Addict (drugaddict) wrote,

Now What?

Now What?

[from the December 4, 2006 issue]

It all came out the way it was supposed to. America showed the world it
could have an election shorn of front-page accusations of ballot fixing.
Horrible senators like Allen and Burns lost narrow races. The
Republicans got a pasting. A man who called Alan Greenspan "a political
hack" and George Bush "a liar" will be Senate majority leader. A woman
elected to Congress with the help of thousands of San Francisco
homosexuals, some of them married by Mayor Gavin Newsom, will be
Speaker. Who wouldn't want Harry Reid instead of Bill Frist, or Nancy
Pelosi instead of fatty Hastert?

It's also the role of elections in properly run Western democracies to
remind people that things won't really change at all. You can set your
watch by the speed with which the new crowd lowers expectations and
announces What Is Not to Be Done. Nowhere is there an item on the
Democrats' "must do" list saying, "Reverse plunge toward fascism.
Restore habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights." Pelosi says impeachment
is off the table.

"Bold new vision" these days means Pelosi pledging a drive to notch up
the minimum wage. I don't know about the vineyard, hotel and restaurant
that Pelosi co-owns, but the effective minimum wage here in Humboldt
County, Northern California, is about $10 an hour, which is what you
have to pay a young person to mow the yard. The payout rises to $13 an
hour if you want return visits. Maybe on some slave plantation in
southern Florida attainment of the federal minimum wage is part of the
American Dream, but elsewhere we have to talk about a living wage.

But who cares! No one believes the Democrats are ever going to mess with
the system, and that's not why the voters put them back in charge of
Congress. They want America out of Iraq. Pronto, just like
Representative Jack Murtha said it should be, this time last year.
Pelosi knows that, which is why, to her great credit and the chagrin of
the /Washington Post/ as well as Fox News, she backed Murtha against
prowar Steny Hoyer to be House majority leader and said that Jane Harman
shouldn't chair the House Intelligence Committee. But the lord giveth
and the lord taketh away. Hardly was her Murtha endorsement out of
Pelosi's mouth before Harry Reid told his fellow Democrats in the Senate
that the issue of what to do in Iraq shouldn't be raised till James
Baker and his Iraq Study Group issue their report.

Optimists somehow imagine the Baker Report will explode excitingly under
the war's partisans and blow them sky-high. It'll do nothing of the
sort. There will be paragraphs of soggy language about the promise of
democratic governance and the rule of law in Iraq, raised fingers of
warning about the perils of failure, acres of statesmanspeak about the
need for multilateral involvement. Probably Baker & Co. think the United
States should quit Iraq but can't think of a way of accomplishing this
without jump-starting charges over the next two years that America is
cutting and running and is this any way to run an empire? McCain's
saying that already.

There is a ferocious battle in the offing. On one side are the majority
of Americans sickened by the war in Iraq, who spoke clearly on November
7. Their prime institutional ally is the uniformed military, which was
against the war from the start and which gave Jack Murtha the briefings
that emboldened him to take his stand last year. Their political
champions of the hour are Pelosi and Murtha, and on the Republican side,
Senator Chuck Hagel. Their most plausible presidential candidate,
Russell Feingold, has just said he won't run for the nomination.

On the other side are the massed legions of cold war liberalism, of whom
the notorious neocons--now denouncing Bush and Rumsfeld--are but one
battalion. Remember the origins of the neocons, as shock troops of the
Israel lobby. Back in the mid-1970s Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol,
Albert Wohlstetter and the others saw the impending defeat in Vietnam
and feared that the McGovernite peaceniks would rot the resolve of the
Democratic Party to stand behind Israel. So they fanned out into the
Committee on the Present Danger and the editorial page of the /Wall
Street Journal/, stoked up the furnaces of the new cold war and greased
the wheels of the Reagan campaign.

The apex neocons are a pretty discredited lot these days, but there are
legions like them spread across the nation's think tanks and policy
institutes, all imbued with the same fears that reverberated across the
/Journal/'s editorial page, /Commentary/ and /The New Republic/ a
generation ago: that America's "resolve" will soften; that there will be
accommodation with Iran; that Israel will be abandoned. And in fact such
fears are now more vivid. Thirty years ago the Israel lobby wasn't being
excoriated by mainstream professors from Harvard and Chicago. Thirty
years ago the name of Israel--blowing apart children in Beit
Hanoun--didn't stink in as many nostrils as it does today.

So the stakes are very high, and the party of permanent war--represented
at its purest distillation in the form of senators like Joe Biden and
Congressmen like Rahm Emanuel--is regrouping for a counterattack, their
numbers refreshed by a phalanx of incoming Blue Dogs, ranged against the
sixty or so "Out Now" Democrats. You think prowar Tom Lantos will be an
improvement on antiwar Jim Leach as chair of the House International
Relations Committee? The Democratic foreign policy establishment cannot
and will not tolerate the notion of cut and run in Iraq. Expect
reassertions of the essential nobility of the attack that ousted Saddam,
a deprecation of the destruction of Iraq as a society, a minimization of
the outrages committed by US forces, evocations of the bloodbath that
would accompany "over-hasty" US withdrawal. (Weird. Your attack triggers
the killing of maybe half a million since 2003, and you claim
anti-bloodbath credentials?) Expect a fierce campaign--spearheaded by
the Democratic establishment and the surviving neocons--to wage a
"better" war. Expect a presidential campaign waged among warmongers,
from Clinton to McCain by way of Giuliani. The voters spoke up, but
that's the last chance they'll get, at least at the ballot box, for
another two years. Hagel/Liz Edwards in 2008!
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment