Too Inside The Beltway

A piece by Dan Gerstein at The Politico is precisely why I wince every time another new blog by mostly old political hands opens up. The piece is myopic, at best.

Who bears blame for anti-war failures?

In Gerstein's view, it's either the anti-war Nutroots, or the Democrats in Congress. Neo-neocon has a view that somewhat approaches my own. What Gerstein fails to take into account is both an organized front in support of the war and the fact that, while the Left claims an anti-war mandate, I don't believe it exists. Most likely, moderate Dems and Republicans alike found that out while traveling around their states and districts during the recess. Consequently the votes to cut off funding are simply not there.

Gerstein’s article demonstrates how the Democratic Party has recently been an excellent example of political short-sightedness. Gerstein himself shows the sort of narrow thinking characteristic of political strategists in general: they often can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s the sort of attitude that sunk the supposed mandate that Newt Gingrich and company thought they had back in the mid-90s, a kind of puffed-up hubris-by-election that tends to short-circuit whatever lingering common sense those in politics might retain.

The anti-war protests we've seen haven't come close to approaching what we saw during Vietnam. Sure, people aren't happy with the war. But they aren't exactly jumping out of their seats to end it while there's still a good chance of winning, either. That's partly why the Democrats were so intent on trying to bring back the Draft awhile ago.

All the little college kids they wish were out demonstrating against the war are back on campus, studying and having too much fun in their off time to care. And adults, of which there is a real shortage on the Left, can understand this is a complex situation and are content to defer to the Generals and the Commander in Chief.

The anti-war Left has always taken itself too seriously. And as a strategist, Gerstein makes the same mistake.

It's called an echo chamber and, like most such chambers, when all is said and done, it's still hollow inside - and I imagine a bit lonely, as well.

Comments

[docweasel]

Here's the 'anti-war' explanation in a nutshell: the extreme left detests George W. Bush and the Republican party. Prosecuting a war is a huge example of the power wielded by the President. The loony left is absolutely enraged that the president is successfully using our military in an aggressive fashion: never mind that they disagree with the threat posted by Islamofascists or whether or not Saddam was a threat to the US (Alan Greenspan this week explained at length that Saddam WAS, and why he needed to be taken out, to avoid catastrophe of the world economy). The left is ENRAGED by the aggressive military moves Bush has made. The context, or greater ramifications of democratizing the Middle East doesn't even enter into it. Their entire reason for existing is to thwart any move by Prez Bush, be it privatization of Social Security or naming an Att. Gen. or commanding the US military.

The hard left detests the fact GWB was elected, re-elected, has so much power and chooses to wield it. They seek to curtail his power. That's the entire anti-war sitch explained in one sentence. And I completely believe it to be true.

Anti-war ferver is driven by BDS, plain and simple.