Democrats say Bush Deserves Credit

[SuperJerk 0]

Developments in Mideast Soften Criticism in Congress

By Tyler Marshall

 

March 7, 2005

 

WASHINGTON — A dramatic string of positive developments in the Middle East in recent weeks appears to have deflated, at least for now, fierce congressional criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

 

One of the administration's staunchest opponents, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), even said Sunday that President Bush deserved credit for what seemed to be a tentative awakening of democracy in the region.

 

"What's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive," Kennedy said on ABC's "This Week." "It's a reflection the president has been involved."

 

Six weeks ago, in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Kennedy was far more confrontational.

 

"We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States," he said, calling for a phased U.S. withdrawal and comparing the involvement in Iraq with the quagmire the United States found itself in a generation ago in Vietnam.

 

But in Sunday's comments, Kennedy recalibrated his earlier rhetoric.

 

Although Kennedy repeated his call for an eventual U.S. troop pullout, his language was milder and less urgent. He stressed that any timetable for withdrawal needed the agreement of the new Iraqi government.

 

"That's the direction we want to go," Kennedy said. "It does seem to me that we want the Iraqis to know it is their country. They've demonstrated that with the election."

 

Another influential Democratic lawmaker, Assistant Senate Minority Leader Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), also set aside past differences with the administration over the invasion of Iraq, which he had called "the wrong decision at that moment." On Sunday, he said that decision had brought signs of democratization in the region that could benefit the United States.

 

"I think there is a momentum for positive change in the Middle East, and I think the Democrats support that," Durbin said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

Although both senators cautioned against reading too much into events in the region, neither said anything that could be construed as critical of the administration's policy there. However, Kennedy noted the continuing casualties in Iraq, where about 1,500 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of the conflict in March 2003.

 

"We still have a long ways to go," Kennedy said. "Two Americans are still getting killed every single day."

 

Overall, the senators' comments underscored a shift of mood on Capitol Hill about the Iraq war and the administration's Middle East policy that has occurred since Kennedy's Jan. 27 speech at Johns Hopkins.

 

Pessimism and frustration about developments in Iraq — which had spread beyond the Democrats into the ranks of moderate Republican lawmakers — has given way to cautious optimism, those who work in Congress say.

 

"It's a feeling that these are exciting times — or at least the prospect of it," said Mark Helmke, an aide to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar has been one of several respected Republican voices in the Senate critical of the administration's postwar planning failures in Iraq.

 

The skepticism in Congress was tempered by the Iraqi election three days after Kennedy's January speech. In that vote, Iraqis braved death threats to come out in large numbers to choose their leaders. The balloting followed an election a few weeks earlier in which Palestinians chose their new president.

 

Then, in a period of a few days last month, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak announced a multiparty presidential election would be held this fall, Saudi Arabia conducted limited municipal elections, and Lebanese citizens came into the streets of Beirut to protest the assassination of their former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, and demand the withdrawal of about 16,000 Syrian troops. Those protests led the pro-Syrian government of Lebanon to resign.

 

"It's similar to the feeling we had between 1989 and 1991," Helmke added, referring to the years that included the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Soviet communism in Europe and, finally, the Soviet Union.

 

credit: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...ack=1&cset=true

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well somebody's focus group results must not be all that great.

 

Hey Uncle Ted, go fuck yourself -- you're not fooling anyone...

[SuperJerk 0]

GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGACY: A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY: I'll have much more to say on this subject in a future piece or column, but for the moment let me just say I completely disagree with Howard Fineman's thoughts on the politics of democratization. Here's what Fineman says in his latest web column:

So now Bush has even more reason to focus on some relatively good news from the Middle East. It's too soon to know whether recent events there represent a real--or false--dawn of peace and democracy in a region that hasn't known either. The verdict won't be in for decades. But it won't take that long to get a sense of whether the assertive Bush Doctrine is affecting our politics. It is--and not to the Democrats' benefit. [emphasis added]

I think Fineman is way too short-term in his focus. Yes, the recent developments in the Middle East may help boost Bush's popularity. But, in the long-term, I think Bush's democratization initiatives clearly benefit Democrats, assuming they don't find a way to screw it up. Here's why: The Republican base consists primarily of Southern and lower-midwestern isolationist/realist types, Western libertarians, conservative evangelicals, and K-Street taxcutters. (As far as I can tell, no one ever lost a Republican primary by failing to win the neocon vote.) None of these groups gets particularly excited about democratizing foreign countries--either because they think it's a utopian project doomed to fail, or because they think it's likely to do more harm than good, or because they think we could put the money and effort we'd spend promoting democracy abroad to better use at home. Except for a small circle of neocons, the only reason most conservatives support Bush's democratization rhetoric is partisanship--because, absent the democratization rhetoric, Bush's entire foreign policy would look like one big disaster, which would be devastating for the party.

