Views » March 27, 2007

Democracy Haters

By David Sirota

How much opposition to the Iraq War must be expressed in America before Congress takes note and does something?

This simple question tears away the veneer of antiwar platitudes and pro-democracy rhetoric that spews from the nation’s capital. It has been four months since voters delivered an antiwar mandate, and the Washington establishment no longer pretends to care about the public will.

As opposition to the war has increased and as the progressive movement has demanded action from Congress, Beltway voices have expressed their disgust with democracy. In November, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on national television to say that the war “may not be popular with the public—it doesn’t matter.” In March, Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) attacked Democratic proposals to end the war: “I don’t think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls.”

The same disdain for voters is expressed by the corporate media. In early March, the New York Times reported that the most intensely antiwar Democrats are on the “fringe,” despite the Times’ own poll showing growing public outrage at the war. This followed the paper’s columnist David Brooks, who lashed out at those who would challenge pro-war Democrats: “Polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.”

These statements imply opposition to the war is recent, fleeting and somehow illegitimate. But since August 2003—a few months after the invasion—polls have consistently shown that Americans think the Bush administration misled us into Iraq, and that Congress should put the brakes on the war. By the eve of the 2006 election, polls showed opposition to the Iraq War at an all-time high.

After the election, as President Bush announced his plan to escalate the war and congressional Democrats responded with non-binding resolutions, a CNN poll found that a strong majority wants Congress to cut off funding for the so-called “surge.” Meanwhile a Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal and want Congress to do what it takes to stop Bush’s escalation—positions the corporate media would have us believe are “fringe” and people like Herseth et al. oppose in the name of faux “centrism” and “not overreacting.”

So what to do?

First, progressives can look for alternative routes of pressure. Washington politicians may ignore polls, but they might feel less comfortable ignoring their own state governments. With the help of the Progressive States Network, resolutions demanding Congress stop President Bush’s military escalation in Iraq have been introduced in 29 states and passed chambers in Iowa, California, Vermont, New Jersey and North Dakota.

An interaction featured on YouTube illustrates a second critical point. The video shows activists aggressively criticizing Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) for not doing enough to end the war. Obey reminds them that he voted against the war and has used his position on the Appropriations Committee to try to slow down the administration’s actions in Iraq. But, he says, the Democratic votes do not yet exist to cut off funding for the war.

Congress members must be pressured in a targeted fashion to help lawmakers like Obey garner the votes needed for strong action. Conversely, blanket attacks potentially alienate the allies we do have—like the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who are thankfully starting to play hardball with the Democratic leadership on the war.

The cop-out for progressives is to declare a pox on Capitol Hill and give up. That’s what the anti-democratic zealots in Washington want us to do, and why their attacks on the majority of Americans become ever more shrill. But the louder they squeal, the more we know we are closer to our goal. If the progressive movement perseveres and picks its targets carefully, Congress will be forced to end this war.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  This is very illustrative of the main problem of the Democratic Party: It is RUN by a bunch of milquetoast Beltway insiders out of touch with their rank and file across the country. The leadership buys into the insider mentality and constantly tries to direct the party to more “centrist” positions while what rank and file prefers much bolder leadership.

  Posted by lams712 on Mar 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM

  Mr. Sirota,

  There is a difference between a democracy and a republic. Thank goodness we are a republic and not run by a simple majority vote (which the internet now very easily could tally).

  Had we been a pure democrracy on 9-12-01 we might well have voted to, “Nuke the bastards!”

  As it is now, however, whoever gets the PR & Lobbying machine running most effectively can sway our elected representatives and our easily duped citizenry.  That is, if they can lure them away from American Idol and present their own vitual reality program.

  Posted by whattheheck on Mar 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM

  WTH, you are absolutely right about the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, not one in a thousand Americans knows this vital distinction so I salute you here ! Democracy is just a means to socialism for the Left and the neocon Right, who are really old Hubert
  Humphrey lefties of the Cold Warrior stripe though most take care to keep their fruiter behinds far away from actual battle. The rank and file lefties like lams make a lot of noise but they normally can’t elect pwogwessives even in the primary and never in the general election.
  90% of the new Dems in Congress are BLUE DOGS, Jim Webb is more
  against gun control than George Allen ever was (though probably not a good idea to carry one into the Capitol.) The vote was against Bush’s WAR and usurpation of powers in wiretapping, etc., NOT a vote for
  socialism or the fascist form of socialism advocated by weenies like
  lams and Hillary, ad nauseum.

