"Blair Democrats": Pro-War Contingent and the 'Anti-War Left'

[Q]

The Washington Post | Editorial | May 1, 2003
The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle
By Will Marshall

The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.

Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation.

Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed. --- http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=251557&knlgAreaID=127&subsecid=171

[Q]

1. Are most 'rank and file' Democrats...

...still for the 'war' in Iraq? Have the pro-war elements of the party been proven correct in their assumption that 'regime change' was enough of a motivation to invade and occupy Iraq? Has the 'anti-war' activists on the left been put out of business by a pro-war ticket?

[porphyrian]

2. I'd say nope.

However, once we have competent leadership in our own country, we should be responsible and clean up the mess the current administration has made in Iraq (preferably funded by those traitors who sent Americans to die for a profit margin).

[Q]

6. Wouldn't it have been more 'responsible' to not invade in the first place?

- Now we have both parties trying to justify an unprovoked war and rationalize...saying that regime change was a good enough reason to invade. Both parties say that Saddam 'needed to go'...but don't like to talk about the too high costs in human life and national resources.

- Sorry to say...but we're witnessing the same 'we can't cut and run' dance we saw during the Vietnam era....when thousands of innocents (on both sides) died for lies and to advance the political careers of the war/chickenhawks.

[porphyrian]

18. Yes.

I'm not convinced we need to keep our troops there at all, just that we need to clean up our own mess. If that can be achieved without further bloodshed, I'm all for it. I also believe we should hand the bill to the assholes who did this in spite of our cries against pre-emptive and unnecessary war.

[Q]

25. But we're NOT IN IRAQ to 'clean up any messes'...

...we're there to establish a permanent occupation. The Iraqis know this...and they can see that a puppet US government isn't much better than a puppet Saddam dictatorship.

- Either the Democratic/Republican leadership doesn't GET the fact that Iraqis don't want us there and that democracy can't be installed at the point of a gun...or they simply don't care about the Iraqi people or American soldiers.

[Tina H]

4. Yes, anti-war voters have been . . .

"put out of business" by the Democratic party leadership. They did this by taking actions to ensure that Howard Dean was roundly defeated in the primaries.

I think that the thinking was that the Democratic party is guaranteed the vast majority of the anti-war vote, no matter what, so the leadership wants to use the war to attract votes from the middle.

Of course, this leaves anti-war voters frustrated: like Bush is the bad cop and Kerry is the good cop (and Nader is your hapless cell-mate). It will be interesting to see how the strategy of the Democratic leadership plays out in the election.

My prediction is that they will achieve what they are trying to achieve and that anti-war voters will not be much accomodated at all by the Kerry administration -- US military presence in Iraq will be continued and permanent US bases will be built in Iraq and the US will keep controlling the Iraqi gov't from behind the scenes. Kerry will just pursue this military objective with a less blustery and confrontational tone than Bush uses.

[GreenArrow]

8. makes sense to me

.

[Tina H]

10. unless Nader pulls down 5% in PA or OH or FLA

and causes Candidate Kerry to lose the election.

If this happens, then we will see the good cop political party crying big tears and blaming the anti-war voters for making her cry.

I don't think this is the likliest outcome, but I think it is the biggest risk that the Democratic party leadership is taking.

[GreenArrow]

22. he won't

I'd be surprised if Nader gets more than two percent anywhere. People want Bush out, by hook or crook. ABB, remember. It's not so much that people like or want Kerry, they want Bush OUT!

But, assuming Nader does pull enough votes away, the Democratic party will have no one but itself to blame. Well, there's diebold, and false felon purges, but no biggie there.

[GreenArrow]

7. the selection of Edwards as VP

was yet another in a continuing string of Fuck YOU's to the American left. Who cares that the majority of the ammo Kerry has to use against Bush came as the result of the work of leftist elements within his own party. Fuck 'em.

[ibegurpard]

3. Blair Democrats?

Is that what some would have the party become? Ask the British what they think about their Prime Minister.

[Cascadian]

12. I like to call them "Vichy Democrats"

They are collaberating with the Neocons which is no different than what some of the French did when the Nazis rolled into France.

John

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "Blair Democrats" - Such an apt moniker

So willing to overlook the all too obvious defects of candidates and attempt to silence the left with whines about the terrible fate awaiting the world if we don't just shut up.

