I listened to a bit of an interview Bill Press held with Cindy Sheehan this morning. I was always impressed with Sheehan's earnest, moral fervor. Almost single-handedly, she changed the nature of our public debate about Iraq. For her troubles she was slandered, demeaned, her character and person were attacked, and members of her family were quoted to the effect that she was unbalanced, unstable, and did not represent their views on the war, or the loss of her son, Casey. Standard Operating Procedure for the Republicans - attack-attack-attack.
She was in DC today as part of a walking tour she is doing, to end in New York City. Her plans for today included a march from Arlington National Cemetery to the Rayburn Building and a meeting with Rep. John Conyers. Her hope was to push for Conyers to introduce impeachment resolutions in the House. She also reiterated her consideration of a run against Nancy Pelosi, and her disdain for the Democratic leadership in the House. While I think she is correct on a number of matters, I also found her strident, naive, and representing a certain self-righteousness I feel we need to be rid of.
On impeachment, she dismissed the arguments against pursuing such action by stating that (a) the House only needs a majority to pass impeachment resolutions, and if the caucus sticks together, they have the votes; (b) the issue of impeachment should be non-partisan, and Republicans should vote for it as well; (c) the failure of the House leadership to "keep it on the table" (I'm almost as sick of that phrase as I am of "cut and run") is a failure to do their Constitutional duty.
As a practical matter, she is correct about (a). As a political matter, however, there is a relationship between (a) and (b) that would create the impression (or at least allow Republicans to create the impression) of partisan payback for the impeachment and trial of Pres. Clinton By the way, one reason I believe the Beltway Boys and Girls are not pushing the issue of impeachment is directly related to this issue. They know they were burned for their pumping of impeachment. They do not wish to be burned again, not so much by the American people as by those insiders who provide them with information.
While there is much truth to (b), it is naive in the extreme to think that Republicans will somehow shed their partisan ways once enough evidence is presented forcing impeachment. They didn't do it for Nixon. They won't do it for Bush, no matter how unpopular he is, and no matter how prima facie the case might be. Anyone who thinks that the Republicans will simply toss politics aside for whatever reason is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
As for (c), I think that we are again entering into naive-land. It is one thing to support impeachment of the President (I do). It is another thing to say that those who either aren't acting to make it so or are not supporting it are guilty of bad faith, weakness of principle, or failure to live up to certain obligations. She urges that all listeners should contact their representatives and push for adoption of impeachment articles against the President and VP. I for one refuse to do so, because my representative, Don Manzullo, is a low-level Republican back-bencher, of such little importance that even when the Republicans had a majority, and the Speaker of the House was from a neighboring district, all Manzullo got was the chair of an inconsequential subcommittee. Besides that, Manzullo has shown himself to be an partisan hack. I have no desire to waste my time trying to change something that doesn't exist - his mind. For Sheehan, this may smack of cowardice. For me, it is a way for me to do what I can in my own way.
Which leads me to a final thought. I think that Sheehan has shown remarkable courage, and a strength of will I know I do not have. On the other hand, I think that she has read a few too many of her press clippings. Earnest chest-thumping and moral grandstanding, especially the kind that reveals an ignorance of political realities (no matter how distasteful), may serve one well as a symbol of outrage against an administration hell-bent on destroying the US. They do not serve well as the jumping-off point for a discussion of the politics of impeachment or ending the war in Iraq. I agree with her diagnosis of the problem. Her solution is untenable. There are other ways of gaming the system besides calling people names and insisting that our leaders are moral cowards for not following her advice.
UPDATE: Fire Dog Lake reports that Cindy Sheehan and others were arrested for a sit-in at Rep. Conyers' office. Sheehan came out of an eighty-minute meeting with Conyers saying that the Rep. had said "the only recourse is elections" and proceeded to lead a sit-in. Conyers, on the other hand, refused to comment on the meeting. Who are we to believe?
6 comments:
"strident, naive, and... self-righteousness"
I couldnt agree more. I felt that she, ironically, needed to take a page out of GW's book and stay on topic. I've felt that she needed to only be more team mom for "get out of Iraq". There to comfort other families and pass out orange slices. I was never sure what she was doing with Chavez or even complaining about impeachment.
This is another example of leftists sacrificing the good on the altar of the perfect. By refusing to recognize certain political realities as realities, or at least as realities worthy of serious concern, they forget that these realities determine the limits of action. It is one thing to support the impeachment of the President and VP. It is another thing to insist that any who do not demand the action immediately are not whole-heartedly behind it. It is a further thing to insist that those in a position to so act, by refusing to do so, are not acting in the best interests of the people, are failing in their obligations, and are no better than the Republicans whom they have replaced. Sheehan herself said as much during the interview this morning, pointing out Congressional funding of the surge.
We are, once again, in the territory of nonsensical "Republicrat" rhetoric. Righteous indignation is expected in the face of the multiple outrages of the Bush Administration. Acting out of that outrage, with no cognizance of political realities, or the importance of using the system as a check precisely because of the Executive Branch disdain for the system, is a recipe for failure. Were this a perfect world, or even a pretty good one, Bush wouldn't even be President. It is far better to act from our strengths, not from a sense of one's own righteous embrace of truth and justice.
Yeah, but if she actually runs against Pelosi, I will be adding a receipt from her campaign to the one I have from the Georgia Democratic Party for contributing to the sacrificial lamb they ran against Gingrich in the year of the Contract on America.
And I totally cop to part of it being political revenge over the impeachment of Bubba.
Without getting into Sheehan's motives or personal style, I would point out that each and every member of the U.S. Congress took an oath (swore to God) that they would "support and defend the Constitution". We clearly have a regime in the Executive Branch that is asserting powers far outside their Constitutional mandate - exactly the kind of assertion of executive power that the Founders warned against, and exactly why they put impeachment in the Constitution.
The oath does not say they should only defend the Constitution when it's politically expedient, when they think they have a chance of convicting the President in the Senate, or when the President is in the opposite party. The Constitution and the form of government it created are the only guarantors of our freedom. We cannot allow it to be usurped by this President or any President. What Rep. Manzullo, and the other Republicans fail to recognize is that the excessive power now resident in the Executive Branch will continue to be there under President Obama or President Clinton. Power is intoxicating and it is highly unlikely that any future President will voluntarily give up the powers asserted by Bush and Cheney.
I recognize the "political reality" that the Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to convict their fellow party members, but I think you are underestimating the force of the revelations of criminal behavior that are obviously at the root of this administration.
No, Democrats are not the same as Republicans. But neither are they anywhere near the political stance necessary to save this Republic and lead us into this crucial century.
"leftists"
Can I just say I hate.. hate.. hate.. this term.
DL's response was predictable. There is much to commend it. There is also much with which I agree. On the other hand, to downplay political realities because they are disagreeable, or restrict what is most definitely the correct thing to do ignores treats them as unreal. They are very real.
If elections mean anything, and if they are to continue to mean anything, the Republicans are, even against their own better judgment, hitching their horse to the broken down get away car of the Bush Administration. This is something the Dems, were they intelligent, could and should exploit.
Post a Comment