Here’s to wishing the Democratic opposition to Iraq took a page from Lindsey Graham’s playbook.
–
Loyal opposition – a minority party esp. in a legislative body whose opposition to the party in power is constructive, responsible, and bounded by loyalty to fundamental interests and principles (source: m-w.com)
One of my earliest politically-related memories is being 14 and arguing with my aunt, a staunch neocon (now Tea Partier) about the War in Iraq. I was by no means involved in politics, and just ate up what I heard on the news and spit it back out as an argument, but as the presidential election got closer, and we got farther away from “Mission Accomplished” while still being treated to news reports of more American deaths in a war we should have never involved ourselves in, the point of the “war” was completely lost on me. At some point during the argument, she said something along the lines of, “I support my president. We’re in a time of war.”
At the point of the 2004 election, no Democrats were on board with pulling out of the failed occupation of Iraq; however, even the idea that we shouldn’t switch the country’s leadership in the middle of the war was enough to push Bush over the top to win re-election. Ten years later, it’s hard to believe that the same party that made the “I stand with the president/troops” argument ten years ago is now openly criticizing Barack Obama’s foreign policy and praising the president of Russia, which is now, with the actions taken in Crimea, our main geopolitical rival.
For over two centuries, the way of “doing things” within the federal government is to let the President set the tone for foreign policy, and if engagement in some kind of conflict becomes too costly (in terms of lives or money), to cut the cord only when it’s clear that it’s a lost cause, such as in Vietnam. But with this conflict in Crimea, we are seeing a completely new argument being made by Republicans such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
“Well number one, stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators,” Graham began. “It is not your strong suit. Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin — or anyone like Putin — everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.” – Sen. Graham on State of the Union (via the Daily Caller)
I can only say this: if a Democratic senator in 2004 ever made the argument that Bush was a “weak and indecisive president” while we were in the middle of a foreign conflict, that Senator would have been censured. Graham? He’s being primaried for not being conservative enough.
It’s extremely healthy for a democracy for the opposition party (hopefully parties, at some point in our lifetime) and the ruling party to pound away at each other over foreign policy decisions, and although I don’t agree that Obama is “weak and indecisive”, that’s absolutely Graham’s right to say as much.
This is what stops wars. That’s how we averted nuclear disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the weakness of the Democratic opposition is why we weren’t able to stop the war in Iraq. So we should take a second to appreciate the fact that the two parties are actually debating foreign policy for once (even if I don’t want to invade Russia tomorrow like the Senate Hawk Caucus is wont to do) before we force our way into yet another war we can’t afford. But when the script is flipped the next time around, and Republicans are in power, it’s my sincere hope that we remember that ‘loyal opposition’ doesn’t mean you have to capitulate and cosign to destructive foreign policy for fear of being labeled a traitor.
Photo – Flickr/johnorrel