OK, a disclaimer: I'm upset. What forces me to write this diary is what seems to me a lack of understanding regarding the practical realities of politics. It stems from the vote to confirm Condi Rice.
I don't support Condi Rice. But then again, I don't support any of the administration, save Norm Mineta (a Democrat). But yesterday I posted this diary to point out the Dems progress in taking the shine off of her nomination. This includes the most votes against a Sec of State nominee since 1826, the first Nay votes against ANY Sec of State nominee since 1981, and a full debate that got pretty good play in the media.
I proferred the opinion that this was good news for the Democrats. I was supported by the fact that Sen. Barbara Boxer herself posted a diary thanking this community for their support and pointing out the historic opposition to Rice's nomination. But as I continue to read, it turns out Sen. Boxer and I are just plain wrong.
It seems that everytime I turn around and look at another diary, another person is mad about one of the Senators that voted for Rice. Perhaps that one that makes me scratch my head the most are those mad at Senator Obama. Obama's been there all of two weeks, and lots of folks are giving up on him due to this vote.
But what is even more alarming is that many dedicated dKos readers are saying not to get mad, but to get even. In other words, there are some out there that contend that none of the 32 Democratic senators that voted for Rice deserve our support anymore. Period. End of story.
It makes me mad to see this because it smacks of the same moral absolutist stances that we rip the wingnuts for all the time. We are right to rip them for it, particularly one issue wingnuts that base their support only one issue.
But when we start to advocate eating our own over a confirmation vote, we look as crazy as the wingnuts.
I know, I know: for many, the Rice vote was a MORAL ISSUE. And I can respect that. And I understand that. The physical, emotional and psychological wounds from the war in Iraq are raw, bleeding and painful. Thousands of Americans dead, countless number of Iraqi dead. And Rice was front and center leading the charge with the rest of Bushco, telling lies and taking names, to go into Iraq.
Or maybe the moral issue with Rice is her complete and utter cluster-fuck of intelligence regarding 9/11, and how she blatently disregarded that intelligence and had no remorse about it at the 9/11 hearings. Fair enough.
But does that really change anything in the grand scheme of things? I mean, we already knew that Bushco was going to lie about the rationale for going to war, because we already knew that Bushco was hell-bent on invading Iraq pre-9/11. I knew they were lying before they went to war. Colin Powell lied to the whole damn world on international television. If it wasn't Condi, it would have been someone else (Wolfowitz, perhaps?) nominated for the post. In other words, it would have been someone who was part of the grand scheme by every single member of the Bush national security and foreign affairs team to invade Iraq no matter the cost.
Also, would it have changed things if all 32 Dem senators changed their vote to Nay? Well, we know the answer to this one as well: nope. They'd still be 10 votes short of defeating Condi.
Here's my point: when we starting casting off our support of certain politicians because they voted for X or voted against Y, we diminish OUR power and influence. Our moral absolutism is written off in the halls of Congress because, well hey, those are "one-issue" voters. (Having worked in Congress, believe me, I know. I've had plenty of one-issue voters write to the Member of Congress I worked for that we wrote off because, well, my Rep. disagreed with their position.)
This is particularly true in a confirmation vote where approval of nominees has been pretty much pro forma since the early 19th century. Judicial nominees get far more scrunity because they will be on the bench for life. Political nominees, unless they have a pretty bad skeleton in the closet (John Tower, anyone?), are seen as less of a threat because they'll be there for four years, eight years tops.
So, am I upset that my true blue D Senators voted for Rice? Sure I am. Does that mean I'm going to threaten to take my support elsewhere? Of course not. Here's why: they need to know we are behind them for the fights ahead. SS deform, tax deform, etc., etc., are coming. And if we want to resist the formation of a permenant Republican majority in this country, for the time being, we need to take the bitter votes with the sweet ones.
Moral absolutism gets us into boxes we can't get out of. After all, Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, Boxer and Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act, Feingold and Obama voted for Condi Rice. I guess that means we should write them all off, from a moral absolutist perspective.
I'm not about to. See, my political hero is Jim Hightower. I used to work for him. And I didn't agree with all the positions he took. But I did agree with his underlying political philosophy. And that is what drove me. So, if you beef is with a guy like Lieberman, who has consistently taken anti-Democratic positions, I'm on board. But if your beef is with Obama for his first vote out of the box, I gotta say, that smacks of moral absolutism, and to condemn the man into the political wildnerness is just plain silly.
We need to stop the moral absolutism and start living in the reality-based community we preach about. We need true progressive pragmatism. We need to start convincing thos Dem senators that seem to be "soft" or "moderate" that no, really, we'll be behind you, it's OK to take the tough stance, and we'll understand if you can't make that tough choice once in awhile. And foremost, if they are wrong, we have to call them on it, not just say "You're dead to me! No soup for you!"
If we can do that, we can start winning again. And when we win, the country wins.