Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Lamont Lesson
When you hear folks say that history inevitably repeats itself, you probably figure they are referring to the distant past. When very recent events repeat themselves, it evokes a different parable -- the one about how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Welcome to the Iraq debate, circa 2008.
Recall that two years ago, a little-known businessman named Ned Lamont mounted an anti-war primary challenge to Connecticut's warmongering senator, Joe Lieberman. Lamont's campaign, which I worked for, was controversial. It was just four years after many congressional Democrats voted for the war, and The Washington Post was reporting that Speaker Nancy Pelosi "said that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq." Though polls showed the public to be against the conflict, Democratic strategists insisted that opposing the war could backfire on the party.
When Lamont won the primary, Washington's chatter machine predicted doom. The hawkish New Republic bemoaned a "Ned Scare" that supposedly meant election-losing "McGovernism has returned." Slate magazine wondered, "Will the Democratic Party repeat the political mistakes of the Vietnam era?"
Luckily for Democrats, their candidates ignored the "experts" and started echoing Lamont's message. After the 2006 election, polls confirmed that these anti-war campaigns were precisely what won Democrats control of Congress.
Lamont, though he lost in the general election, showed that representing the public's anti-war sentiment and ignoring Washington's self-appointed gurus wins national elections. And as the current campaign unfolds, the Lamont Lesson is resurfacing.
Today's political landscape has not changed from 2006. America still opposes the conflict, and Democrats not only refuse to use their congressional power to cut off war funding, but have opted to insult the public's intelligence. Indeed, at the same time the party is airing ads attacking John McCain for wanting to continue the war, Democrats in Congress are championing a $165-billion military spending bill that indefinitely prolongs the occupation. The party's leaders are not debating strategies to end the war, but "the kind of pro-war Democrat[s] that we ought to be," as Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., said a few months ago.
Now, instead of one candidate crashing the party, there are more than 50. That's how many are backing A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Initially launched by Darcy Burner, a Seattle-area congressional candidate, this plan has been endorsed by the likes of retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who served in Iraq, and Lawrence Korb, former assistant defense secretary under President Reagan. It supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
As heady talk of "bottom up" politics fills the air, Democrats face a full-blown anti-war uprising -- one that is beginning to act like a mature movement in putting its agenda before party.
Since the Iraq invasion, many anti-war groups inside the Beltway have made polite excuses for pro-war Democratic politicians, insisting that anti-war criticism be aimed primarily at Republicans. This is Washington's unspoken corruption-the kind that sees issue-based groups put their partisan affinity and cocktail party friendships above their stated agendas.
But the anti-war uprising outside of D.C. is done playing nice. Congressional candidates are now giving anti-war orders to their party, rather than taking pro-war orders from the Wise Men of Washington -- and the Responsible Plan is just the beginning. Anti-war primaries in Maryland and Iowa have been mounted against pro-war Democratic incumbents. Meanwhile, the uprising is bleeding into the gears of commerce, as dockworkers this month shut down ports to protest the war.
Military conflicts don't end on their own, and they don't end because of politicians, insiders and parties. They are forced to end by power-challenging mass movements. That is the principle behind the Lamont Lesson -- and we're lucky that lesson is again being taught.
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the new book "The Uprising." He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
© 2008 Creators Syndicates Inc.
15 Comments so far
Show AllFrank1569 has it right, above, at frank1569 May 30th, 2008 7:24 pm
Bravo to you!
There is no war in Iraq. It is an illegal occupation after an illegal invasion. Foreign forces are the problem there—ours.
DURING the invasion we could technically call it a war, however one-sided. But once the US occupied the defeated Iraq after the clashes between state armed forces ended, it became an occupation. But David Sirota doesn't get it. By continuing to invoke the "war" frame, Sirota plays into the Republican/Corporate Democrat worldview. Why? A war can be won or lost. Losing a war is a defeat. So the corporate/militarism argument in both parties by non-progressives is that losing a war is bad. We cannot tolerate defeat. We must win. But an occupation can only be continued or ended. The former is unjust. That latter is just.
David Sirota, I suggest you listen to Frank1569. Be smarter. Be more accurate. The war in Iraq is over. It ended in 2003 as Thom Hartmann and George Lakoff have said over and over again.
Let's end the occupation with an anti-empire, anti-occupation, anti-militarism movement.
Though I am glad an anti-war coalition is building, I wouldn't count on Darcy Burner to be there in the clinch.
Throughout both of her political campaigns she has trimmed her sails to please the same Party gurus you are criticizing.
As she is not yet a member of congress so her "leadership" on this issue is meaningless.
When push comes to shove, Darcy will do what's best for Darcy. As for her "plan" to end the war. Cutting the funding will end the war.
According to Colonel Ann Wright, the Pentagon has plans for everything, including leaving Iraq. They are funded out for six months; plenty of time to pull out in an orderly manner.
That being said, Darcy is better than Dave Reichert, the man she is running against, but then almost anybody would be.
She is not what we need in Congress. She has the support of the Party not because she is a principled and inspirational candidate but because she has let them know she'll play ball.
You're correct, the Democrats don't respect the voters. They think they can get away with letting the war run and shielding Bush from prosecution and masquerading as the Party of change. They don't give a fig about the unnecessary suffering they are party to. They don't care about the fate of the nation.
We need a new Party.
The Democrats are a War Party. Anyone over 50 can tell you that, because they remember the Vietnam War. I'm 62, and I remember it really well: it wasn't Republicans that got us into the Vietnam War, but it was a Republican who (reluctantly) got us out. Nixon was a bad man and a dangerous president; but he got us out of the war.
