In the comments to Digby's post on amnesty for Iraqi insurgents, one response in particular encapsulates everything I hate about the Democrats' grandstanding on this:
The question is not "Is amnesty a good idea?", the question is "Is the vote for amnesty a powerful political weapon which can be used against these Republicans?". And the answer is YES!!!This is just so wrong I'm not even sure where to begin...
Substance matters. Embracing a cause that is substantively wrong for purely political gain--a flag-burning amendment, for example--is exactly the sort of thing most of us have (rightly) condemned in the political leadership. We care about politics because we care about the substance, and while there will always be compromises on substantive issues we cannot ever simply say that substance doesn't matter. Substance always matters.
Now, I have argued repeatedly for a purely political approach to Iran, so it may seem odd for me now to be arguing for the primacy of substance over politics. What I'm arguing on Iran, though, is that a purely political effort (rather than a substantive consideration of how to resolve the issue) is our best shot at avoiding a substantively catastrophic result--not that the substantive result should be subordinated to political calculation.
In the case of the anti-amnesty resolution, the substantive effect is really, really bad. Taking amnesty off the table is likely to prolong the conflict. More insidiously, in dictating (or appearing to dictate) terms, Congress undermines the perceived legitimacy of the Iraqi government, which already has a long way to go to be perceived as anything other than a puppet of the U.S. (And that perception may well be largely true...but we still have to hope, for the sake of the Iraqis as well as our own troops, that they don't fail.)
In other words, to say it is worth using this as a weapon against the Republicans is to say it is worth potentially getting people killed if it results in partisan gain. This is far worse than the flag-burning amendment; at least that would have no practical effect.
I know it's tempting to go for the political payoff and say to hell with the substance. The thing is, this country already has a party that subordinates all substantive considerations to to partisan gain; it's the Nihilist Party, more commonly known as the GOP. I don't think we need another one.
[That's all, folks]
|