The GOP's Straw Man Resolution
This afternoon, when I first read the text of the resolution that House Republicans planned to submit for a vote--apparently in an effort to "call the Democrats' bluff"--my reaction was almost identical to Andrew Sullivan's. Sullivan writes:
I've commented before about the Republican obsession with straw man arguments, but I never thought I'd see them put forth a straw man resolution. How cowardly and juvenile. And the truly ironic thing here is that their pathological inability to fairly characterize the position of an opponent actually ruined what would otherwise have been a fairly effective strategic move. If the House leadership had forced a vote on Murtha's actual proposal, it might well have fractured the Democratic coalition. Murtha would have been forced to vote for it, and many Democrats would have joined him. Many other Democrats, however--including the Democratic leadership--likely would have joined the GOP in voting against the resolution. This would have marginalized Murtha and provided exactly the sort of political cover that Republicans were looking for.
But the GOP leadership just couldn't help themselves; they couldn't bring themselves to honestly characterize the position of an opponent, even when it was in their own best interest. So instead they drafted a resolution that was a crude caricature of Murtha's actual proposal, a resolution that insulted the intelligence of everyone in America and made a mockery of what should have been a serious debate. And as a result, the resolution utterly failed to accomplish its purpose. Rather than dividing the Democrats, it unified and energized them. In their infinite wisdom, the GOP leadership somehow failed to anticipate that Democrats like Murtha might not vote for a resolution that totally mischaracterized their position. It's as if they've become so accustomed to distorting the positions of their opponents that they've lost the ability to even understand what those positions are. How truly pathetic.
WHY NOT THE MURTHA PROPOSAL? Here's
what strikes me as the salient question right
now. Why won't the Republicans force a vote on
the Murtha proposal - a phased withdrawal over
six months - rather than "immediate" withdrawal?
If the GOP wants to demonstrate a backbone on
the war, let them force that vote. I'd passionately
vote it down, if I were a Congressman. But the
GOP's proposal is again not a sign of strength.
It's a straw-man: as cheap and tawdry as the
current GOP leadership.
I've commented before about the Republican obsession with straw man arguments, but I never thought I'd see them put forth a straw man resolution. How cowardly and juvenile. And the truly ironic thing here is that their pathological inability to fairly characterize the position of an opponent actually ruined what would otherwise have been a fairly effective strategic move. If the House leadership had forced a vote on Murtha's actual proposal, it might well have fractured the Democratic coalition. Murtha would have been forced to vote for it, and many Democrats would have joined him. Many other Democrats, however--including the Democratic leadership--likely would have joined the GOP in voting against the resolution. This would have marginalized Murtha and provided exactly the sort of political cover that Republicans were looking for.
But the GOP leadership just couldn't help themselves; they couldn't bring themselves to honestly characterize the position of an opponent, even when it was in their own best interest. So instead they drafted a resolution that was a crude caricature of Murtha's actual proposal, a resolution that insulted the intelligence of everyone in America and made a mockery of what should have been a serious debate. And as a result, the resolution utterly failed to accomplish its purpose. Rather than dividing the Democrats, it unified and energized them. In their infinite wisdom, the GOP leadership somehow failed to anticipate that Democrats like Murtha might not vote for a resolution that totally mischaracterized their position. It's as if they've become so accustomed to distorting the positions of their opponents that they've lost the ability to even understand what those positions are. How truly pathetic.
posted by A.L. at 12:41 AM
5 Comments:
I hope that Murtha's suggestion is extended from 6 months to a reasonable peiod like 2 years or may be even 3.
If the Democrats table this resolution in the House, it would be pretty reasonable - this time the GOP would have to vote on this one way or the other - either they want the troops to stay longer than that or they think that 3 more years is reasonable for starting a pullout. The point here is to make them explicitly come out and say what they feel is the time beyond which having the troops at war becomes unconscionable even to them!
I personally feel that how ever much it sucks, the troops have to be there till the Iraqis are good enough to fend for themselves - God only knows how long this is going to take.
Why don't liberals - anonymous or otherwise - critize Murtha for his insistence that as a former soldier, he has a greater right to comment on matters military, than a draft-dodger like Cheney - as I saw him say yesterday on CNN. When Republicans went after Clinton on this issue - Democrats were quick to defend their president and justifiably call the GOPers out on what is essentially a fascist argment. Why don't they show some intellectual and moral consistency and do the same with Murtha. There are good arguments to be made on both sides for staying the course or abandoning Iraq. One doesn't need to be a veteran to make those arguments.
You make a fair point, and, for the most part, I agree with you. I think the "chicken hawk" argument is pretty weak. If you scan through my posts you'll find that I've never invoked that particular argument or talking point (at least I don't think).
The reason I haven't been quick to criticize Democrats for invoking that argument, however, is because it is a natural reaction to an even more dispicable argument, i.e., that criticism of the President and his policies is unpatriotic and tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy. Just this week, both Cheney and Bush made that argument. And Murtha was called a coward on the Senate floor.
Until Republicans stop using that rhetoric, I'm going to cut Democrats like Murtha a little slack for invoking their military credentials.
Why cut facism a little slack? Its not Murtha's invoking his military credentials that is objectionable, its his argument that those who haven't served - or who dodged service (like Cheney) - are disqualified from criticizing him. That's just pure facism.
Republicans shouldn't call Murtha a coward or claim that he isn't patriotic for saying that we should abandon the Iraqi people and the effort to bring democracy to the Middle East. Pulling out of Iraq isn't necessarily cowardly, although it certainly is stupid at this point. I don't understand the point of a fixed deadline. Nation building is a process - it doesn't come with a due date. Anyone who tries to set such a date is mixing isolationism with opportunism - turning our back on our responsibilities while trying to appeal to popular, short-sighted desires to bring the troops home.
So Murtha the coward, no. Murtha the facist, isolationist, opportunist, yes.
"Fascism" seems like a strong word, don't you think? To use that word in this context is to dilute it to the point of meaninglessness. Murtha doesn't strike me as an isolationist or an opportunist either. He has a long track record of supporting military intervention abroad, and he's been critical of the Iraq war for quite some time (the press just didn't notice until now). There are a lot of isolationists and opportunists out there right now, but I wouldn't be so quick to label Murtha as one of them.
With Iraqi leaders themselves calling for the U.S. to set a time table for withdrawal, it's hard to dismiss the idea as simple isolationism. Nation-building is a "process" but it's worth at least debating whether that process is working or whether setting a time table for withdrawal might help that process along.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home