[Q]

9. This is the strategy...

...of the 'New' Democrats: promote the 'war' in Iraq and at the same time trash Bush* for making 'mistakes' in war planning. The message is: the Democratic leadership was/is FOR the invasion and occupation of Iraq / regime change... just not Bush's* concept of it.

- Many "Blair" and new Democrats want this issue to go away. They hate the protests and exposure of the fraud and corruption of the war just as much as the Right. But as long as Americans and Iraqis continue to die in what has been proven to be an unnecessary/illegal war...the 'activists' will continue to demand an end to the senseless slaughter.

[Blue Wally]

11. The problem with the left ............

...is that, like the blacks, they have nowhere else to go. Tehy aren't a "tipping balance" between the parties that both parties are hungry to accomodate. Their alternatives are:


1. Stay home on election day and watch the Democratic Party be defeated.

2. Vote for a third party and watch the Democratic Party be defeated.

3. Launch a major push to take over the Democratic Party nomination with a leftist candidate and watch 1972 and 1984 happen all over again.

4. Get behind a DLC/DNC candidate who partially represents their views and work for a Democratic Party victory.


Only 4 is a winner.

[ibegurpard]

13. Option 5

Do the necessary footwork to take over the party apparatus from the ground up...a long, long tedious process but some of us are already working on it.

[MadHound]

15. The trouble is that option four is chimera

The DLC/DNC candidate represents few, if any, of the left's positions. Corporate tax breaks? Kerry is in favor of it. Continuation of the Iraq war in the near(or possibly long term) future? Kerry is in favor of it. Continuation of free trade and outsourcing? Kerry is in favor of it. Keeping the Patriot act? Kerry is in favor of it. And the hits just keep on coming.

Face it, the only thing the DLC/DNC wants from the anti-war left is their votes and money, and our unwilling to address any of the left's issues. Instead, the left is laughingly dismissed with "who else you are going to vote for son, the Republicans? HAHAHAHA!" And when the left does decide to demonstrate the unhappiness, they are scapegoated for the Dems shortcomings.

This is the same type of mentality that the Democratic party has in regards to blacks and other minorities, and it is high time they were called on it. If not, then the party will continue it's ever rightward, pro corporate drift, and we will all be left out in the cold.

[Q]

20. I'm not sure they even WANT our money...

...as the 'anti-war left' can't compete with the pro-war corporate lobbyists. And make no mistake...the DLCers ARE lobbying 'big time' to keep this 'just' war going and coincidentally feeding the coffers of the campaign contributors/defense contractors.

- We'll be told in 2008 that we can't protest the ongoing Iraq invasion/occupation/war because it would hurt Kerry's chances for reelection. Expect at least another four to eight years in Iraq no matter which party is in control.

[CWebster]

21. and they complain about Republicans funding Nader. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

23. I agree that there is a bit of a Hobson's choice here

But I'll opt for choice four.

• Kerry is a pragmatist who may try something to save the occupation, but eventually he will realize that there is nothing to do but withdraw. That may come sooner rather than later, because 138,000 American troops can't hunt for Osama when they're on occupation duty in Iraq.
• Kerry would read intelligence and act on facts, while Bush and his people made up their minds and then tried to force the facts to fit their decision. Even if one ascribes good intentions to the Iraq invasion (and I do not), the fact is that Saddam was not a threat and the Iraqi people could be expected to resist occupation.
• A Kerry administration is less likely than a Bush administration to put dissidents on a no-fly list without giving cause; it is difficult to imagine a Justice Department headed by a Kerry-appointed AG drafting legislation to give the President or his cabinet officers the power to strip an American of his citizenship.

The two differences I see between Bush and Kerry are Kerry's pragmatism as opposed to Bush' bullheaded foolishness and Kerry's respect for American political traditions as opposed to Bush's subversion of those traditions. Kerry is a more intelligent man who may not always be right, but when something doesn't work he will try something else until he finds something that does. Bush and his people will accuse anybody who questions their methods or motives as unpatriotic and continue to do what clearly isn't working. An offshoot of Kerry's pragmatism will be a more honest approach to policy. If Kerry wants to know the facts and make a decision based on facts, then he won't try to misrepresent them to the American people, the people of the world, Congress or the UN Security Council.

