Bipartisan Cynicism

For those who have been following the sparring between President Bush and Democrats in Congress over funding for the war in Iraq, you may have noticed that the debate is fast losing any connection to reality. It should appear somewhat odd that, despite overwhelming support (over 70 percent in many polls) among Americans for "compelled withdrawal" from Iraq -- meaning legislation that mandates an end to the war and the return home of the troops -- it appears Democrats totally lack the political capital to carry out the will of the people.

While such disparity between popular opinion and politicians' voting is not that uncommon, the reasons why so many legislators were opposed to the recent bill proposed by Democrats (which would cut funding for the war, forcing Bush to start pulling out troops) are certainly odd. The first and most important reason that most Republicans and many Democrats opposed the bill was because of the persistent myth that cutting funding would leave the troops without necessary supplies, or otherwise endanger them. As has been noted in other articles, this claim is unquestionably false and has no place dominating the discourse as it has.

Granted, one could reasonably think that cutting funding would of course result in shortages that could effect the troops, but only by neglecting to actually look into the way the war is funded. In reality, even if Congress passed a bill that immediately ceased funding the war, the Pentagon would still have enough money queued up to operate rather smoothly -- with only minimal budget trimming on non-essential programs -- for a number of months. Furthermore, if funds were cut by Congress, officials in the Department of Defense would presumably be wise enough to promptly begin the process of withdrawal. Of course moving so many soldiers home from a country on the other side of the world would call for extensive planning and preparation. This is why the fund-cutting bill proposed in Congress did not immediately cease funding, but rather gave ample time to prepare and execute an orderly withdrawal.

If America's political elites voted in accordance with the opinions of the American people, there would be little or no difficulty acquiring the 2/3 majority necessary to override Bush's veto of any bill that calls for withdrawal. The way things stand now, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cannot even secure the votes of all their fellow Democrats. Thus we see that the problem is more than one of insufficient political capital -- there are obviously a fair number of Democrats who see the continuation of the war as in their interests.

The most logical reason the same Democrats who have mercilessly criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq would still support its continuation is simple politics. As long as the war in Iraq continues, Democrats can exploit the ongoing Republican failure to their advantage. After winning majorities in both the House and the Senate due mostly to concern over the war, many Democrats are committed to keeping Iraq alive as an issue, at least until the 2008 presidential election.

Coming from those who daily decry the unnecessary bloodshed and inevitability of failure in Iraq, this might all seem sickeningly cynical. That would be because it is. While one can fairly look with contempt on those who attempt such a cheap, unprincipled political trick, in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that these Democrats are not the only cynical ones in Washington.

The Bush administration has earned a reputation for exploiting every conceivable threat of terrorism -- whether substantial enough to merit concern or not -- for political benefits and as justification for a practically endless expansion of presidential power. Just as disturbing, Bush has tried to use these fears as justification for numerous secret programs of quite dubious legality. Without a doubt, using fabricated fears to undercut the most fundamental limitations on government power and gain politically is just as contemptible as supporting a war for political gain.

The fact that many Americans actually view these new near-authoritarian powers and probably-unconstitutional programs as legitimate counter-terrorist measures is a testament to the effectiveness this whole scheme. By rhetorically inflating the serious-but-limited problem of terrorism into a monstrous threat to the American way of life, amazingly enough Bush has managed to convince a large number of Americans that they must sacrifice their most basic freedoms in order to preserve, well, their freedom.

Thus we have two immoral and complementary ploys by elements in both major parties -- schemes that are both deeply cynical and profoundly harmful. Democrats are getting away with two-faced support of war-as-political-booster. At the same time, the Bush administration's betrayal of basic American principles -- in the name of preserving the American way of life -- is chipping away at our most precious freedoms. When confronted with these inexcusable actions, politicians flatly deny the obvious, while their apologists in the media point the finger at their opponents saying "Look at them! They're worse than us!", as if two egregious wrongs make a right.