The strategy Sirota is advocating amounts to picking around the edges. Does anyone see any sign that it's working? 60 new anti-war Reps (by his count), a clear mandate, and the Party's policy remains iron-clad.
Did you think they were lying when they said they supported the war?
Sirota also misses part of the Lamont lesson: when you make a primary challenge, you commit yourself to the Democratic Party, and to the ultimate nominee. You may occasionally overturn an individual politician, but you pose no threat to the Party's hold on power or its policies.
So go after them, yes, but do it when it counts: November. Make them fear for their re-election and their control of Congress - which they've had, mind you, for 2 years now. Satisfied? Want more of the same? Then vote for a Democrat in November.
At least in Oregon, you'll have a real alternative: the Greens are running good candidates in (at least) 3 House districts. Dozens of other states are doing the same. We're the only real national Peace Party, to say nothing of the rest of the progressive agenda, and we need your help. We sure aren't going to be flooded with corporate money, like, say, Obama.
So if you're serious about making a real change, quit doing the same old thing. You already know it doesn't work. That's a brick wall, folks. Paint it Green.
P.S.: I didn't mean to argue that McCain is more likely to end the occupation than Obama, but that's the lesson of history. Take it as you will. Personally, I'm working and voting for Cynthia McKinney and our Congressional candidates.
Daniel David, are you paid to be here? If you're not, the Democratic head of the two party monster is getting your hard work for free! A corporate shill - at no cost!
I would toss right down the toilet your and Obama's excuse for continuing the illegal and brutal occupation of Iraq, as you and he suggest. The occupation is a blatant war crime Mr. Daniel David. Didn't you know? Apparently, Obama doesn't seem to understnad that either. You get out by getting out. When a crime is being committed, people are suffering and dying as a result, you try and stop the crime, not cautiously, but immediately. Not by leaving 80,000 combat troops there but by bringing them all home and giving them benefits and counseling.
Hitler could have used the same excuse for continuing the German's war crimes: "We bit off more than we can chew but, by golly, we can't just stop gassing Jews precipitously!"
In reality, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this D.D., the occupation of Iraq is a high crime, unconstitutional according to US law and international law. The occupation continues to cost lives, innocent people, mostly children.
There are way too many elephants in donkey suits. How did this happen? Was it a purposeful infiltration or did the GOP become so odious when the radical right wing took over that our father's Republicans had nowhere else to go? Seems all you've had to do to be welcomed as a respected Dem is voice some moderation on a hot button social issue. Oh, yeah, I forgot: Follow the money! I want to throw circus peanuts at so many of the "Democrats". But I guess not quite as many this go-round so maybe there's hope.
And every time American citizens protest, they are convicted and put in jail. Sad, democratically speaking.
Not mentioned by David but also a factor is the unraveling of the economy. The dollar is a basket case, oil (on which just about all economic activity depends)is going up, up, up, with no end in sight as China, India, and the rest of the third world seek to have their piece of "the American dream", our industrial base is gone and so are the abundant resources that can easily be converted into value-added products to sell.
Ssdly, the only thing that angers most Americans about the wars is that they are not yet concluded.
Wrong.
The lesson is this: if you spend 200 million dollars, have a pretty smile and mention the word hope one million times, the voters will choose you over the candidate espousing the views they agree with (Dennis K.).
"Military conflicts don't end on their own..."
Since when is an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation a "military conflict?" Since when is an illegal, aggressive invasion preceded by a well-documented campaign of lies and propaganda a "military conflict?"
The "anti-war movement" has failed because The USA is not "at war" with Iraq or Afghanistan. We have declared war on Somalia, Pakistan and Iran (unless lobbing bombs and missiles into a sovereign nation and/or sending "special forces" across borders are no longer considered acts of war,) but the "anti-war movement" seems quite unconcerned about that...
Now, if there were a massive "anti-occupation movement" and an "anti-invasion movement," then maybe something would actually change...
Lessons may be taught but nobody's fuckin' learnin' ! Try framing and convincing DUDE !
There's only one thing to do in Iraq, leave.
Vacillating, being endlessly "careful," or continuing on with our huge military bases is just business as usual.
The people know better than the pols, and if the pols can't deliver, we'll get new ones.
We had better remember that Lamont didn't win his state. The Lieberman "brand name" did. Similarly, kicking out some old Democratic brand name incumbents with anti-war primary challenges is possibly a very good way for liberals (and all those against the war) to actually LOSE SEATS instead of spark a "movement".
Obama's simple sentence that "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" is about as responsible a thing as can be said in a sound bite. It will attract votes. Being painted as "cut and run" (an even more powerful sound bite which WILL be used again against the Lamonts of politics) will not.
I think that Bush & Co may have built a house of cards in Iraq, designed to come crashing down if you move one piece. The Dems don't want to look like they're responsible for chaos. The Dems need to analyze and understand it then explain this to people. However, they seem to be taking the coward's way out.
The aftermath of the Lamont/Lieberman affair demonstrates that the Democratic Party is leaderless and gutless. After Lieberman was re-elected in 2006 as a renegade, Democratic Senators collapsed into a heap of jelly and appeased him with all sorts of committee-goodies so that he might vote with them. Fast forward to today: Lieberman is seen prominently on TV at every McCain rally and will probably campaign for McCain in the fall. To the best of my knowledge he has not yet been removed from any of the committees on which he serves as a Republican Trojan Horse.
Here is an unrelated prediction: President Bush will probably wait until the Senate has recessed for the summer before inking the so-called "Security Pact" wit Iraq. He does not have to wait in my opinion because the gutless U.S. Senate will genuflect to him anyway even when in session.
The real peace, economic and social justice, and human rights campaign.
www.carolmillercongress.com