Dec 03, 2009
President Obama's decision
to nation-build in Afghanistan in the midst of the worst economic recession
since the Great Depression is likely to produce a new Misery Index
for Americans: The escalating numbers of dead and wounded American
soldiers in Afghanistan PLUS the likely high level of unemployed Americans
at home. For Congressional Democrats, the Misery Index could add up
to big trouble at the polls in November 2010.
Presidential candidate Ronald
Reagan coined the term "misery index" as a very effective way
to focus attention on the Carter administration's double barrel headache
in 1980: rising unemployment and inflation. President Obama's decision
to double down on a failing Afghanistan strategy by ordering an immediate
military escalation is likely to present Democratic Congressional candidates
with a Misery Index of their own in 2010.
President Obama wants to rush
the troops that General McCrystal has requested for Afghanistan as soon
as possible so that they can be in place for the so-called spring "fighting
season". The significantly larger military footprint of foreign forces
will, inevitably, swell the ranks of Taliban fighters who have been
successfully using the presence of these forces as their most potent
recruitment weapon. The result is not hard to predict: a significant
spike in US casualties in Afghanistan in the summer and fall of 2010
at precisely the time that Members of Congress are facing voters in
the 2010 elections.
The dreadful reports of these
escalating numbers of American casualties abroad will be in addition
to the number of local news stories of the casualties of escalating
unemployment at home. The numbers of Americans who are unemployed and
underemployed - not to mention those who are worried that they
will soon join the ranks of both - are increasing steadily. So is the
view of voters that the nation is on the wrong track. While Wall Street
is basking in profits and brokers are getting well publicized bonuses,
workers are getting pink slips. It begs the question: what are the priorities
of those we elect to represent us in Washington?
Political leadership is about
setting priorities and making choices. Those who support the president's
military escalation in Afghanistan will be charged with being more interested
in nation building abroad than in nation building at home. And, the
nation building policy that they have chosen to support abroad is not
only generating new levels of casualties to Americans in uniform, it
is producing absolutely no discernable progress in making America safer.
To make it worse, Democratic
Congressional candidates who support the President's Afghanistan
policy will likely be hit with another political misery indicator: declining
support from the political base that was so critical to their success
in 2006 and 2008. There is real danger that the hope and enthusiasm
that drove so many progressive Democrats in those election cycles will
be transformed into cynicism and apathy in 2010. That is bad news for
any incumbent Democrat running in 2010.
I hope that Congressional Democrats
will do the right thing and oppose the president's military escalation
in Afghanistan because it's the right thing to do. But, if they need
more of an inducement, they may want to consider the electoral misery
index that may await them in 2010.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
President Obama's decision
to nation-build in Afghanistan in the midst of the worst economic recession
since the Great Depression is likely to produce a new Misery Index
for Americans: The escalating numbers of dead and wounded American
soldiers in Afghanistan PLUS the likely high level of unemployed Americans
at home. For Congressional Democrats, the Misery Index could add up
to big trouble at the polls in November 2010.
Presidential candidate Ronald
Reagan coined the term "misery index" as a very effective way
to focus attention on the Carter administration's double barrel headache
in 1980: rising unemployment and inflation. President Obama's decision
to double down on a failing Afghanistan strategy by ordering an immediate
military escalation is likely to present Democratic Congressional candidates
with a Misery Index of their own in 2010.
President Obama wants to rush
the troops that General McCrystal has requested for Afghanistan as soon
as possible so that they can be in place for the so-called spring "fighting
season". The significantly larger military footprint of foreign forces
will, inevitably, swell the ranks of Taliban fighters who have been
successfully using the presence of these forces as their most potent
recruitment weapon. The result is not hard to predict: a significant
spike in US casualties in Afghanistan in the summer and fall of 2010
at precisely the time that Members of Congress are facing voters in
the 2010 elections.
