Balkinization: (Darryl) Levinson thesis revisited again, this time with application to Iraq

(Darryl) Levinson thesis revisited again, this time with application to Iraq

Sandy Levinson

I note with interest the following posting by John Podheretz, who I assume continues to be strongly Republican:

Want a little tough truth with your morning coffee? McCain can do this, and Rudy can do that, and Romney can do the other thing. But if tonight's speech doesn't herald the beginning of a serious turnaround in Iraq that is plain to see by spring of next year, the Risen Christ could be the Republican nominee in 2008 and He wouldn't be able to win against Al Sharpton.

Recall the Darryl (no relation) Levinson thesis and his emphasis on the priority of party over institutional identification. So the really terrible question is this: Is it really in the Democrats' institutional interest to save the country from what they believe is the catastrophe of Bush's escalation (especially if one believes, as I do, that one purpose of it is to inveigle Democrats into appearing responsible for "losing Iraq" should they have the temerity to stop it via a funding cutoff)? If Podheretz is correct, which I suspect he is, then isn't the Democrats' institutional interest the carrying out of a doomed-to-fail policy, which will have the consequences he predicts (i.e., not an Al Sharpton win, but, rather, a decisive victory for the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she turns out to be)? The implications for party-oriented Republicans are equally obvious. Not unless they have very strong (and, I believe, competely unmerited) faith in Bush's instincts as Commander-in-Chief do they have an interest in seeing this policy go ahead, but they may fear the consequences of White House retaliation should they become equally prominent with, say, Ted Kennedy as critics of the War. What is interesting, of course, is that two likely candidates, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Sam Brownback of Kansas, are indeed taking the lead, presumably because they perceive their only hope, in 2008, is a demonstrated record of standing up to the unpopular and incompetent President, even if he is one of their own.

One would like to think, of course, that decisions about Iraq are being made independent of party advantage, but, then, one would like to believe in Santa Claus. Bill Kristol torpedoed the Clinton health measures by stating that any collaboration in resolving the health insurance problem would in fact redound to Clinton and the Democrats, so that adamant opposition was the right strategy for Republicans. They opposed, and, of course, they took over Congress. So what should a Bill Kristol of the left be advising right now with regard to giving Bush the rope to hang himself as against standing up courageously in opposition to the escalation and asking John Kerry's question from 30 years ago, about what to tell the parents, wife, husband, child etc. of the last person to die for a dreadful mistake?

Posted 3:28 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Prof. Levinson, do you not think that the Dems have found what seem to be a tenable middle ground - that is, requiring approval for escalation funds but leaving intact funding for existing troops? Doesn't that tack allow them to oppose Bush while keeping their their necks off the block?

# posted by

rothmatisseko : 4:46 PM

But hasn't giving Bush the rope to hang himself (and all of us) been the Democrats' strategy all along? No one wants to be tarred as disloyal, and so they have stood back for the last 5 years as Bush's war goes from bad to worse. It's not that I don't see the obvious partisan advantage, but if we're crafting our strategy based on whatever cynical lies Republicans will be able to throw at us, then what choice do we have but to become Republicans? Certainly being right about the two major issues of the 1960s (Civil Rights and Vietnam) has done us no favors politically--but what, exactly, is the purpose of having a political party at all except to get those things right.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:08 PM

If Bush didn't have such dismally low approval ratings, the argument might hold some merit. But the Republican candidate who tries to say with a straight face that the Democrats lost Iraq will just show himself to be just as out of touch with reality as the President.

# posted by

ruidh : 5:29 PM

From my recall of my college days, both the College Republicans and Democrats include in their constitutions that the function of their groups is to support the national party platform. Not to debate it, not to try to change and influence, but to support it.

Is this why the founders warned about the insidious effects of party? It is why I rejected both groups and have been an independant ever since.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:59 PM

Sandy,

Under the current circumstances, decisions and calculations based upon political expediency are absolutely inappropriate, evil in the purest sense of the term. Many people are dying every day, many tens of thousands so far. The sole motivation and consideration of anyone who has a say in this extraordinary disaster must be to do the right thing (whatever that might be). Alas, our political leaders have shown themselves to be cynical enough that your speculation is entirely justified.

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 9:07 PM

steve:

The Republicans have made a lot of cynical political calculations for nothing more than short-term advantage over the last several years....

