| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dangerous Demagoguery |
| 2007-03-28 |
| By Thomas Sowell One of the dangers in being a demagogue is that some of your own supporters — those who take you literally — can turn against you when you start letting your actions be influenced by realities, instead of following the logic of your ringing rhetoric. That is what seems to be happening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats in Congress. Antiwar protesters in Washington and outside her home in San Francisco are denouncing Pelosi and other congressional Democrats for not cutting off the money to fight the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it? But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences — and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around. The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible. There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy. These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it. Unfortunately for the congressional Democrats, their left-wing supporters have taken the antiwar rhetoric of Pelosi, Murtha, et al., at face value and consider it a betrayal that they talk the talk but will not walk the walk. It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue. You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake. It is not just congressional politicians who are so preoccupied with scoring points against the administration that they show no sign of concern for what the actual consequences of their words or actions will be for troops in the field, nations in the Middle East, or the global war on terror. Much of the media is similarly caught up in scoring points on Iraq. For example, the cover of the March 18th issue of the New York Times magazine section featured a story about women in the military who said that they had been raped in Iraq. A week later, they had to print a correction, after discovering that one of these women had not even been to Iraq. But any unsubstantiated charge against the American military rates headline coverage, even if there is no space for anything positive in Iraq. There is apparently no space even to assess the extent to which the increase of American troop strength in Iraq has reduced the deaths of our troops from terrorist attacks. Nor is there apparently much space to discuss the implications of the return of Iraqis from the less violent provinces to their homes in Baghdad. Indeed, there has apparently never been any space to discuss the fact that most provinces in Iraq have not had the levels of violence featured day in and day out in the media. The demagoguery of the Democrats has already put them in the position where a successful conclusion of the Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for them. If the recent increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and their freer hand in dealing with the terrorists there, reduces the level of violence enough to stabilize Iraq enough for American troops to start coming home before the 2008 elections, the Democrats will have lost their gamble. Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat. That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #3 They don't misread it. They realize the demented wing of the Democratic party is out to lunch. They are hoping they can fleece them of more money and favorable media attention while not turning off the American Public. Expect them to go back to the nutroots saying "Oh Baby! I'm trying just as hard as I can! It's those terrible Republicans. Give me more money and we'll fix things in 2008!" I don't know if this will work, but I'm sure if they get in the White House they'll do the same things that Bush is doing now (except that the NY Times will think it's OK). Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-03-28 14:24 |
| #2 For several years now the Democrats' entire political strategy has consisted of deriding the Bush administration for entering into a war of choice to oust the Iraqi dictator (a course of action which the Dems originally approved). The American people primarily empowered the Democrats out of dissatisfaction with our demonstrated inability to cripple the insurgents' capability to conduct violent attacks, but I believe the Democrats have misread the nature of whatever mandate they may have received from the election results. Although it is reasonable for Congress to hold the president's feet to the fire in his overseeing the stabilization of Iraq within a reasonable timeframe, I have seen no evidence that the public (other than the Dems' radical antiwar base) demands an "evacuation at any cost" strategy which disregards the future condition of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. The majority of Americans would welcome the change in counterinsurgency strategy AS IT STARTS TO SHOW PROGRESS. Politically this spells disaster for the Democrats, who have now committed themselves to ensuring the failure which they have for so long decribed as inevitable. |
| Posted by: Harcourt Javique3763 2007-03-28 04:56 |
| #1 How curious it is to see the democrats slowly back away from demanding a complete troop withdrawal. Much more so when such a thing would seem to suit their own purposes in an ideal fashion. Far less likely would be for them to request a partial withdrawal that would allow Shiite and Sunni factions to escalate their incessant bloodletting for all to see. Even though a residual troop presence would provide immeasurable assistance in combating terrorism. Absent any American intervention, Iraq's Muslim population could begin decimating themselves without a single American finger being lifted. While this would certainly serve the ends of a Global War on Terrorism, the democrats cannot stomach the possibility of having to admit that, regardless of our presence in Iraq, the internecine slaughter there would continue unabated. The democratic party's embrace of Islam is so thorough and ongoing that there is no way for them to understand how important it is to let Muslims go about killing each other with grim determination so that the West can enjoy a modicum of increased security. Increased security? Perish the thought! Not that democrats are unwilling to seek better security for America and its citizens. It's just that they simply cannot stand the idea of better security coming at any cost to precious Muslim lives, no matter how murderous those given individuals might be. This is what shall, someday, make the democrats party to one thing alone: Namely, a party to treason. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-28 03:49 |