Op Ed Dem.s will be split on governing more than nominating

CosmicRocker · 02-13-2008, 10:36 AM

When Reality Bites

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 12, 2008
There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t.
There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.

But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.

The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months.
But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos.
There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year.
A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents.
They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results.
They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways.
A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review.
They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar.
They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign!
All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision.

Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs.
These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year.
But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009.
The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.

It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs.
Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.

This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time.
It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsidies to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending.
No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health.

It would be another brutal choice.

As William J. Stuntz of Harvard Law School wrote in The Weekly Standard, the Democrats have conducted their race amid unconstrained “Yes We Can!” unreality.
Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009. My guess? The centrists would win.

Curator · 02-13-2008, 11:17 AM

This is to assume that success in Iraq is actual progress, or just a lull in violence. There is a growing divisions among pro-US Sunni tribal chiefs that threatens to unravel any "success" that Bu$hCo trumpets.

At least 147 members of the Sahwa (Awakening) Movement in Anbar have been killed in attacks since October. Sahwa founders, Sheikh Ali al-Hatem, escaped Monday what he said was the sixth attempt on his life. The movement's driving force, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was killed in September.

The Awakening Council / Concerned Local Citizens / Sons of Iraq , or whatever the fuck they now call themselves are splintering into factions.

The fact that fewer people are dying now does not change the reality that this is a dysfunctional state that is going nowhere, all the while we lose 30-45 troops a month.

CosmicRocker · 02-13-2008, 11:26 AM

^ good points. but the decisions will fracture the party.

The_Heretic · 02-13-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

^ good points. but the decisions will fracture the party.

The only fracturing of the party would come with a Hillary nomination. A few of the D.I.N.O.'s, who've already rendered themselves irrelevant, won't be enough to stop Obama from uniting the party and the rest of the country.

CosmicRocker · 02-13-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Heretic

The only fracturing of the party would come with a Hillary nomination. A few of the D.I.N.O.'s, who've already rendered themselves irrelevant, won't be enough to stop Obama from uniting the party and the rest of the country.

did you not read the article?

It's about governing as President - which will toss all that unity aside as an old campaign slogan.

There are deep rifts in what to do in Iraq.
Despite both candidates saying " get out now " / as a President you have to decide whether all the sacrifices were just a waste of time and effort, with nothing at all coming out of it - or whether and how to try to prop up the Iraqi's further, building on the limited sucess of the Surge.

Before you all scream "get out it's a disaster" - there is a case to be made for phased withdrawls, and a real benchmark/timeline
I'm not making a case either way - only that a case for each option will be made.
And it will split the party.

TrueBlueAmerican · 02-13-2008, 06:24 PM

Obama will do what is right with regards to Iraq, and he will bring our troops home. And when he does, the base will stand fucking tall against the "centrists" and right wingers.

If the "centrists" in the democratic party start undermining his administration after he does, then there should be a concerted effort to "lose some dead weight" in the next congressional election. The democratic party will not be held hostage by a minority group within itself.

CosmicRocker · 02-13-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueBlueAmerican

Obama will do what is right with regards to Iraq, and he will bring our troops home. And when he does, the base will stand fucking tall against the "centrists" and right wingers.

If the "centrists" in the democratic party start undermining his administration after he does, then there should be a concerted effort to "lose some dead weight" in the next congressional election.

that's a receipe for a war between the liberal base, and the moderate/right Dem's.
You never want to ditch the center of ur party

It's not a particular criticism of Obama - if Clinton should win the same fractures would appear.

The_Heretic · 02-13-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

did you not read the article?

It's about governing as President - which will toss all that unity aside as an old campaign slogan.

Except with Obama I expect he will be able to givern through unity. He does what I've long suggested congressional D.I.N.O.'s do, which is to reach across the isle instead of ensuring that only their own party votes for or against a measure. Hillary has no capacity to create a real coalition for the best needs of the country. Instead she swings to republican side on the most extreme measures [i.e. Kyle/Lieberman Amendment, Iraq war resolution, predatory creditors] when and if she thinks it suits her. She forgot Biden's advice, "Some things are worth losing elections for."

Quote:

There are deep rifts in what to do in Iraq.

Right, there's REAL Democrats who want us out and there are enablers to the right wing's agenda. I expect the 2008 and 2010 elections to diminish the latter.

Quote:

Despite both candidates saying " get out now " / as a President you have to decide whether all the sacrifices were just a waste of time and effort, with nothing at all coming out of it - or whether and how to try to prop up the Iraqi's further, building on the limited sucess of the Surge.