The dreadful reports of these
escalating numbers of American casualties abroad will be in addition
to the number of local news stories of the casualties of escalating
unemployment at home. The numbers of Americans who are unemployed and
underemployed - not to mention those who are worried that they
will soon join the ranks of both - are increasing steadily. So is the
view of voters that the nation is on the wrong track. While Wall Street
is basking in profits and brokers are getting well publicized bonuses,
workers are getting pink slips. It begs the question: what are the priorities
of those we elect to represent us in Washington?
Political leadership is about
setting priorities and making choices. Those who support the president's
military escalation in Afghanistan will be charged with being more interested
in nation building abroad than in nation building at home. And, the
nation building policy that they have chosen to support abroad is not
only generating new levels of casualties to Americans in uniform, it
is producing absolutely no discernable progress in making America safer.
To make it worse, Democratic
Congressional candidates who support the President's Afghanistan
policy will likely be hit with another political misery indicator: declining
support from the political base that was so critical to their success
in 2006 and 2008. There is real danger that the hope and enthusiasm
that drove so many progressive Democrats in those election cycles will
be transformed into cynicism and apathy in 2010. That is bad news for
any incumbent Democrat running in 2010.
I hope that Congressional Democrats
will do the right thing and oppose the president's military escalation
in Afghanistan because it's the right thing to do. But, if they need
more of an inducement, they may want to consider the electoral misery
index that may await them in 2010.
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
President Obama's decision
to nation-build in Afghanistan in the midst of the worst economic recession
since the Great Depression is likely to produce a new Misery Index
for Americans: The escalating numbers of dead and wounded American
soldiers in Afghanistan PLUS the likely high level of unemployed Americans
at home. For Congressional Democrats, the Misery Index could add up
to big trouble at the polls in November 2010.
Presidential candidate Ronald
Reagan coined the term "misery index" as a very effective way
to focus attention on the Carter administration's double barrel headache
in 1980: rising unemployment and inflation. President Obama's decision
to double down on a failing Afghanistan strategy by ordering an immediate
military escalation is likely to present Democratic Congressional candidates
with a Misery Index of their own in 2010.
President Obama wants to rush
the troops that General McCrystal has requested for Afghanistan as soon
as possible so that they can be in place for the so-called spring "fighting
season". The significantly larger military footprint of foreign forces
will, inevitably, swell the ranks of Taliban fighters who have been
successfully using the presence of these forces as their most potent
recruitment weapon. The result is not hard to predict: a significant
spike in US casualties in Afghanistan in the summer and fall of 2010
at precisely the time that Members of Congress are facing voters in
the 2010 elections.
The dreadful reports of these
escalating numbers of American casualties abroad will be in addition
to the number of local news stories of the casualties of escalating
unemployment at home. The numbers of Americans who are unemployed and
underemployed - not to mention those who are worried that they
will soon join the ranks of both - are increasing steadily. So is the
view of voters that the nation is on the wrong track. While Wall Street
is basking in profits and brokers are getting well publicized bonuses,
workers are getting pink slips. It begs the question: what are the priorities
of those we elect to represent us in Washington?
Political leadership is about
setting priorities and making choices. Those who support the president's
military escalation in Afghanistan will be charged with being more interested
in nation building abroad than in nation building at home. And, the
nation building policy that they have chosen to support abroad is not
only generating new levels of casualties to Americans in uniform, it
is producing absolutely no discernable progress in making America safer.
To make it worse, Democratic
Congressional candidates who support the President's Afghanistan
policy will likely be hit with another political misery indicator: declining
support from the political base that was so critical to their success
in 2006 and 2008. There is real danger that the hope and enthusiasm
that drove so many progressive Democrats in those election cycles will
be transformed into cynicism and apathy in 2010. That is bad news for
any incumbent Democrat running in 2010.
I hope that Congressional Democrats
will do the right thing and oppose the president's military escalation
in Afghanistan because it's the right thing to do. But, if they need
more of an inducement, they may want to consider the electoral misery
index that may await them in 2010.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.