Why the Democrats Don't Want to End Bush's War Any More Than Bush Does
Timothy Sexton
September 26, 2007
America is in the midst of a crisis that is unprecedented in its history. Never before in the almost 220 years that America has had a President and a Congress has there ever been a situation such as we face now. Never before has a President who has lost the confidence of over 60% of the people and who is openly suspected of having committed impeachable offenses been afforded the luxury of freedom from Congressional oversight and investigation when that Congress has been in the power of the opposing political party. Recent history, in fact, reveals a striking pattern of rabid Congressional use of their powers to investigate the President both when it is deserved—Richard Nixon—and when it is motivated purely for political reasons—Bill Clinton. Even Ronald Reagan was targeted for investigation by Congress despite the fact that he never lost the confidence of Americans.
There has always existed a natural antagonism between the legislative and executive branches of government based on a long history of ebbing and flowing over which branch has more influence. Hard as it is comprehend in these days when the President is treated with all the pomp and circumstance of a monarch, the shocking truth of American history that most people don’t realize is that for most of our existence there have been extended periods of time when the course of this nation’s trajectory was not set by the President, but by Congress. For almost the entire last half of the 19th century it was Congress and not the President that was viewed as the center of power in the American government. What has been forgotten amidst the 100 Secret Service bodyguards, and the limousines, and the pageantry is that, according to the Constitution, the President has no more power than Congress.
Adding to the antagonism between Congress and the White House has been the antagonism between the political parties. It seems only natural that one party would use their power to investigate and disarm the remaining power of a President who has lost the support of the public. That has always been the case; it is what drove Richard Nixon from office when he had the same approval ratings as George W. Bush does now. The Democrats led the charge then; what is the difference now?
Three things. One, the Democratic majority was larger then so they needed fewer GOP votes to override any veto. Two, in the 1970s the GOP lawmakers were not all hard-core conservatives; back then they had many compassionate conservatives who put the country ahead of their party in a time of crisis. Three, the Democrats don’t want to do the job.
Yes, it’s true. The Democrats don’t want this war to end now any more than the Pres. Bush. In fact, if you could hook all lawmakers up to a lie detector that never failed, I’d wager you’d find a substantially larger number of Republicans who wish Pres. Bush would change his mind than Democrats who wish the same thing. Why? For the exact same reason. The Democrats have a plan that looks a little like Dorothy and the gang skipping down the Yellow Brick Road toward Oz. If they can manage to go along with Bush by not fighting too hard to end the war while looking like they really do want to, by next year they know things will be so awful that the American people will be ready to do anything to end the war. And here’s the key. The Democrats can go to the people and say, look, all these Republicans are just like Bush. They have supported his policies and believe in his mission. If you elect them President and you vote your GOP lawmaker back into Congress things won’t change because we still won’t have enough votes to override a veto. But if you put us into the White House and let us keep control of Congress, we won’t even need to override a veto.
See how it works? Bush wants keep the war going. The Democrats want to keep the war going. The American people are the only ones who really want to see it end. It seems brilliant on paper. After all, nobody really thinks Iraq will be better a year from now. It’s a no-brainer. Except for one thing. One fly in the ointment. One flying monkey on the road to Oz.
All of this is dependent on a Democrat getting elected. And as we all know, nobody can screw up a sure thing like a Democratic Presidential nominee.
There has always existed a natural antagonism between the legislative and executive branches of government based on a long history of ebbing and flowing over which branch has more influence. Hard as it is comprehend in these days when the President is treated with all the pomp and circumstance of a monarch, the shocking truth of American history that most people don’t realize is that for most of our existence there have been extended periods of time when the course of this nation’s trajectory was not set by the President, but by Congress. For almost the entire last half of the 19th century it was Congress and not the President that was viewed as the center of power in the American government. What has been forgotten amidst the 100 Secret Service bodyguards, and the limousines, and the pageantry is that, according to the Constitution, the President has no more power than Congress.
Adding to the antagonism between Congress and the White House has been the antagonism between the political parties. It seems only natural that one party would use their power to investigate and disarm the remaining power of a President who has lost the support of the public. That has always been the case; it is what drove Richard Nixon from office when he had the same approval ratings as George W. Bush does now. The Democrats led the charge then; what is the difference now?
Three things. One, the Democratic majority was larger then so they needed fewer GOP votes to override any veto. Two, in the 1970s the GOP lawmakers were not all hard-core conservatives; back then they had many compassionate conservatives who put the country ahead of their party in a time of crisis. Three, the Democrats don’t want to do the job.
Yes, it’s true. The Democrats don’t want this war to end now any more than the Pres. Bush. In fact, if you could hook all lawmakers up to a lie detector that never failed, I’d wager you’d find a substantially larger number of Republicans who wish Pres. Bush would change his mind than Democrats who wish the same thing. Why? For the exact same reason. The Democrats have a plan that looks a little like Dorothy and the gang skipping down the Yellow Brick Road toward Oz. If they can manage to go along with Bush by not fighting too hard to end the war while looking like they really do want to, by next year they know things will be so awful that the American people will be ready to do anything to end the war. And here’s the key. The Democrats can go to the people and say, look, all these Republicans are just like Bush. They have supported his policies and believe in his mission. If you elect them President and you vote your GOP lawmaker back into Congress things won’t change because we still won’t have enough votes to override a veto. But if you put us into the White House and let us keep control of Congress, we won’t even need to override a veto.
See how it works? Bush wants keep the war going. The Democrats want to keep the war going. The American people are the only ones who really want to see it end. It seems brilliant on paper. After all, nobody really thinks Iraq will be better a year from now. It’s a no-brainer. Except for one thing. One fly in the ointment. One flying monkey on the road to Oz.
All of this is dependent on a Democrat getting elected. And as we all know, nobody can screw up a sure thing like a Democratic Presidential nominee.
Print
Email
