Letters to the Editor
-
Gary's article
Excellent article, but is Gary right about the likelihood of a Democratic Presidency forcing serious negotiation on Israel, since forcing is what it will take? It is more likely that
the Democrats in office would seek to keep the present uncertain status quo from changing, by an entire catalogue of
manouvers---unless, of course, the crisis comes in the form of another losing war by Israel and severe breaks in the morale of the Israel public, with large numbers seeking emigration.
Even then, the Democrats might follow the path of least resistance, supporting Israel irredentism. That isn't a reason to sit it out and allow a Republican to take the White House, but good reason to force a debate now in the party---and to
regard whoever is elected and advisors and cabinet (on the
hypothesis of a Democratic Presidency) as on trial and subject to maximum critical surveillance rather than relieved
if restrained enthusiasm. Of course, Bush may resolve our problems for us by attacking Iran, dividing the Democrats, terminating our European alliances, and throwing the world into more chaos. That would end illusions about a Democratic Presidency before it begins---and contribute, not quite paradoxically, to making an opening for more than a bit of innovation. Perhaps.....Norman Birnbaum
-
Serious negotiation?
Can any of the scholars out there count the number of serious negotiations about Israel and the Palestinians we have had over the decades? Have any of them solved the problem?
Every single leading politician in this country supports the basic policy of favoring Israel over its adversaries. That is not going to change. The United States will never get truly serious about this issue and adopt a genuinely even-handed approach.
Advocacy for anything other than complete submission to Israeli demands generates intense attacks and claims of anti-semitism. No serious American politician will stand up to that.
Look at how bent out of shape even Bill Maher got a couple of weeks ago when one of his via-satellite guests (Michael Scheuer?) said that Israel was not worth a drop of American blood.
We cannot win on this issue. A fair and sensible policy is politically impossible.
-
Hessians
GK seems to have the very common idea that military contractors play the same role in the war Iraq that the Hessian mercenaries did in the war of the Revolution. In fact, the contractors are worse. The Hessians acted as part of the British army; their colonel was part of the British chain of command. They were subject to military discipline.
The Blackwater contractors don't seem to be subject to any discipline at all, except that Blackwater can dismiss them from their employment. (I am reluctant to use the word fire under the circumstances.) Their position is similar to that of mercenaries before the military reforms of the early 1600s. See, for example Paul Krugman's recent column available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists
-
There's Democrats and then there's Democrats
Gary, you write:
"Yes, the Democrats belatedly came around to criticizing Bush for invading Iraq and bungling the aftermath. But they haven't gone further, both because they are too frightened and because many of them actually share Bush's vision of the Middle East, if not his specific actions."
You can't mean the same Democrats are both frightened and agreeable with Bush at the same time. Frightened Democrats and agreeable Democrats clearly are two different breeds of Democrat.
As you write, there are many Democrats who share Bush's vision.
So maybe the sad fact is that enough Democrats agree with George Bush's vision that the votes just aren't there to make the necessary changes. Just as it was tough as nails to get civil rights legislation passed before 1964 because of a certain number of Democrats, or just as Eleanor became exasperated at Franklin's silence on lynching, it may be just as tough to right this sinking ship of state.
Neither JFK nor FDR were cowardly. And I've been wondering lately if Reid, Pelosi, et. al. are getting a worse rap than they may deserve. The country probably needed an LBJ, with a huge cache of chits to call in, to get the civil rights bill done. Nobody here has that kind of cache.
-
At the risk of raising the ire...
of the commenters here, I would say that we have to understand why this state of affairs has come about - not to apologize for it, but to find ways to make it better.
Congress critters, and Senators especially, are mostly free agents, herds of cats. They can be tugged by the likes of the DCCC and DSCC and activist groups, but by and large, incumbents are secure and have their own war chests. Doubly problematic for the Democrats, lacking a President, there is no highly visible party leader setting the agenda. Contrast this with Parliamentary democracies, where the out-of-power party has a shadow cabinet and a shadow Prime Minister.
And, face it, Members of Congress have outsized egos and connect their personal self-esteem to their office. The prospect of losing raises huge anxiety that is partly, to them, existential. Fear comes when you cannot rely on your colleague to cover your backside. That's what keeps the conventional wisdom and the commonly-held boundaries of discourse in place.
That's why the House Dems lose proportionately fewer "blue dogs" and the like on votes than the Senate, where the spotlight is greater and the average tenure is decades.
So how to fix the situation? A Democratic President will be a huge, huge step. He or she will be the one on TV news every night, quoted on Page A1 right column, and will set the agenda. Congressional Democrats will then be constrained to make modifications at the edges, rather than going off on their own tangents. If the Democratic Presidential nominee campaigns hard on asking the people to elect a Democratic Congress - not just the candidate from the campaign stop's local district - so as to make bold change with him or her (I can't remember when that last happened), there is a chance that good will can bind both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue at least long enough to make significant qualitative changes that are long overdue.
The next president can be a great one, precisely because they will be faced with enormous inherited problems. I do fear - I guess echoing the author - that the lesser spirits of just winning, settling for half a loaf, can blow an historic opportunity in 2008.