Correction: They've been doing it for a lot longer than that. Terry Schiavo wasn't some abberration; this is their modus operandi. The difference is the stakes. Now the ante is the lives of young American soldiers....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:01 PM

Apropos Brian's posting and my reference to "giving rope" to Bush:

a) I think it would be disastrous for the Democrats to offer any real"support" to the plan.

b) But the apparent choice right now is between the quite brilliant political strategy of forcing an up-or-down vote on a "non-binding resolution," which has the purpose of tying Republicans, especially the senators (like Susan Collins) up for re-election in 2008, to their Preisdent or else going into the opposition, on the one hand, or a far more militant strategy of trying to cut off funding. The first is a no-brainer for Democrats, not least because they don't make themselves vulnerable to the "who lost Iraq" counter. The second is a far riskier, though one might well argue, far more noble strategy.

I note, incidentally, that Norm Coleman has joined the ranks of Republican dissenters. I think this is exemplary of a rat leaving a sinking ship. (For the record, I don't view Senators Hagel and Brownback as rats. Hagel in particular has been a long-time critic, and I trust Nick Kristoff when he describes Brownback as a quite principled senator, even if I usually disagree with him. Coleman, however, is another matter.) In any event, stay tuned to see if any of the Senators up in 2008 in any other than the safest seats is going to offer full-scale support to Bush's escalation. And can McCain survive identification with the escalation unless it succeeds?

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 11:31 PM

Professor Levinson: ...don't make themselves vulnerable to the "who lost Iraq" counter.

739 days left, if I'm following your reckoning correctly. But the problem isn't a Constitution which fails to provide for dumping as miserable a failure or as unconscionable a cheat as George W. Bush. The problem is an electorate which can in any way put the blame for the failure of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan anywhere other than squarely on the shoulders of the Cheney junta. Legality and morality of those invasions and occupations aside, the execution of these two efforts is nothing short of shameful. The losses are Republican. The blame for failure is Republican. And the weakness is in an electorate which accepted the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, accepted plans like "Shock and Awe", accepted claims like "Mission Accomplished."

The question is, what to do about it? Because you are right. Already there are people who try to put the blame for Bush's failed military adventures on "the Democrats" or "the Liberals." And those efforts will work well with too large a swath of the population. What, if anything, can be done about it, other than the timeless steady push toward something more than the semi-literacy enjoyed by our electorate today, toward some measure of liberal (as in well grounded and wide ranging) education that has come to be viewed as an outdated Enlightenment era ideal? How do we give 300 million people the length of attention span, the critical thinking skills, and the will to use them which are required to unshakably see these failures are Republican through and through? I wish that were merely a rhetorical question.

# posted by

Robert Link : 11:13 AM

It is in turns fascinating and revolting to be a fly on the wall of discussions among Democrats on how best to lose one of our nation's wars without being blamed for the loss with the partisan purpose of regaining political power in 2008.

If the Dems had any principles at all, they would offer bills to defund the war and compel the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Then, the American people would have a clear choice for 2008.

Instead, the Dems are doing their best to destroy domestic popular support for the war and thereby encouraging our enemies while leaving our troops dangling in harm's way so the Dem party won't get blamed for losing the war.

Pelousi is for more troops except when she is against it.

Pelousi agrees with the Baker Report conclusion that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster except when she is against it.

Madam, do you have no shame at all? Troops' lives are on the line and you are playing politics.

I am sorry, but I find this approach to be reprehensible in the extreme. My brother is one of the military members the Dems are undermining and placing in harm's way with these partisan machinations to destroy support for his mission.

I enjoy my conversations with the many fine and intelligent people here. However, I urge you to make a serious examination of the consequences of the things you are proposing here.

I can respect principled positions which oppose the war and call for a withdrawal. We might strongly disagree on that point, but your position would not endanger our troops. However, undermining support for the troops while leaving them in harm's way is simply beyond the pale.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:04 PM

...how best to lose one of our nation's wars without being blamed for the loss...

It's what the Cheney junta will be asking themselves until the very end. The answer of course, is to enlist the help of fools and poltroons to try and put the blame for the c-in-c's years-long defeat anywhere else. B^)

# posted by

Robert Link : 12:14 PM

"Bart" DePalma's got this fixation on "losing"L

It is in turns fascinating and revolting to be a fly on the wall of discussions among Democrats on how best to lose one of our nation's wars without being blamed for the loss with the partisan purpose of regaining political power in 2008.

Here's my take on that. "Bart" insists we must "win" this fight. But we need to look where we're at right now. Right now, we've lost, and there's just no getting around that. We are not where we want to be, and we are certainly not where the maladministration told us we'd be, and we're 3000+ troops and gong on half a trillion dollars down. In Dubya's words, a "catastrophic success". Those 3000 lives were paid to get us to where we are (which, if you look at it, is a stupendously stupid thing).

