LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 20, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Rise Up or Die

The Lotto Symbolizes the False Promises of Barracuda Capitalism

Obama Unscathed by Scandals, Mayor Denies Smoking Crack, and More

Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King

'SNL': Stefon's Farewell Features Anderson Cooper

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Is Democracy in Trouble?
 * NEW! * Rise Up or Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Beyond Outrage

Beyond Outrage

By Robert Reich
$9.99

more items

 
Reports

Let Steele Speak

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 7, 2010

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

It’s easy to understand why Democrats want Michael Steele to stay in the news. The Republican National Committee chairman is a wonderful distraction, a constant source of gaffes, laughs, clarifications and denials.

But Steele recently scored a victory of sorts, even though you wouldn’t know it from the coverage: His comments on Afghanistan got Democrats to recite GOP talking points from the Bush era. Of course, those can be turned against anyone in either party who dares to question the direction of the war.

The most incendiary words came from the indefatigable Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee spokesman, who accused Steele of “betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan.”

Woodhouse added: “It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement.”

I have some empathy for Woodhouse, who must be weary of dealing with the other side’s demagoguery day after day. He probably couldn’t resist giving Republicans a taste of their own medicine. But this is dangerous stuff in a democracy and particularly perilous from a party that, less than two years ago, rightly insisted it could oppose the Bush administration’s foreign policy on thoroughly patriotic grounds.

Advertisement

And Woodhouse’s statement came shortly after 60 percent of House Democrats—153 in all—voted for an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and two of his colleagues that would have required President Barack Obama to present a plan by April for the “safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment” of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The amendment, which drew support from nine Republicans, would also have allowed for a vote in Congress to stop additional war funding if withdrawal does not start by next July, when the administration has said it would begin reducing forces in Afghanistan.

It’s thus not surprising that one person who took issue with Democrats who piled onto Steele was McGovern. “The reaction to Steele from some Democrats sounded like Dick Cheney,” he said in an interview. “Democrats need to understand that our base is increasingly uncomfortable with this war.”

Now the truth is that Steele’s statement on Afghanistan at a party fundraiser in Connecticut was something of a mess. Even McGovern said that “Steele was wrong” for asserting that “this was a war of Obama’s choosing.” After all, the war in Afghanistan began under President George W. Bush following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with overwhelming support from both parties. And the situation deteriorated badly on Bush’s watch.

Yet Steele’s point—that Obama had criticized the Iraq war “while saying the battle really should [be] in Afghanistan”—was accurate enough. Obama had a choice, and he chose to escalate. And in asserting that “the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan” and that “everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed,” Steele was simply making arguments that other critics of the Afghanistan war had offered already.

It’s fair enough to argue with Steele about all this, and it was honorable for Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the premier Republican hawks, to take issue with their party chair, given that Obama’s approach is largely to their liking.

Personally, I’m still hoping Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan will work. But it is maddening that Congress can appropriate $33 billion more for Afghanistan without anyone asking where the funds will come from even as self-styled deficit hawks insist on blocking money for the unemployed unless it is offset by budget cuts.

And McGovern is right that the most disturbing line in the Rolling Stone article that got Gen. Stanley McChrystal in trouble was this observation attributed to one of his senior advisers: “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.”

But the issue here is less about Afghanistan than about dissent in time of war. Even if Steele was just popping off, he had a right to offer his opinion without being accused of undermining our troops or “rooting for failure.”

Some of our greatest leaders, from Abraham Lincoln to Robert F. Kennedy, courageously stood up against wars in their day. Steele is no Lincoln and he is no Kennedy, but as an American, he enjoys the same rights they had. “It is not enough to allow dissent,” RFK said. “We must demand it.” If members of Kennedy’s party don’t remember this, who will?

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

The U.S. only has two viable political parties; therefore, Michael Steele needs to learn the difference between a Conservative, the Right, and a Liberal, the Left, by reading “The Conservative” by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
http://www.emersoncentral.com/conservative.htm

“There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact. It affirms because it holds. Its fingers clutch the fact, and it will not open its eyes to see a better fact. The castle, which conservatism is set to defend, is the actual state of things, good and bad. The project of innovation is the best possible state of things. Of course, conservatism always has the worst of the argument, is always apologizing, pleading a necessity, pleading that to change would be to deteriorate; it must saddle itself with the mountainous load of the violence and vice of society, must deny the possibility of good, deny ideas, and suspect and stone the prophet; whilst innovation is always in the right, triumphant, attacking, and sure of final success. Conservatism stands on man’s confessed limitations; reform on his indisputable infinitude; conservatism on circumstance; liberalism on power; one goes to make an adroit member of the social frame; the other to postpone all things to the man himself; conservatism is debonnair and social; reform is individual and imperious. We are reformers in spring and summer; in autumn and winter, we stand by the old; reformers in the morning, conservers at night. Reform is affirmative, conservatism negative; conservatism goes for comfort, reform for truth. Conservatism is more candid to behold another’s worth; reform more disposed to maintain and increase its own. Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory. Reform has no gratitude, no prudence, no husbandry. It makes a great difference to your figure and to your thought, whether your foot is advancing or receding. Conservatism never puts the foot forward; in the hour when it does that, it is not establishment, but reform. Conservatism tends to universal seeming and treachery, believes in a negative fate; believes that men’s temper governs them; that for me, it avails not to trust in principles; they will fail me; I must bend a little; it distrusts nature; it thinks there is a general law without a particular application, — law for all that does not include any one. Reform in its antagonism inclines to asinine resistance, to kick with hoofs; it runs to egotism and bloated self-conceit; it runs to a bodiless pretension, to unnatural refining and elevation, which ends in hypocrisy and sensual reaction.