Before you all scream "get out it's a disaster" - there is a case to be made for phased withdrawls, and a real benchmark/timeline
I'm not making a case either way - only that a case for each option will be made.
And it will split the party.

Biden's plan already past in the senate with 75 votes and is ready for implimentation were there a real president to do so. So whatever "rift" anyone says is growing has long since been resolved.

Moving on...

CosmicRocker · 02-13-2008, 06:38 PM

LOL . "real Democrats" that kinna thinking will ensure a split.
Hopefully Obama/Hillary will do what's best for US interests - not " real Dem's"

and either will face a tough choice. By the likes of these 2 comments, if they choose phased withdrawls ( Biden's plan is dead -face it). the Party is gonna go into fracture.

TrueBlueAmerican · 02-13-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

that's a receipe for a war between the liberal base, and the moderate/right Dem's.
You never want to ditch the center of ur party

A war that the majority of liberals that comprise the base of the party would win.

Centrists are replaceable and expendable. The base is not.

Centrists are like fair weather friends. They come and go with the wind.

But the base. Once you lose a member of the base, you lose that member forever. Like the right wing says "theres nothing better than a reformed lefty"

02-13-2008, 10:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,336 My Mood: Thanks: 106 Thanked 79 Times in 62 Posts	Dem.s will be split on governing more than nominating When Reality Bites By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 12, 2008 There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left. But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance. The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency. There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal. There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining. There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation. All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head. Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term. The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now! The president would have to make a terrible decision. Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous. It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center. This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsidies to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health. It would be another brutal choice. As William J. Stuntz of Harvard Law School wrote in The Weekly Standard, the Democrats have conducted their race amid unconstrained “Yes We Can!” unreality. Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009. My guess? The centrists would win. __________________ time to dump all that self doubt, hate, distrust, envy, paranoia, and overdue library books. tune in today. ponder tomorrow. Forget yesterday. the river doesn't run in reverse Last edited by CosmicRocker; 02-13-2008 at 10:38 AM.
	Top

02-13-2008, 11:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Curator Setting my hair on fire. Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 617 My Mood: Thanks: 14 Thanked 138 Times in 80 Posts	This is to assume that success in Iraq is actual progress, or just a lull in violence. There is a growing divisions among pro-US Sunni tribal chiefs that threatens to unravel any "success" that Bu$hCo trumpets. At least 147 members of the Sahwa (Awakening) Movement in Anbar have been killed in attacks since October. Sahwa founders, Sheikh Ali al-Hatem, escaped Monday what he said was the sixth attempt on his life. The movement's driving force, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was killed in September. The Awakening Council / Concerned Local Citizens / Sons of Iraq , or whatever the fuck they now call themselves are splintering into factions. The fact that fewer people are dying now does not change the reality that this is a dysfunctional state that is going nowhere, all the while we lose 30-45 troops a month. __________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." -Barack Obama, October 2002
	Top

02-13-2008, 11:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,336 My Mood: Thanks: 106 Thanked 79 Times in 62 Posts	^ good points. but the decisions will fracture the party. __________________ time to dump all that self doubt, hate, distrust, envy, paranoia, and overdue library books. tune in today. ponder tomorrow. Forget yesterday. the river doesn't run in reverse
	Top

02-13-2008, 06:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
TrueBlueAmerican Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,124 Thanks: 25 Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts	Obama will do what is right with regards to Iraq, and he will bring our troops home. And when he does, the base will stand fucking tall against the "centrists" and right wingers. If the "centrists" in the democratic party start undermining his administration after he does, then there should be a concerted effort to "lose some dead weight" in the next congressional election. The democratic party will not be held hostage by a minority group within itself. Last edited by TrueBlueAmerican; 02-13-2008 at 06:28 PM.
	Top

02-13-2008, 06:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,336 My Mood: Thanks: 106 Thanked 79 Times in 62 Posts	LOL . "real Democrats" that kinna thinking will ensure a split. Hopefully Obama/Hillary will do what's best for US interests - not " real Dem's" and either will face a tough choice. By the likes of these 2 comments, if they choose phased withdrawls ( Biden's plan is dead -face it). the Party is gonna go into fracture. __________________ time to dump all that self doubt, hate, distrust, envy, paranoia, and overdue library books. tune in today. ponder tomorrow. Forget yesterday. the river doesn't run in reverse
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode