Ten days ago,
Matt wrote the following:
Now, let's put aside the merits of this plan. I'm just really confused. How is it possible for a major party Democratic candidate to continually promise donors an end our involvement in Iraq while simultaneously proposing a plan that will keep us in Iraq?
All of the candidates to a greater or lesser extent are doing this same dance, so this isn't meant to pick on Clinton so much as it is to point out that there is a large, weird, and dishonest chasm between elites making policy and activists supporting political leaders. I don't get it.
Matt is absolutely correct about this disconnect. Democratic candidates are saying they will end the war, despite pretty much all releasing policy papers saying they will keep troops in Iraq. How are they able to get away with this seeming contradiction? Simple: it is because right now the public really does not seem to notice the difference, and progressive activists are complicit with maintaining this disinformation campaign. First, look at
a recent poll that asks if people want "most" troops removed:
CBS News Poll. March 26-27, 2006. N=831 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq that would have MOST troops out by September 2008?"
Should 59%--37% Should Not
Now, look at
another poll conducted during the same week that asks the public if they want "all" troops removed (emphasis mine):
USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 23-25, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq? How about...setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq no later than the fall of 2008"
Support 60%--38% Oppose
Public support for removing "most" troops and removing "all" troops is identical. Apparently, ending the war entirely and reducing it in size means exactly the same thing to the American public. It certainly seems to mean the same thing for many Democratic candidates.
The problem here is that
the Overton Window on troop removal from Iraq is in a completely different location for the American public than it is for progressive policy elites. For the American public, it has long moved passed being unthinkable or radical, and also long moved past being merely sensible or acceptable. Right now, removing all troops from Iraq in the next eighteen months is extremely popular, as evidenced by the Gallup poll quoted above. By way of contrast, for progressive policy elites, the idea of removing all troops from Iraq remains staunchly entrenched in the "unthinkable" or, at best, "radical" phase of the Overton Window. Just witness the number of progressives who,
in the comments to my post on last night, quickly labeled Bill Richardson naïve and / or "unserious" about Iraq and foreign policy. Of course, just yesterday, Richardson brokered a weapons inspections deal breakthrough with North Korea, and back in January he brokered a cease-fire in Darfur, and oh yeah--he was our ambassador to the United Nations. But now, since he is advocating total withdrawal from Iraq, suddenly Bill freaking Richardson is naïve and unserious about foreign policy. That people would react that way to a man with more foreign policy accomplishments than the entire US Senate combined tells just how abhorrent the idea of removing all troops is to many progressive policy types.
In this environment, Democratic candidates are faced with opposing forces pulling them in two different directions. On the one hand, ending the war in Iraq and removing
all troops over the next year or so is quite popular nationwide, not to mention among the Democratic base. Thus, they all
say they are going to end the war in Iraq when talking to the general public. However, this idea is still unthinkable to the progressive policy elites staffing think tanks, congress, and presidential campaigns, and so they release policy proposals that merely reduce the scope of US military involvement in Iraq, not end it. This situation in not going to change, and ending the war will always simply mean reducing the war, unless grassroots, progressive activists stop allowing their favorite candidates to get away with this contradiction, and unless at least one leading Democrat takes up that cause and starts calling out their colleagues on this contradiction.
In this situation, we, and by "we" I mean the progressive blogosphere, are part of the problem. Because we like Edwards or Obama, we have no problem letting them slide on this contradiction, which makes it impossible for us to credibly call out candidates like Hillary Clinton on the contradiction. Further, because no one is credibly calling out our candidates on this contradiction, to the public withdrawing most troops and withdrawing all troops remains identical. Thus, we are left in a situation where basically no one is articulating an actual end to the end in Iraq, even though most people believe quite a few candidates are doing so. And yes,
we are allowing this to happen. We can't end this contradiction if we are complicit with it. That has to change.
P.S. As a final note, I know that even the Feingold-Reid bill calls for a residual American military presence in Iraq. However, Feingold has also made it clear on a number of occasions that he thinks even his bill does not go as far as he would like. Back when we were in the minority, Senator Feingold was extremely useful as pushing the Overton Window for many progressive ideas that were long though unthinkable by Democrats in Washington: opposing the Patriot Act, advocating for a timeline, censuring Bush, etc. However, we are not in the minority anymore, and Senator Feingold's place is no longer to push the Overton Window--it is to pass policy that succeeds in dealing with our immediate problem of drawing down the Iraq war despite Bush still being in office. By way of contrast, when it comes to our next choosing President, the debate in Democratic circles should not rest on war funding, stopping escalation, instituting timelines, maintaining troop readiness, or any of the issues surrounding Iraq that current Senators and members of Congress must deal with in the immediate future. By the time a Democratic President takes office, under a Democratic trifecta the issue is going to be over whether or not we maintain a residual American military presence in Iraq. Ofc ourse a Democratic trifecta will at least somewhat drawn down the war--but how far are we willing to go? It is on that issue where we need leading Democratic figures who can push our policy experts--and eventually all of our presidential candidates--to the same point in the Overton Window that the public arrived at a long time ago. And we need to support those figures when they step up on this cause. Lacking that, we will ultimately fail when it comes to ending the war in Iraq, even if we elect a Democratic President in 2008 and expand our majorities in Congress.
It cannot possible get anymore serious than this. A failure to end the war in Iraq under a Democratic trifecta will, by 2012, result in the greatest political disaster to befall the Democratic Party since 1968. Count on it. As a party, we can't run against the extremely unpopular Iraq war for three years, fail to end it when we are in complete control of the government, and not expect massive backlash.