In addition, Bush represents a threat to American democratic institutions in a way that Kerry does not. Bush not only stole the election of 2000 -- only a liar or fool would say otherwise -- but has used a national emergency to introduce police state enabling legislation that goes well beyond what is reasonable or necessary, has instituted a semi-secret network of offshore gulags that use torture as an interrogation method, has suspended habeas corpus and declares a "First Amendment zone" around any presidential visit to protect him from demonstrators -- and to effectively keep them out of press coverage of the event.

We are in the situation that the French Resistance found itself in the early forties. Although the Resistance was made up largely of socialists, anarchists, Communists and assorted other leftists, they were willing to make and alliance with take direction from General de Gaulle, a sober conservative who thought France had every right to rule over Algeria and Indochina. In the interest of ridding France of Nazi occupation and a collaborationist regime, those arguments and others were postponed until after the Nazis were expelled from France. We, too, should do likewise and postpone our argument with the DLC and the Will Marshalls who will be a major part of the Kerry administration in the interests of defeating Bush-style neoconservativism and driving a stake through its heart.

Bush will do what he can to make discourse on public affairs moot if not impossible. I am voting for Kerry not because I think he agrees with me in major points about the discussion, but because he will make a discussion possible.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. What most people overlook is:

The Lies the Bush administration told congress and the people of the world leading up to the war in Iraq! The real blame lies at Bush's doorstep, because the neocons distorted the facts over and over and over! They LIED to Congress and to us, even in Bush's SOU speech, they lied to the UN, and they are still lying to this day!

[Q]

19. With a wink and a nod...

...the 'Blair' Democrats accepted the claims of Bush* and Blair. I wonder how much research they did on their own before signing on to the war? (I can only hope they put more of an effort into the invasion than they did the Patriot Acts.)

- It probably goes without saying that the Blair Democrats couldn't have predicted the amount of bloodshed and unrest...but they fully understood there would be an invasion that would kill thousands of people and establish permanent military bases of operation in Iraq. They knew these things and voted for the war because they wanted many of the same things Bush* wanted....the main difference being that Blair Democrats wanted a larger coalition to help pay for the mess and take some of the blame for 'mistakes'.

- We have no choice but to vote Democratic in November. It's vitally important for the US that the Bush* Doctrine be smashed by a complete rejection of the voters. But come Jan of 2005...the anti-war efforts must continue whether we have a Kerry or Bush* government.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. This is the DLC's triumphalism over the war from last year

Does it seem dated now!

Why would anybody want to be associated with Tony Blair any more that G. W. Bush?

A year later, the invasion of Iraq is a certified disaster. There were no ties to al Qaida, there no weapons and Saddam barely had the military capability to defend against a high school drill team, let alone menace the Middle East. The arms with which the Iraqi people greeted American "liberators" were the kind that fire live ammo. It is clear that the purpose of reconstructing Iraq was not to benefit the Iraqi people but to provide opportunities for war profiteers like Halliburton and DynCorps; our transnational corporate dinosaurs can't make the streets safe or provide reliable electrical power, but they're very good at collecting US taxpayer money for doing nothing. Funds which were supposed to go rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure were diverted to converting Saddam's place into a US embassy worthy of a colonial governor general.

Meanwhile, the real war on terror was neglected while Bush redirected resources to his colonial misadventure. Al Qaida regrouped and has staged attacks in Istanbul, Madrid and several in Riyadh. Terrorism was made stronger as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq, not weaker.

I will vote for the Kerry-Edwards because I think these men are pragmatic and capable of learning from their mistakes and those of others, including neoconservatives both in PNAC and the PPI. I'm certainly not voting for them because they signed on to disaster that I and 10 million others saw coming when we marched against it in February 2003, a month before it commenced.

Will Marshall and the DLC owe those of us who were right about Iraq an apology.

[CWebster]

17. "...stunning success in liberating iraq..."

Which is now undoubtedly going into lockdown, with the latest in US installed thugs, claiming elections aren't necessary, banning public demonstrations and political parties...

Hooray for US imposed "democracy" on those subhuman Arabs with our oil.

[Q]

24. Some don't want to point to history...

...to show us how Vietnam...the last unjust, undeclared war...divided the nation into pro-war and anti-war elements. Vietnam divided the Democratic party...just as the Iraq 'regime change' does today.

- The conservative left and right have accused Iraq 'war' protestors as kneejerk dissenters who can't tell the difference between one war and another. They say Iraq is NOT like Vietnam...but the same hubris, false patriotism and inability to admit fatal mistakes dominate the rhetoric of both parties.