( – promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))
First and foremost, I appreciate Mr. Mulholland’s words of regret for his dismissive characterizations of bloggers and activists. And secondly, I appreciate his and his family’s service to this country, as well as his sincere commitment to ending the occupation of Iraq.
I agree sincerely with Bob’s desire to end the war in Iraq–it is a goal that we all share as Democrats and progressive activists.
Where we disagree is on princples of scope and methodology.
More below.
To begin with, I must take issue with the fact that Bob Mulholland’s seemingly sole focus for both the Congressional election and the Presidency is the occupation of Iraq. At the California Young Democrats retreat in South Lake Tahoe, Bob Mulholland expressed the opinion that no other issue mattered to voters besides Iraq; that the economy did not matter, that global warming and environmental concerns did not matter, that the energy crisis did not matter.
I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Iraq–as well as Aghanistan and a potential impending strike against Iran–are obviously enormous issues, and voters are judging our Congress by its effectiveness in reining in the Bush Administration on issues of military foreign policy. But I think it goes without saying that we ignore all the other areas of failed Republican domestic and foreign policy at our own peril.
But even when it comes to the objective of ending the occupation of Iraq, I completely disagree with the idea that standing up for Democratic values and encouraging our politicians to support the values the Democratic Party stands for–such as obeying the Constitution, for instance–hinders our ability to win back the White House in 2008. This could have been a legitimate argument back in 2002 and 2003 when the traditional media was comfortable with calling Democrats who had concerns about the policies of the Bush Administration traitors or other such inflammatory terms, but I strongly believe that standing up for our values can only help our chances of winning back the Presidency in 2008 now that the public trusts the Democrats on just about every single issue around, including national security and taxes.
Even if it were true, however, that standing up for our values could potentially harm our chances in 2008, the things at issue are far bigger than just the Iraq occupation. The fight we’re waging here–and the reason that we as grassroots and netroots activists put so much effort into the resolution to censure Senator Feinstein–is a fight for the future of our democracy, and what the values of the country will be. Try to picture, if you will, an Attorney General being confirmed by the U.S. Senate who publicly professed that torture was legal and that the President is above the law before 9/11. What we’re fighting for is to restore our country’s respect for the constitution, for equal rights, and for equal representation before the law. We’re fighting to make sure that the the co-equal branches of government are actually co-equal, which will go a long way to making sure not only that we can end this occupation, but also that no president will have the executive poewr to singlehandedly start such a war ever again.
And when America sees a Democrat being a prime enabler of torture and of executive power, it has the effect of normalizing these concepts in the minds of the American public, and blurring the distinction between Democrats and Republicans that will be essential to the chances of Democratic victory in 2008.
And that is precisely why it is so important for us, as the Democratic base, to oppose those who, like Senator Feinstein, grant an air of acceptability to these notions put forth by the Republicans that are, in fact, in complete opposition to traditional American values. It’s nothing personal, really. But if our Democratic politicians will not draw a contrast with Republicans, then we as Democrats must draw a contrast with them.