"Bart" would like to pretend that it's just a "surge" -- a little "extra" -- to get us over Heartbreak Hill and on down the last stretch to the glorious finish. No. The lives (and the money) are gone ... and wasted ... getting us to the carnage we have right now.

The question now is what more we should be willing to pay, and to get us to where. And then to ask who's going to pay the additional price. Jenna? Not-Jenna?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:44 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Pelousi is for more troops except when she is against it.

[Gratuitous slur noted; so much for the "high road", eh?]

"Bart" misspells "Dubya". He just doesn't know it. Of course, his accusations come devoid of any substance or cites to back them.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:47 PM

"Pelousi"

Oh that Bart and his "colorful" langauge.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:28 PM

justwatching666: Oh that Bart and his "colorful" language.

Still, it seems a little, well, creative for him. Who d'ya figure he's parroting? Only 700+ hits for it today, but I bet it'll climb as it catches on with the dittoheads.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:47 PM

Adam raises and important and troubling point. If we believe, say, that the US should have intervened in Rwanda in order to prevent a quite predictable genocide, then does that mean that the US, at this point in time, does indeed have a duty to remain in Iraq in order to prevent what might well be described as genocide if the Sadr brigades become examplary of the "new Iraq"? Obviously, Maliki is publicly opposing any such developments, but would you expect him to say otherwise. The Hussein execution is some evidence for the proposition that the ruling elite of the "new Iraq" are and will continue to be vengeance-seeking Shi'ites who will attempt their own forms of ethnic cleansing.

We (and Iraq) are in an absolutely dreadful bind. The only thing one can say with some degree of confidence is that the Bush escalation is not likely to make things appreciably better and is, in fact, more likely to make them worse.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 5:13 PM

Professor Levinson: Adam raises and important and troubling point.

I was going to let this sit, but now I can't. I suppose first I should see the text of this Genocide Convention. But even without looking I feel reasonably safe assuming it doesn't call for the U.S. of A. to unilaterally take responsibility for ending genocide on the planet. Further, there's a colorable argument that our very presence in the region is what has precipitated the possibility of genocide. I do not anticipate facing a legitimate or compelling argument that our "duties" under such a Convention require us to stay the failed course of military defeat the c-in-c has lead for the past almost four years. We should never have been there in the first place, but it seems some folks are hellbent on justifying and extending our presence in Iraq, no matter how absurdly they have to reverse common sense notions of responsibility, right or wrong.

The only moral answer to our failed military mis-adventures in Iraq is to get out as quickly as possible with minimal loss of life on all sides, with the emphasis on "get out."

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:32 PM

Pelosi it is. I stand corrected.

Curious, how this misspelling seems to disturb you more than your House leader's constantly changing positions.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:46 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Pelosi it is. I stand corrected.

Translation from Republican into English: "I've been caught."

Curious, how this misspelling seems to disturb you more than your House leader's constantly changing positions.

Translation from Republican into English: "But I won't apologise, and will toss in a 'red herring' instead."

This has been a public service of the Institute For Truth and Honesty About Republicanism. No thanks necessary, we do it for the greater good.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:50 AM

@Arne: While the Coulter's and O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's and Hannity's and even Gingrinch's of the world purport to be the only "true" Republicans, and although DePalma assiduously denies being a Republican but can't seem to stop parroting their rhetoric, nonetheless, it does us no good to demonize the whole party. To do so alienates folks who, despite party affiliation, could be our allies on many issues (e.g., anyone claiming to want less government arguably should side with us on issues like NSA wiretapping and the so-called "patriot" act.) Ride Bart's ass like a soggy diaper; he richly deserves it and more. But, please, don't make the mistake of demonizing a whole demographic just because any number of vociferous slime-balls purport to speak for them.

@Bart: jtdavis's labels are far too generous, Arne's analysis spot on. Why do you even bother? Why aren't you man enough to just own up to your childish shenanigans instead of pretending it's a typo? Next you'll be disclaiming your demeaning use of "the Democrat party".

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:00 PM

Robert Link:

Pardon me. Instead of "Republican", perhaps I should have said "BartSpeak™". But, to be sure, the message I hear most often from the party stalwarts (albeit not all the rank-and-file Republican voters) seems to be taken verbatim from the Republican Team Leader "talking points" .... (BTW: There really is a thing called "Republican Team Leaders"; you know, kind of like the dark khaki shirt brigade of our times)

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:05 PM