In the movie Patton, George C Scott playing the iconic General said, "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Regardless if Patton really said it or not, it's damn good advice. But some Democrats have turned that classic quip on its head and employed in its place a puzzling permutation: they’re going to win the war against the GOP by dying for the other poor dumb bastard's country.
It’s a strange, strange world too many weak kneed democrats inhabit. In that surreal landscape, allowing the GOP to call your plays makes sense, infuriating your hard working activist base is wise, and ignoring the will of the majority of the public on the most important issue in the upcoming election is brilliant.
And through the whole, miserable, ongoing drama, Democrats often make the excuse that the media doesn’t give them a fair shake. Sure, that's no doubt correct in plenty of cases. And true to form, traditional media was all over the MoveOn.org story. How unfair! But let me ask the democrats who caved in, was that really a raw deal, or a golden opportunity? Because I’ve always been told, you make your own opportunity.
One week ago Senate Republicans sunk a shiv deep into the back of US combat troops to prove their loyalty to the most unpopular President in living memory by killing the Webb Amendment. Traditional media downplayed it, and instead spent the next week asking every democratic pundit, candidate, and sitting lawmaker about MoveOn. On its face, that would appear to be another episode of the media focusing on an issue that helps the GOP and portrays Democrats in a bad light. Boohoo! Except, what exactly would have stopped the progressive advocate from deftly turning the tables on the GOP each and every time that dynamic played out by sticking up for the troops?
How hard would it have been, each and every time you were put on the spot on cable news opposite a conservative apologist, to simply use the MoveOn question as a frictionless segue to challenge that neocon shill to support the troops by pledging to support the Webb Amendment? Democrats, you tell me: You do have control over what words you speak, right? You’re physically in possession of your larynx? You’re not a puppet, hmm?
So, whenever your anti-cognate on the right brought up the MoveOn ad, what irresistible force was it that prevented you from responding with "Mr. Wingnut, I understand we’re all concerned for the troops, so how about you join me right now in pledging to support the Webb Amendment guaranteeing our brave men and women in harm’s way a decent amount of time with their families in between combat tours?" Repeat as needed: MoveOn --> troops --> Webb --> Challenge--> Ask for pledge. See how beautifully that flows? Do it in as many formats in as many versions as you wish, until Mr Wingnut answers, evades and squirms, or the time runs out. And please, for crying out loud, no complaints the politicians are helpless in dodging a question or answering a different one than what was asked.
Look, I’m just a part-time blogger, so maybe I'm missing something glaringly obvious here. I don’t have any experience in PR or campaign strategy. I don’t have access to private polls carried out at great expense. I’m not a member of the cocktail weenie circuit, nor am I a Very Serious & Important Person -- like David Brooks or Tom Freidman. But still, common sense and all; what was there to lose by trying to shed light on the GOP betrayal given lights, camera, and action courtesy of the MoveOn discussion?
- Is there an opportunity to state the response on national media? Check.
- Is it a smart move politically? Check.
- Is it morally the right and honorable thing to do? Check.
- Does the response segue neatly into the topic of supporting the troops? Check.
- Does the response have wide support among the public and military? Check.
- Does the response pose a huge problem for the Republicans? Check & mate.
It’s not easy for the most partisan newscaster or network to spin rejecting the Webb Amendment as supporting the troops, and portray supporting the Webb Amendment as not supporting the troops. What risks laid in changing the conversation from ‘support the troops by slamming the ad’ to ‘support the troops by supporting the Webb Amendment’? Because I assure you, Mr Wingnut did not want that alternative narrative getting out. And even if you were only partially successful in getting it out, it sure beats the hell out of sitting there on national television with your doughy jowls hanging wide open and playing right into the GOP strategist hands like a stereotypical wussy, liberal dufus.
The press brouhaha over the MoveOn ad feeding frenzy was a gift, a golden opportunity, that would have given even the Bluest Dogs and reddest Bush Hound Dems enormous cover to promote that very meaningful support for our military and their families, honor your base, comply with the will of the vast majority of the American people, and do the right thing, all while making the Republicans pay dearly. Those stars lined up like a total solar eclipse, handing the Dems an ideological feast on a silver platter. And given the GOP resistance to providingour troops with equipment, healthcvare, rest, ord training, maybe something similar will come up soon. But how often does an almost perfect political opportunity that sublime come up?
In another classic line, in the movie Catch-22, a young WW 2 pilot explains to a wise, old Italian man, "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees." At which point the old man retorts, "But I'm afraid you have it backward. It is better to live on one's feet than die on one's knees."
At this point, I'd be happy if the Democrats would take either Patton or the old man to heart. But if one is going to die, at least one can do it for one's own country while standing on one's feet.