And so whilst we do not go beyond general statements, it may be safely affirmed of these two metaphysical antagonists, that each is a good half, but an impossible whole. Each exposes the abuses of the other, but in a true society, in a true man, both must combine. Nature does not give the crown of its approbation, namely, beauty, to any action or emblem or actor, but to one which combines both these elements; not to the rock which resists the waves from age to age, nor to the wave which lashes incessantly the rock, but the superior beauty is with the oak which stands with its hundred arms against the storms of a century, and grows every year like a sapling; or the river which ever flowing, yet is found in the same bed from age to age; or, greatest of all, the man who has subsisted for years amid the changes of nature, yet has distanced himself, so that when you remember what he was, and see what he is, you say, what strides! what a disparity is here!

In nature, each of these elements being always present, each theory has a natural support. As we take our stand on Necessity, or on Ethics, shall we go for the conservative, or for the reformer.”

Report this

By Naz, July 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The purpose of these wars is to add to the deficit. Once the deficit is large enough, like now, then the wealthy can widen the gap between themselves and the middle and lower classes. Only a blind fool would fail to notice that the wealthy are using the politicians to transfer wealth to themselves from all the rest of the world. Fact: the richest 10% hold 85% of total global assets and the bottom half of humanity owns less than 1% of the wealth in the world. The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries. And remember, we’ll be voting on electric machines that could make Glen effing Beck president and there would be no paper trail, no recourse.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, July 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

Let Steele speak and perhaps we can find out why it is that the Republican Party brings the populace into the Republican Party Tent, as the Tea Party Movement against the best interest of the American Populace, and why the Democratic Party threw the American Populace out of the Democratic Party Tent as the Howard Dean Democracy For America Movement.

The American Populace is the political voting strength of BOTH the Political Right and the Political Left.

If the Democratic Party will not lead the American Populace in its best interest, the Republican Party will lead the American Populace against its best interest.

It is in the best interest of the 20% minority population of the Professional Middle Class of the Democratic Party to ally itself with and represent the best interest of Governor Howard Dean and have Governor Dean once more lead the Democracy For America Movement in representation of the American Populace under Governor Dean’s Democratic Party leadership; in this way both the Democratic Party and the American Populace can be politically represented and the Democratic Party can continue to play a role.

Otherwise, the upcoming Primary Elections, the Congressional Elections, and the 2012 General Election will leave the Democratic Party out of office, a minority party without a sufficient constituent base to elect dog catchers, let alone higher office.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Steele had a liberal moment for which the Conservative Republican Party will more than likely get rid of him for his lack of understanding that the Republican Party is totally Conservative.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 8, 2010 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

The PTB will shut down Steele at the source….media.

Much like they did Ron Paul when he was running for President.

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, July 8, 2010 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

“But it is maddening that Congress can appropriate $33 billion more for Afghanistan without anyone asking where the funds will come from even as self-styled deficit hawks insist on blocking money for the unemployed unless it is offset by budget cuts.”

$33 b for Afghan “pacification”, $2 b for solar power. Sound about right? And just wait until they come for your Social Security.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/forever-war/

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, July 8, 2010 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

“Democrats need to understand that our base is increasingly uncomfortable with this war.”

Yes, and the more the “base” learns, the more “uncomfortable” they will get.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, July 8, 2010 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

“‘It is not enough to allow dissent,’ RFK said. ‘We must demand it.’ If members of Kennedy’s party don’t remember this, who will?”

Remember this, Mr. Dionne?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/few-men-are-willing/

Report this

By dihey, July 8, 2010 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

Everyone who pays Federal taxes “supports the troops”.

Report this

By FRTothus, July 8, 2010 at 4:31 am Link to this comment

“The point of public relations slogans like “Support
our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s
the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create
a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and
everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it
means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial
value is that it diverts your attention from a question
that does mean something: Do you support our policy?
That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about.”
(Noam Chomsky)

Report this

By Hammond Eggs, July 7, 2010 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

The most incendiary words came from the indefatigable Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee spokesman, who accused Steele of “betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan.”

Dear Democrat Asswipe:

The conflict in Afghanistan was lost a long time ago.  You don’t have to root for failure.  It’s already happened.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.