I wonder how Barbra Streisand feels.
On September 29, at the fancy Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, she headlined
a $6 million fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. With
her on the stage was House minority leader Richard Gephardt. As she sang a politics-drenched
rewrite of "The Way We Were" ("Mis'ries/seems that's all that fills the news/blame
the fellas in the White House/for the way we are"), she interjected comments bashing
George W. Bush and the Republicans. At one point she commented, "I find bringing
the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable--and
very, very frightening." This remark echoed a confidential memo a Streisand aide
sent Gephardt a few days earlier. In that note, Streisand pressed "Democrats to
get off the defensive and go on the offensive." The memo also said, "Many of the
industries run by big Republican donors and insiders clearly have much to gain
if we go to war against Iraq. Barbra urges the Democrats to publicly convey this
message to the American people."
That's hardly the message Gephardt pushed once he left Babs-land and returned
to Washington. Three days after the concert, he brokered a deal with the White
House that guaranteed passage of a resolution authorizing Bush to launch war on
Iraq as "he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq" and to enforce United Nations resolutions. The Gephardt-backed measure was
less of a blank check than the one Bush had sent to Congress. The differences,
though, meant little. Under the negotiated resolution, Bush will have to report
to Congress that "diplomatic and other peaceful means alone" were not sufficient
to thwart Saddam Hussein and enforce UN resolutions. But Bush does not have to
issue such a report until two days after he initiates an attack. Gephardt
(and the GOP House leaders) are telling Bush, shoot whenever you like, explain
later. And once bombs are falling and US troops are in harm's way, how many members
of Congress are going to challenge Bush's finding, if they consider it unpersuasive,
and then attempt to de-authorize a wartime president? ("I demand you withdraw
100,000 troops and recall the bombers because you misread the last Iraqi communique
on the inspections process!")
If war comes, it will not only be Bush's war. It will be Gephardt's war. Other
key shareholders will be Democratic Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards,
two presidential wannabes who have been pre-running as get-Saddam hawks. Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle's stake in the enterprise is uncertain as of this
writing. He has griped about Bush's politicized rhetoric and raised questions
about Bush's dash toward war, but has not opposed the underlying policy. (And
Daschle can thank Gephardt, who held his own unilateral negotiations with the
White House, for cutting a deal that undermined any move Daschle might have contemplated
to limit the use-of-force resolution.) Most Democrats in both the House and the
Senate are expected to vote in favor of authorizing Bush to mount a war--even
a unilateral one--against Saddam Hussein.
Which means that on the most vital issue of this election season, there is
little distinction between the two parties. The Republicans are almost entirely
for this war; the Democrats are mostly for it. Whatever happens--good, bad, in-between--Gephardt
and the war-enabling Dems will bear responsibility and will deserve to be judged
alongside Bush. In fact, some might deserve to be judged more harshly. It is no
secret that on Capitol Hill, many Democrats are motivated to vote for the resolution
out of political calculation. They do not believe war against Iraq at this time
is a good idea, but they fear looking soft or being caught on the wrong side of
what might be a popular war. They are hoping to buy security--their own-- with
blood.
Bush may be motivated in a similar fashion, but there's a greater chance he
truly believes in the mission. Gephardt, too, might buy the ever-shifting national
security arguments for this war pitched by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice (rather
than the caution expressed recently by retired General Wesley Clark, a former
NATO commander; retired General Joseph Hoar, a former chief of the US Central
Command; and retired General John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff), but since 9/11 he has also adopted the political strategy of
embracing the President on foreign policy matters in an attempt to prevent Republicans
from hurling the time-tested weak-on-security charge against the Democrats. And
against himself. Gephardt, after all, is eyeing a presidential run.
Perhaps when he lies awake at night, counting sheep on a White House lawn,
Gephardt can say how much of his support for this war stems from policy concerns,
and how much from crass political gamesmanship. But it's tough to see how his
stance will benefit him and the Democrats. If the war goes well--and that is a
possibility--Bush will receive most, if not all, of the credit and be strengthened
for 2004. (Hopeful Democrats might note that Bush I was booted out of office after
winning the Gulf War, but Bush II's accomplishments--"liberating Iraq" and "taking
out" Saddam--will probably resonate more deeply and for longer than did his father's
success in pushing Saddam out of Kuwait.) Me-too Democrats will likely find it
difficult to tap the post-war celebration for political advantage. And if the
war turns ugly, Gephardt and the other Democratic leaders now leaping aboard Bush's
war-wagon will be in no position to complain.
So what's a frightened diva to do? Gephardt is not only not accusing
Bush of using diversionary tactics, of practicing arrogant and perhaps dangerous
unilateralism, and of greasing the wheels of war-profiteering. He is literally
empowering Bush. He fiercely attacks the President on economic and budgetary matters.
But he is greenlighting an endeavor that could further derail the federal budget
and consume resources for the sort of domestic programs Streisand and Gephardt
crave. With their wholehearted support of Bush's prospective war, Gephardt and
other Democrats are essentially agreeing with Bush's argument that the nation's
number-one priority is the anti-Saddam crusade. Not rising poverty. Not the rising
number of Americans without health insurance. Not rising unemployment. Not pension
reform. No matter how loud Gephardt thumps the podium on the House floor when
he claims these are the real issues of the ongoing congressional campaign.
Gephardt's actions do not remove the war issue from the political table; they
add momentum to preparations for war. He has cosigned the current centerpiece
of the Bush presidency. In Streisandian terms, Bush said to Congress, "Don't Rain
on My Parade," and Gephardt bounded forward with an opened umbrella. This war
will be a Republican-Democratic duet.
Copyright © 2002 The Nation
###
