Haiku Politics

Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch put it very well this weekend as he summarized how the Democrats continue to show how contemptible they are in their inability to embrace the antiwar movement:

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' leader in the House abruptly retreated from a scheduled pres conference to express support for Murtha. Scenting weakness, the Republicans put up a resolution calling for withdrawal now. Democratic panic escalated into pell mell retreat, shouting back over their shoulders that they weren't going to fall for such a dirty Republican trick. Why not? What better chance will they get to go on record against the war? In the end just three Democrats (Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida voted for immediate withdrawal and six voted "present"). McKinney put it starkly:

"I will not vote to give one more soldier to the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney war machine. A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make here tonight. But the facts of US occupation of Iraq are also very clear."

They may be clear to McKinney, and Murtha and 60 per cent of the American people, but not to the three Democratic Senators interested in the presidential nomination in 2008. Even after Murtha's lead Russell Feingold continued to mumble about the "target date" for withdrawal being 2006, as does Kerry. For her part Hillary Clinton announced at the start of Thanksgiving week that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake" which "would cause more problems for us in America. It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state"

The most important lesson that we can take from this is that the Democrats and the antiwar movement have nothing to do with one another. This is an important lesson to consider as we read today about a man named Steven Greenfield, who has left the Green Party in New York and joined the Democrats so that he can challenge Hillary Clinton in the primaries next year. His intention is to run an antiwar campaign; he was quoted as saying of Clinton that "she's in favor of the war and in favor of continuing the occupation". While his criticisms of Clinton are true, his strategy of abandoning a third party movement precisely at a time when the Democrats are so vulnerable shows that Greenfield is more interested in opportunism than in building the third party that he had supposedly been committed to.

This kind of opportunism unfortunately does crop up among some participants in third party movements who seek public office. It shows the seductive power of the duopoly, but it is a failed strategy. The antiwar movement must not delude itself by allying itself with a party that has repeatedly shown its disinterest in our cause.

Posted by The Haikuist on Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 2:06 PM | Permalink