to the interests of the overwhelming majority of Democrats, if the DNC wishes to be perceived as institution that represents Democrats and is entitled to their support.
In saying that Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan," Woodhouse engaged in a tactic that Democrats have justly and bitterly complained about when Republicans used it against them. By engaging in this sort of attack, Woodhouse helps to foster a climate in which critics of this war or any other can be marginalized with attacks on their patriotism. This is unacceptable whether done by Republicans or Democrats. As E.J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post, Steele "had a right to offer his opinion without being accused of undermining our troops or 'rooting for failure.'"
Brad Woodhouse and the DNC owe all of us an apology, but I would settle for a commitment not to engage in this sort of behavior in the future. Democratic activists who care about issues have choices about where to donate their dollars. If the DNC insists on continuing to advocate for the Afghanistan war, against the interests of a super-majority of Democrats, that ought to have consequences.
UPDATE: : Peace activists wrote to Woodhouse and the DNC yesterday, urging the DNC to stop presenting support for the war as a Democratic position, and to stop attacking critics of the war.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
One chair tried to dump a replubican war on the democratic president. The other chair took the opporutnity to slag the other chair as unpatriotic.
Nothing to see here. Move on. Quit whining.
Now if he had said something critical of Israel or AIPAC or the Jewish Defence League he would probably be sent back packing. After all we know what happens to people who critisise jews in the USA , because Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr paid the price for giving voice to what they truly believe about Israel and were summarily fired for it. You cannot speak critically of the sacred cows in America. Jews, the Military industrial complex, and Wars in particular.
I think that in the USA the right to keep and bear arms is held in higher esteem than is free speech.
In the USA to speak out about things in such a way as to depart from the official line, or accepted wisdom is to risk your right to the pursuit of happiness.
In short, you can say anything you want so long as it supports the government line and the perceived wisdom of the day. If you have an opposing view, or actually excercise your right to free speech, look out, the country will land on you. Ergo, there is no such thing as free speech in the USA.
Rubbish. The First Ammendment is about preventing the government from using its power to suppress the free exchange of ideas, especially those the government doesn't like. Just read this blog and you see a million thoughts and opinions that make this White House and this Congress grind their teeth.
But the First Ammendment doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what we say. I am free to stand on my desk and loudly announce that my CEO is a a$$-hole. But I shouldn't expect to have my job the next day.
Nor does the First Ammendment shield me from criticism of my ideas. That would suppress the free speech of others.
There are justifiable limits to free speech, but they have become heavily weighted in favor of power and wealth. We have given up our rights, and still do not have the promised increased security.
How do I get a blog post on the HuffPo? I think I could produce some tasty stuff.
Naiman should have expressed the latter without proclaiming a fact-challenged self-caricature speaks for him; it undermines his credibility and actually invites people to dismiss his point of view.
It is entirely acceptable to make an argument that Brad Woodhouse doesn't speak for many Democrats or for many Americans. It is entirely asinine to use the factually vacuous statements of Michael Steele to support that argument.
VERY FUNNY.
http://www.dailygoat.com/2010/07/michael-steele-fights-rnc-chairman-job-kicks-2-legit-2-quit-tour/
So, when Michael Steele stands up and says that this war was of Pres. Obama's choosing he's just following in GWB's footsteps. There's an old saying, "Lie to me once - shame on you, Lie to me twice" - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! So, I guess, if Mr. Steele 'speaks for you' you're a liar, too.
You might have mentioned this somewhere in your rants about opposing the war and laying out the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy announced last December.
We would probably agree on more than one aspect of the efficacy of this strategy. But you lose me when you take the tack of someone like Michael Steele and play loose wtih the facts.
We can argue whether this is the correct strategy - and, once again, I'd predict we would find a lot to agree on - but let's not muddy the waters of an intelligent debate by avoiding the facts of the matter. And, for God's sake, don't hurt your arguments by suggesting that the Bush administration had a strategy in Afghanistan at all, much less one that did not undermine opportunites for peace!
Maybe Steele was correct in his opposition, but only as much as a broken clock is right twice a day. Steele will say anything and everything sooner or later. He has no true beliefs other than the belief that he is qualified to be the RNC Chairman.
And if his statement upsets the Republican powers that be too much he will be forced to walk it back on Rush. Michael Steele is not the voice of reason.
The right has been using that bogus 'If your against the war your against the troops BS for 10+ years, I think in a tongue and cheek kind of way we need to beat the Repubs over the head with it when they are against Obama's war that they started.
It's not about two wrongs not making a right. It's about basing your arguments on the facts and increasing your credibility and powers of persuasion.