"Politics stops at the water’s edge."
That quote, attributed to Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, was most famously invoked to "Dixie Chick" the Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Texas-based trio made comments critical of President Bush during a concert in London in March of 2003.
The fact that this administration has little tolerance for critics made within the geographic confines of the United States mattered not. Remember Gen. Eric Shinseki? Or comedian Bill Maher? How about other former Bush officials including ex-Secretary of State Collin Powell?
The irony, of course, is that Vandenberg was himself misquoting a comment made by President Theodore Roosevelt almost half a century earlier. In a speech honoring then-Secretary of State Elihu Root, Roosevelt said that once in office, a public official -- whatever party he belonged to—"must feel that he is the servant of the people. This is true of all public officials, but perhaps it is in a special sense true of the secretary of state, for our party lines stop at the water's edge." So Vandenberg’s comments were a misquote, much in the manner of people who say "Music hath charms to sooth the savage beast" (it’s actually breast).
Ironically the man who received these accolades from the Progressive Republican President did not feel constrained to abide by them. Root vehemently criticized President Woodrow Wilson’s policy of neutrality until the Democrat finally entered the US into World War I.
The quote received new life this past week following the release of the Iraq Study Group report. Quoting from the Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Henninger, right-wing personality Rush Limbaugh said the following:
"Now, what was the purpose of this report? As we have discussed on this program, the purpose of this report was not to solve Iraq. The purpose of this report was to come up with consensus among the American people. You remember the phrase; we talk about it on this program constantly: Politics ends at the water's edge. That originated with Harry Truman. In fact, Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal has a column about this.
"The commission's two chairs, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, make this explicit in the report's first pages. 'U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure . . . if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.' Leon Panetta, a Democrat in the House from 1977 to 1993, said at their news conference, 'This country cannot be at war and be as divided as it is today.' These are essentially restatements of GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg's 1952 dictum amid the Truman presidency that 'politics stops at the water's edge.' More than a sentiment, Vandenberg's point was, as he put it, 'to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us.' For the past three years, we have had the opposite--a domestic political war waged relentlessly at the water's edge."
The problem is that there as been a marked tendency to increase the application of rules surrounding the criticism of US policy. Where Theodore Roosevelt limited himself to suggesting such a rule for officials of power subsequent commentators have used it to abridge the free-speech rights of ordinary (albeit high-profile) citizens. With this latest usage citizens are encouraged to refrain from criticizing policy even when such comments are aimed at an audience made up exclusively of Americans.
So the question becomes, when can people criticize their government? By now, the view of conservatives seems to be, "Shut up, we’re in charge."
And in an environment like that what is going to be the engine to create change? Surely those in power can see that the course they have set for US policy is nothing short of folly. But the lack of criticism tolerated by the right means that we are doomed to continue making the same errors that have caused events on the ground in Iraq to devolve into civil war.
One of the definitions of insanity is continuing to perform the same actions in hopes of a different outcome.
By that measure, is there a rubber room big enough to hold all the neo-conservatives?