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM

  blondemike:

  Fuck you, you fucken fuck!!!!

  I need to set the record straight on a couple of things. With you playing the role of the loudmouth at the bar, I can’t let your rambling assertions go unchallenged.

  First, the “90% of new Dems in Congress are BLUE DOGS” comment is absolutely false. Again, blondemike shows his penchant for making up numbers as he sees fit.

  Secondly, there are plenty of PWOGWESSIVES that have been ELECTED. One of the largest caucuses for Democrats in the House is the Progressive Caucus, and they actually lost two members (Bernie Sanders-VT, Sherrod Brown-OH) because they were ELECTED to the Senate. To say that “rank and file lefties like lams make a lot a noise but they normally can’t elect pwogwessives even in the primary and never in the general election” is again a patently FALSE statement, but BM has never had a problem with LYING.

  Finally, I agree with you that Hillary Clinton may be a fascist in waiting, but that is only because she is a Republican-lite/conservative/DLC/inside-the-beltway/corporatist. All I need to do is follow the money and see whose interests lie where. To count Hillary Clinton with me and my progressive brethren is intellectually dishonest, but then again, for BM, dishonesty is his policy.

  Posted by lams712 on Mar 28, 2007 at 3:33 AM

  Iams, Mike,

  While Americans continue to play the “Who-is-the-Most-to-Blame-Game” our country is going down in flames. One thing radicals (Muslim or otherwise) have is — enough unity to get something done.

  Neither major US party exists in its traditional form anymore. Democrats are not backing democracy and Republicans no longer represent “We the People.” Both are beholding to those special interest groups with the biggest budgets. Just look at the payoffs this past week in the War Budget Blather — the price of a single vote was outrageous! That’s where inflation is rampant!

  While the DC kabuki plays on for public consumption, the cooperative efforts of congressional power-wielders and transnational corporations are sucking us dry.

  Last night Frontline (WGBH) had a very informative article Al Jazeera and their massive expansion. Their English language version has been kept out of the US (except for the web) on grounds they back our enemies.

  Only recently have the US State Dept. and military attempted to connect and compete with them. US news is so US centric that everything we do (and don’t do) presents us in a bad light. For a country that values freedom of speech we have lost valuable time and opportunity to both learn and explain (it’s called dialog) by this isolation of ideas policy.

  While pushing Globalization as an economic benefit we have arrogantly ignored the “hearts and minds” of the world. While radical Muslims have adopted and perfected use of the mass media (previously our forte) we have adopted the radical Muslim method (death to the infidel) with “You will become a democracy, or else!”

  We can at least listen — to listen is NOT to endorse.  It is encouraging that we have made a start.

  ————-

  Mike, (I can’t get back into counterinsurgency 101.)

  After reading some of Robert Fisk’s articles I find he is definitely lacking in credibility. For example he says we in the U.S. are cringing in fear based on a few college girls comments. He told a group of Egyptian school girls the Middle East is all about oil — too simplified — oil is definitely important, but not the whole picture. Oversimplification is not a good journalism.

  In one article he says he does not like it when he is included as in, “Why are ‘we’ in the Middle East?” Yet he is obviously not reluctant to give answers as in “We are there just for the oil” as though he has some official position as spokesman for the US.
  Also, while Powell was obviously overstating the case to the U.N., he has not categorically denied all of it. Professional soldiers are often reluctant to publicly criticize policy. His biggest disagreement on Iraq was the small force Rumsfeld wanted to (and did) deploy. This he did express to Bush before the invasion.

  Posted by whattheheck on Mar 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 43 posts.

Also featured Robben Island Singers
An Israeli Refuseniks Good Fight
Biofuels: Promise or Peril?

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by David Sirota

• Intelligentsia Against Intelligence
  In the parlance of our times, the term "Idiocracy" means a nation run… morePosted on November 20, 2009
• Where Are the Real Deficit Hawks?
  Let's say you're a congressperson or tea party leader looking to champion deficit… morePosted on November 14, 2009
• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009
• A Party With No Punch
  Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party. Posted on October 26, 2009