Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines surrender as:
to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand <surrendered the fort> b : to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another
[
http://www.m-w.com/... ]
The majority of Iraqis are demanding, and quite reasonably so, that we immediately leave Iraq. But, if we agree to "yield to the power, control and possession" of Iraqis "upon [their] compulsion or demand", then that, by definition, will be "surrendering." Although surrender is sometimes the only reasonable course of action given the circumstances, particularly when a fight was not worth having to begin with, yet Americans generally hate to surrender and they loathe American people who surrender.
Americans are notorious for their "fighting spirit" and for preferring to "go down fighting," whatever the cost. The phrase "
fighting spirit" is among the most beloved of American literature and public discourse. Thomas Edison said, "Health, happiness and success depend upon the fighting spirit of each person." [
http://64.233.187.104/... ] In a famous 1963 speech, John F. Kennedy eulogized the defiance of communism and "the fighting spirit of West Berlin". [
http://home.sandiego.edu/... ] And in Jack London's 1903 epic,
The Call of the Wild,
Thornton's doubt was strong in his face, but his fighting spirit was aroused--the fighting spirit that soars above odds, fails to recognize the impossible, and is deaf to all save the clamor for battle. (emphasis added) [ http://london.sonoma.edu/... ]
In an entirely different context, even Dr. Howard Dean has lamented the absence of
fighting spirit within the Democratic Party, referring to the
futility and corruption of the Democratic Party--the me-tooism, the abject fear of fighting spirit . . . [ http://www.citypages.com/... ]
Even those most against the Iraq War cannot resist appeal to the phrase "fighting spirit", because it is incontrovertibly part of the American psyche. One immortal quote from America's favorite Britain, Sir Winston Churchill, goes
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.[ http://history.hanover.edu/... ]
What, then, is likelihood, in 2006 or 2008, that the American Left, based on logic and facts, can convince America to abandon the love of the "fighting spirit", which is so much a part of our national heritage? For many Americans, the "fighting spirit" and "defending honor" a much more important than saving lives or money, (which may be why Americans still shoot each other on the highway for the slightest of insults). [ http://www.cignabehavioral.com/... ]
Particularly when one has such a mindset, it requires great courage and insight to realize and accept that one has lost a fight. In America those who surrender, or who counsel others to surrender, are often unfairly branded as "cowards" because it is a subjective judgment that resides in the "eye of the beholder" whether surrender is motivated by intelligent analysis of circumstances, costs and benefits, or merely by "disgraceful fear or timidity". [ http://www.m-w.com/... ] When the beholding eyes are American, surrender is usually considered to be cowardly. It's unfair and unjust, but then life often is unfair and unjust.
For patriotic people, which includes most of America, national dignity and individual honor (not surrendering) are inextricably linked together. "If shame is evoked but is unacknowledged, it may set off a sequence of shame alternating with anger." [ http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/... ] Indeed, forcing America to experience the shame that comes with surrender could, in some voters, have the unintended consequence of increasing their anger and their desire to vent that anger, e.g. by voting against Democrats who counseled surrender in the first place.
In shame-anger loops, individuals are angry that they are ashamed, and ashamed that they are angry, and so on. This creates another emotional loop that feeds on itself and often culminates in antisocial acts [like more war]. [ http://psychcentral.com/... ]
It is with this understanding that I urge that those who want America to leave Iraq
must not counsel that America, even having lost 2,500 troops, must now "yield to the power, control, or possession" of the bombers and infighting ethnics.
Certainly, it makes infinite sense, now, for America to admit that George Bush's dreams of an "American Century" and "spreading democracy" in Iraq were hallucinatory. Whatever was he smoking? But, it will be much easier for Americans to agree on an exit strategy if that strategy does not meet the dictionary definition of "surrender". Whatever we do or propose, it must not meet the dictionary definition of surrender. This is why, polls show, 45% of Americans can see that we are in a hole, but nonetheless do not want to stop digging.
