As we all know by now, the Democrats are set to cave once again to Bush on Iraq in return for being able to carry pork to their varying states and districts. The capitulation is set to occur in both the House and the Senate--though the Senate is, of course, the greater culprit.
Many excellent posts have been written at this point about the latest collapse: some have excoriated Democrats for ineptitude in negotiation; others have ridiculed the Democratic definition of compromise; others have attempted to humiliate them for putting a $10 million price tag on a soldier's life; others have attempted to show Democrats how the media spins their capitulation as weakness; and still others have proposed Democratic Leadership changes.
Unfortunately, none of these arguments will make the slightest bit of difference to the Democrats in charge, because those arguments are entirely irrelevant to where they are living and what they actually care about. Being seen as inept, ineffectual, craven, cowardly, or even corrupt by their base simply doesn't matter to them; if it did, we'd have seen more progress than we have over the last year of our invisible Democratic Majority.
What they truly care about is winning the next election. They're politicians. That's what they do: strategize to win the next election. It's the only thing that matters to them. And strange things start to happen when all you care about is winning the next election: you start to do really, really amoral things that make you look much more stupid than you really are.
Let's get a few things clear. Our Democrats are not actually ignorant of the political situation. Though it may not seem like it, they really do know what's going on.
Nor do they really believe that by giving Bush what he wants and allowing themselves to be rolled over by the Republican minority in Congress, they will be seen as strong on terrorism or war. They understand that the public trusts Democrats more than Republicans on national security precisely because they hate Republican stances--not because Democrats adopt them. They're not really that dumb.
What they are is cynically manipulative, all in the name of winning the next election. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want to know what's really going on, all you need do is read the following quote paraphrasing Chuck Schumer:
"Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, insists that the more Republicans block Democrats in Congress, the more seats Democrats will win next year."
Read it. Understand it. Weep. Then do something about it.
The sad, unvarnished truth is that the Democrats are not weak or stupid. They're simply cynical manipulators.
They want the Republicans to succeed in obstructing the will of the people. And it's not rocket science to understand why.
They want people to be angry. They want people to feel helpless in the face of a president they strongly dislike. They want the Executive to appear all-powerful, and the obstruction of the Republican minority impassable. They want Republicans to be seen as getting their way, contrary to the will of the American People.
Why? Because it worked gangbusters in 2006. And they figure that if people get angry and stay angry at Bush, they'll vote for Democrats in '08. The country won't come to too much harm in the meantime because it survived 7 years of Bush/Cheney policies already; what's another year, after all? It's a planned strategy, not a piece of cowardice. As I said before:
Indeed, the only way (to the congressional mindset) to screw things up for electoral victory in '08 would be, ironically, to act and exercise their authority rather than to complain. Why defund the Occupation of Iraq and risk having the voters turn their scorn on you when/if things go badly, when you can simply fume impotently about the President's Iraq policy and keep the focus on him, instead? Why risk taking real action on healthcare and making people upset about whatever transition pains may take place, when you can simply get people riled up about their HMOs? Why impeach the Vice-President and risk focusing the spotlight on yourself, when it's so much easier to rage with feigned indignation at Cheney's latest abuse of power?
After all, as far as the Congressional mindset is concerned, the only mistake Congressional Republicans made during the Clinton years was actually going through with stalling the budget and impeaching Clinton, thereby making the election more about Gingrich than Clinton. Never mind that Clinton was more popular and a better politician and policy-maker than Gingrich: to your average strategist, the problem was that Gingrich became an issue at all.
And let's be clear: to defund the Occupation of Iraq or impeach the President shows that you have power.
Which is, ironically, the very last thing the Democratic Leadership wants.
So, what does that mean for us as bloggers and activists?
It means that as long as we keep calling them weak, they'll keep thinking we are impatient whiners who don't see the long term picture. They'll figure that our hearts are in the right place, but that we just don't really know how to play the American People to win the next election.
If we, on the other hand, call them out on their bullshit games that hurt the American people, we stand a better chance of making them uncomfortable--because we'll demonstrate to them that we, too, are savvy. We, too, understand the game that is being played. And it's the wrong game.
Acting like the Democrats don't know what they're doing, on the other hand, will only ensure that they keep doing what they're doing (or, more accurately, not doing) all the way to November, 2008.