The Democratic base, by contrast, consists of a bunch of activist types who love spending time and money on idealistic causes, and who can be convinced to spend it abroad as long as you persuade them the motivation is pure. They believe in things like democracy, human rights, civil society, responsible governance, etc. with every fiber of their being. (If you don't believe me, just ask yourself which party you think, say, most third world debt-relief activists cast their vote for, or members of the free-Tibet movement, or the groups who lobby for equal rights for women in the Muslim world. ...) Democrats, in other words, have principled reasons for supporting democratization abroad, which, in many cases, even outweigh their intensely partisan dislike for this administration. (See, for example, the favorable comments made by Democratic partisans like Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy on the talk-show circuit this Sunday. Try to imagine Tom DeLay or Mitch McConnell making similar comments if the situation were reversed, and you'll see what I mean.)

 

Now think about what happens in 2008. Several years of intense democratization rhetoric from the White House, along with what I hope will be some real democratization successes, will have made democratization a winning issue in the country's political center. (To some extent it already had by last year's election.) This seems to me to overwhelmingly favor the Democratic nominee, who can simultaneously excite his base while claiming the new, pro-democratization center. The Republican nominee, who has to win the nomination of a party that is fundamentally hostile (or at best indifferent to) democratization will enjoy no such luxury. Put simply, the practical effect of Bush's time in office will have been to convert the middle of the country to a position that liberals fundamentally support and conservatives fundamentally reject. This paves the way for a future Democratic majority on this particular issue--maybe even generally--unless Democrats become too blinded by partisanship to see what kind of opportunity they have.

 

(Postscript: I mentioned this idea to Andrew Sullivan yesterday, who suggested it might have even broader application than foreign policy. For example, immigration reform is another issue liberals basically support and conservatives basically oppose, which Bush could ultimately sell the middle of the country on. Ditto government spending on prescription drugs--even homeland security.)

 

UPDATE: Several readers have written in to take issue with my implication that conservative evangelicals are not particularly interested in democratization. This is something I wrestled with a bit while writing the item. And I agree that some evangelical groups have been at the forefront of important human rights campaigns in recent years. (Particularly with respect to the Sudan.) But I also think it's safe to say that, for the moment, the conservative evangelical establishment has made it clear that its top political priorities are gay marriage and abortion. That's about as inward-looking as you can get as far as I'm concerned.

 

SECOND UPDATE: Another reader writes to claim, not without merit, that:

 

As for the rest of the Republican base, to call them "realists" or "isolationists" is to blindly apply academic jargon or historically obsolete terms where they do not apply. They are first and foremost *nationalists.*

Fair enough. Call the Republican base whatever you want, but the fact that it isn't particularly interested in foreign exertions unrelated to some fairly strict definition of national interest suggests to me that liberals have a structural advantage when it comes to the politics of democratization. The exhibits I'd cite in my brief are things like the congressional Republican backlash over the $20 billion the administration requested for Iraqi reconstruction in 2003. (Yes, many Democrats opposed this, too. But I'd argue that it was mostly for partisan purposes. You obviously can't say the same about Republicans like Zach Wamp, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig, and Saxby Chambliss--all of whom wanted to make a big chunk of the money a loan rather than a grant.) I'd also cite the reaction from people like Peggy Noonan to Bush's idealistic second inaugural ("Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."), and a pretty persuasive Ramesh Ponnuru cover story in National Review a few years back about how Iraq should be viewed through a traditional national-interest conservative prism rather than an idealistic neocon prism. Money graf:

Traditional conservatives supported military action against Iraq because its totalitarian regime was a threat to America, and because the spread of freedom there might promote American interests in a strategically important part of the world. Their stance implies no support for a generalized program of global good works.

THIRD UPDATE: Ramesh points me to the following Anna Greenberg finding (his words, not hers): "In polls, evangelicals actually are less likely than most people to support using foreign policy to advance human rights abroad."

FOURTH UPDATE: More evidence on the Democratic side (capital "D") of the equation from today's Washington Post:

 

The debate in Washington has shifted as well. Jon Stewart, a liberal talk show host on Comedy Central, raised the idea last week that maybe Bush was right. "This is the most difficult thing for me, because I don't care for the tactics," he said, "but I've got to say I've never seen results like this ever in that region."

 

His guest, former Clinton national security aide Nancy Soderberg, author of a new book critical of Bush policy, generally agreed: "There is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it in the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them."

 

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2582

 

I'm not posting this because I agree with all of it, I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of someone presenting a different perspective.

[2GOLD 0]

What I want to know is why should I care what party his stuff benefits?

Both the parties are crooks and liars.

 

If life gets better, if democracy spreads around the world then I don't care if the guy in charge when it is happening has a R or a D in his little column. I've been told by a couple of people that I should care for some reason, but I really don't care what the party is.