The political implications for Democratic candidates for President are clear and simple: Any Presidential candidate who counsels surrender now will be defeated at the polls in September 2008, because Americans hate to surrender. Or worse, he will be rejected by America' electorate in November 2008, because America simply cannot stomach surrender and will not vote for those who can be characterized (even unfairly) as cowards. This is the painful truth of the matter, based on American history and psychology.
What realistic alternative remains for those who oppose the Iraq War in which we find ourselves to unwillingly and implacably engaged? The Vietnam War was prolonged by Republicans for two years after the 1972 elections in which Republican President Nixon won re-election after Democratic nominee Democrat George McGovern counseled surrender.
In the 1972 U.S. presidential election the war was again a major issue. An antiwar candidate, George McGovern, ran against President Nixon. Nixon ended Linebacker on October 22 and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that "peace is at hand" shortly before Election day, dealing a deathblow to McGovern's campaign, which was already far behind in opinion surveys. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vietnam_War ]
It must be remembered that almost 20 times more American soldiers had died in Vietnam by 1972, yet America still was unwilling to vote for the candidate who urged that we "yield to the power, control" of the Vietnamese. If proposing "surrender" is a losing political strategy that will have the unintended effect of prolonging the war, then what strategy is available to Democrats? The Democrats must take power by advocating a political program that is more popular and less "loaded", only then can we use the reigns of power to end the war.
Alright! Now it's time for DKers to yell and scream that this proposal is disingenuous. Many at DailyKos will argue that if yearly proctologic exams are a part of the Democratic program for health care, we must therefore make proctologic exams the foremost part of our Party Platform and our television commercials. "Have your ass examined! It's good for you and may save your life." It would be "dishonest", not to tout this part of our platform, would it not?
To be perfectly even handed by gender, please ask yourselves what is more saleable: "A proposal marriage which says, "I want you to be the mother of my children", or a proposal which says, "I want to marry you so that you can get fatter and fatter for nine months until you can hardly walk and then, in an unbearable climax of physical agony, (which could well be followed by months of post-partum depression), I want you to become the mother of one of my children, with more to follow." Obviously, there are times when "the less said, the better", for the benefit of all concerned.
So, I strongly disagree with the "let's advocate for the essence of surrender" approach. As I said, although there is great logic behind proctologic exams, I still do not believe that they should be foremost in our Party Platform, because they are not popular. And although they are necessary, people who propose proctologic exams quickly become unpopular. Instead, we must lead publicly with our most saleable programs and with the most saleable aspects of our most saleable programs.
As I stated in an earlier diary, [ http://www.dailykos.com/... ] entitled "
Iraq or Health Care? What Resonates Better in November?",
So, in 2006 and 2008, we will forced be as a Party to prioritize among fundamentally important messages that compete for time and space. Even having chosen which positions to take as a Party, we will have to decide which of these will receive "top billing". With November's elections rapidly approaching and candidates vying for position in advance of the 2008 elections, the choice of issues and messages is ours to make, but now is the time to make it. We are deciding not only what we believe as a party, but also what we will present first, and we are in the process of debating this crucial area.
The following polling data shows that although half of America agrees with us that it is time to get out of Iraq, 72 percent agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Meanwhile, the national health care issue convinces most Americans that we care about THEM, while the "withdraw-from-Iraq" issue (surrender) seems to convince some Americans that we are unpatriotic cowards.
Even when we agree that stopping the war in Iraq and instituting national health care will be two fundamental principled issues of the Democratic Party in 2008, the polling data make it clear why the Democratic Choir should be singing about health care first. While there is bipartisan agreement about the health care issue, the public remains divided about how and when to pull out of Iraq, and the public is more divided along party lines.
"Precisely half support withdrawing all U.S. forces immediately or within 12 months, while 41% say the United States should keep troops there for as many years as needed. Eight percent call for sending more troops. Views on what to do divide sharply along partisan lines. Nearly two thirds of Republicans support maintaining forces there as long as needed, compared with one third of Democrats and independents." http://www.usatoday.com/.... [ http://www.dailykos.com/... ]
So, advocating for national health care is a winning issue for Democrats, this year and in 2008, but advocating that we "yield to the power, control, or possession of another" is a losing position because it is, by definition, "surrender." [
http://www.m-w.com/... ]