We all know the Republican Party’s most common description on DailyKos anymore- the "Party of No." Whether it is no stimulus, no climate change legislation, no health care or no card check, the GOP has found its contrarian streak. So it should come as no surprise that the next no is .... against a surge in Afganistan?
Wait, you ask, am I sure I said that right? We all know the neo-conservatives, who lobbied for war in Iraq under false pretenses. We know the trend towards hawkishness in the Republican Party. Could there actually be an anti-war GOP?
Normally when the GOP says no, many here at DailyKos get a bit... pissed off would probably be the most effective way to put it. And often rightly so- where has the GOP been with solutions to our pressing problems clearly articulated? Saying no without a solution leads only to gridlock and stagnation.
At the same time, we need someone to stand up and say no sometimes. That is why news that Senator Sanders and Senator Demint are both placing holds on Bernanke’s re-confirmation are welcome.
So when I heard about a news conference freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz held this past Monday, I was surprised. Politico reports:
Saying it’s time for Republicans to do more than "take pot shots at ACORN," freshman Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz will call on President Barack Obama on Monday to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan.
Yet this trend is not the only sign of an anti-war movement in the GOP. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the former presidential candidate who was an internet powerhouse, has for many years argued for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Whether it was Iraq, Afghanistan or even Germany Ron Paul has proven quite anti-war.
Beyond this is Walter Jones (R-NC), the man who coined the term "Freedom Fries" in a scathing attack on our French brethren across the Atlantic. Today, Walter Jones has emotionally recanted his support for the Iraq War. In addition, he recently came out against Afghanistan.
Just as striking are anti-war Republicans seeking elected office that are actually legitimate. As I noted in a recent diary, John Hostettler, a prominent Republican running for Even Bayh’s Senate seat, actually voted against the Iraq War resolution back when he was in the House. (Interestingly, Bayh voted for the war). Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son, has some anti-war trends in his platform and is running neck-and-neck in his bid for the Republican nomination to the open Kentucky Senate seat. Adam Kokesh is running against Ben Ray Lujan for the House down in New Mexico with significant internet fundraising, posturing as the only true anti-war candidate in the race. And in Connecticut, Ron Paul acolyte and extremely wealthy Peter Schiff has finally begun campaigning for the nomination to take on Chris Dodd.
There are two major reasons I would argue for why this trend has begun to bud in the GOP. First, Barack Obama is a Democrat. The Bush administration lobbied hard to keep any anti-war movement from the GOP from emerging, like Cheney did with Dick Armey (back then the #2 House Republican) when he wanted to vote down the Iraq War legislation. With no dominating star in the GOP and a crushing defeat in 2008, there is a bit of room to articulate alternative visions to take new paths for the party. At least, as long as it can be cast as opposition to President Obama. An anti-war position in this instance could be cast as such.
Beyond this though, is the re-emergence of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. A quiet, somewhat libertarian wing has existed in the GOP for many years. Although libertarians are a major swing vote (significant numbers began to defect to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008), they have traditionally trended Republican. And these libertarians, like Ron Paul, former Governor Gary Johnson, and even Mark Sanford on his good days, provided quiet voices of dissent to the Republican move to neo-conservatism. Libertarians on the whole oppose foreign war (or at least "un-constitutional war" if there is no declaration of war). Today, Ron Paul’s quixotic bid for the White House has re-legitimized libertarianism on the political scene. With the continued existence of his dedicated supporters, libertarian Republicans can find a base of support that, if capitalized upon properly, can provide massive fundraising.
Of course, there is one hang-up. The House and Senate leadership of the GOP is still hawkish, and it will not appreciate any uprising if one emerges. The strong majority of GOP Congress-critters are still for expansion of the war. And the majority of rank-and-file Republicans still support a "strong national defense". As Chaffetz put it,
the House GOP is divided over whether to "go big or go home" and acknowledged that the "go home" contingent is probably in the minority.
Nevertheless, there is cause for hope. If the GOP starts having opposition with a vision, we could actually have some real discourse between the parties. And, there is real potential for issue-based coalitions to form on issues like civil liberties and of course, Afghanistan.
The Party of No? Perhaps. But at least on Afghanistan, it may be time to embrace our inner contrarian and reach across the aisle in opposition.