 

Same goes if stuff goes down the tubes.

 

All I know is both have looney sections, both are basically useless and each has a few guys who may have flaws but they do have some good ideas.

[SuperJerk 0]

The nature and composition of the political alliances forged by those in power directly effects which ideas get fair hearings, and which ideas are abandoned.

 

So, yeah, how the Democrats and Republicans see Bush is relevant.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

If life gets better, if democracy spreads around the world then I don't care if the guy in charge when it is happening has a R or a D in his little column. I've been told by a couple of people that I should care for some reason, but I really don't care what the party is.

 

Same goes if stuff goes down the tubes.

agreed

[therealworldschampion 0]

Well somebody's focus group results must not be all that great.

 

Hey Uncle Ted, go fuck yourself -- you're not fooling anyone...

 

Awww you're being a little harsh on Uncle Ted....

 

It's like you said, he's a man of the people, when he's not drowning them in his car...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What I will never understand is that:

 

JFK -- dead

RFK -- dead

JFK Jr. -- dead

 

The Senior Senator from Chappaquitic -- still alive.

 

How?...

[therealworldschampion 0]

God must have one sick sense of humor I suppose...

[SuperJerk 0]

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

[Vyce 0]

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

Sorry.

 

Ted Kennedy jokes > your serious posts in this thread.

 

We need a little levity now and then.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

Welcome to CE.

 

And there's no way I'm reading that long-ass story you posted. Be pithy.

 

Hey, I'm just looking out for you in 2005...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol.

 

(Oh, this is not bipartisan cooperation -- it's Democrats trying to take something away from Bush's successes. Fuck 'em...)

[Boon 0]

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

Are you really that pretentious?

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm just saying it'd be nice if for once we didn't repost the same tired old jokes about Ted Kennedy like you guys do every other time his name is mentioned.

 

Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity...they've all become such easy targets around here that it hardly seems worth the effort.

 

I'm going to take this as a sign nobody cares that the left is starting to warm up to Bush (which a few months ago would have been seen as impossible), and shut up.

[Vyce 0]

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

Are you really that pretentious?

Apparently he is.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm just saying it'd be nice if for once we didn't repost the same tired old jokes about Ted Kennedy like you guys do every other time his name is mentioned.

 

Ted Kennedy? No. Now Mikey Moore on the other hand...

 

I'm going to take this as a sign nobody cares that the left is starting to warm up to Bush (which a few months ago would have been seen as impossible), and shut up.

It's not that we don't care, it's that we see through the bullshit. They're "warming up" because what Bush has done seems to be working for the most part. I will never forget what Unlce Ted said during the last election "This is Bush's Vietnam/Bush is the Suq/We're in a quagmire." Now in the span of, say, six months, Uncle Ted wants to "warm up"? Fuck you, the bandwagon has already left and you were in the lounge having a waitress sandwich with Christopher Dodd...

[Styles 0]

So...does Senator Byrd still think Bush is a Nazi?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's some strong words coming from the Klansman of the Senate...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They're "warming up" because what Bush has done seems to be working for the most part. I will never forget what Unlce Ted said during the last election "This is Bush's Vietnam/Bush is the Suq/We're in a quagmire." Now in the span of, say, six months, Uncle Ted wants to "warm up"?

Well, to be fair, it's not like an exit strategy has appeared out of the blue and rendered that past criticism into history.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey, I'm not saying you can't criticize the President's foreign policy (even though it would make you a terrorist), but to beat the drum so loud for so long just to turn around when a bunch of Iraqis got ink on their fingers -- I ain't buying it. My guess is the Dems are getting some bad news from internal polls 'n stuff because people that traditionally vote Democrat may see the war in Iraq as something they may not agree with but don't think it's as bad as their representatives are saying it is...

[Guest Cerebus]

I think people are getting too excited about this. I mean, yes its a hopeful sign and an inspiriation...but so was Tiananmen Square until the Chinese tanks rolled in and crushed everyone and everything, including hope. I think its too early to tell, but I'm still optimistic.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

So...does Senator Byrd still think Bush is a Nazi?

I think he backed off after someone brought up his past Klan affiliation.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wonder if that person was one of those white nigg...

 

Oh, wait, I'm not a Democrat so I can't get away with saying it...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Wonder if that person was one of those white nigg...

 

Oh, wait, I'm not a Democrat so I can't get away with saying it...

Boy, you sure do love that word. Its funny how excited you get whenever the issue of race gets brought up. Hmmm.

 

 

Take it like a man.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I knew you'd bring the comedy when I saw your name under "Last Post By."

 

It's not a matter or race, hippie, it's a matter of double standards. And I don't get excited when the issue of race gets brought up -- that's reserved for the Mikey Moore threads...