Do the Democrats want America to win?
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week. "
...Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader last Thursday.
Why are Democrats so eager to claim defeat?
Well that is the way, democracies work. Votrepreneurers (politicians) on both left and right must always portray their opponents as failures. Since this war was started by a Republican President at a time when both Houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans, a defeat of Bush's war aims would be a political victory for them.
It does not matter one whit to them if their country loses. In fact, if America loses Reid wins. Of course, by claiming defeat for their political opponent, Bush and their own country, they are also taking a risk. What if Bush (and America) wins?
Then it would look bad for the Democrats. That is why perception is so important. It does matter if Bush got rid of a potential threat, Saddam Hussein, who has been oppressing his people. It does not matter if violence is declining since the surge in troops. As long as there is a bomb blast somewhere, the Democrats will happily claim defeat. An American defeat is bad for America but they don't care.
If they succeed in getting a premature American withdrawal, Iraq will end up in Civil War. Eventually, some thug will emerge on top of the heap and he is likely supported by Iran who will then impose an Islamic state in Iraq - just like an American withdrawal from Vietnam led to a Communist state in Vietnam. That can't be good for America nor the rest of the world. Remember, this is a war between two ideologies - democracy and Islamism. America champions the first and thugs like Osama bin Laden and Ahmedinijad champrions the latter.
But Reid's main priority is to make Bush look bad and not winning the war. Remember, what votrepreneurers are most concerned about is what is good for themselves and that means winning elections. What is good for them may not be good for the country.
Watch them play with words and move the goal posts. See how they will define defeat or victory. Both Republicans and Democrats will quarrel on where to put the goal posts. But you can't blame votrepreneurers. Its just the way the system works.
That is why I think democracy, though the best system of government, needs reformation. There must be a way of aligning the politicians' personal interests with that of the country they claim to serve.
posted by Ohmyrus @ 4:58 AM
4 Comments:
Hello ... The party struggle you're talking about seems particularly damaging in the foreign affairs area; with regard to domestic policy, it is probably tolerable, maybe productive if it is kept within reasonable bounds.
What would be the implications, one wonders, of electing a president by (say) a two-thirds supermajority of electoral college members, instead of a simple majority? Then the parties would most of the time have to agree on some compromise, nonpartisan president, rather than install their own nominee... (Apparently George Washington attempted to serve as such a nonpartisan head of state.)
I think a simple reform would be to impose term limits on all elected offices - House of Reps, Senate and the President but lengthen the term of office.
This way, they should be using their time and effort on promoting the interests of the country instead of their own.
I can see that possibly being useful at the Presidential level for example. But more generally, would those who had served out their single term be eligible for higher office? If so, you have not done away with careerist motivations. And you may still have party (as opposed to national) loyalties among representatives, since support from one's party is likely to be necessary to move to higher office. On the other hand if representatives are not eligible to seek higher office after their term is up, where do you get high-level (e.g. national as opposed to local) representatives with political experience? Don't you have to fill up all the higher offices with amateurs? There then seems little point in having an upper chamber, if it as equally "popular" in character as the lower one.
--Mr. Spog, Canada
YOu have a good point there. That is why in my article, 'Democracy needs a Reformation', I suggested a four year term for House Representatives (who can be re-elected), lifetime term for Senators and 8 year term for the President.
The idea is that the Lower House will fight for the current needs of the voters. The Senators will look more at the long term interests of the country and the President with a fix term of 8 years will hold the balance between the two.
This will strike a better balance between current voters and future voters that are too young to vote or even not yet born. How many times have we heard economists complaining that the present voters are saddling their children with debt so that they can enjoy a profligate lifestyle? That is the source of high budget deficits.
Not only are votreprenuers distributing wealth from high to low income groups but from future to present generation. Of course the future generation cannot vote. A long term tenure for Senators will fix this problem and they will effectively represent them - the unborn voters and our kids.
Post a Comment
<< Home