The Value of Getting Along

While it's been getting more play on cable news than in print, there are few who pay attention to politics that haven't heard about the press conference yesterday after a House Democratic Caucus meeting. Cindy Sheehan and several protesters shouted down Rahm Emmanuel as he began to address reporters on Capitol Hill, laying bare a growing divide that some wish weren't quite so public.

My initial gut feeling about the incident was one of frustration. I watched it live on MSNBC, and I think the worst part of the whole deal is that I wasn't surprised at all that it was happening. No reasonable Democrat can claim the situation wasn't an embarrassment. Whatever side of the relevant issue you come down on - favoring the stated agenda of the first 100 hours or angry at a perceived lack of attention to the Iraq war and the Bush Administration's failed foreign policy - you cannot deny that in a media environment seemingly obsessed with all the wrong things about the coming session and power shift in Congress, this is a situation that it would have been better to avoid.

The question I want to pose is this: what is the value? What is the value of disrupting a press conference and drawing negative attention to the Democratic congressional caucus? What do the Democrats as a party gain from that? I understand that Sheehan and the rest of the anti-war movement are usually aligned against current foreign policy rather than with the Democratic party, and I further understand that just because the Democrat's primary political opponents are responsible for the war and its prosecution, that in no way makes everyone against the war a Democrat.

Having said as much, it is no secret that in American politics, the party most likely to vote along side the anti-war movement is the Democrats. The Democratic party is the party that won the midterm elections based on opposition to the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Why, as a movement built around an ideology, would you agitate your likely allies, or give them more of a reason to distance themselves from you?

I understand the concerns. I understand that as the highly visible, activist group in the American left, the front-and-center players in the anti-war movement may want to make certain their concerns are addressed and their agenda is at least acknowledged. I think it is unrealistic, however, for any portion of the American electorate to expect their agenda to be pushed fully forward by a newly dominant party - expecting as much indicates a lack of understanding of how real politics works where the rubber meets the road. Observe the lack of actual legislation which served the hard religious right when their chosen Republican candidates came to power: not even in a unified government were very politically difficult issues undertaken.

I would argue that the first 100 hours is not the time to take on the Iraq war, or foreign policy. I think a great deal of good can be accomplished in the first 100 hours, and I think the agenda the Democrats have put forward will accomplish good things for people of this country, provided Bush doesn't veto them. The Iraq War is a more complicated issue than can possibly be addressed in the first 100 hours, and I think any sort of attempt to shoehorn it in with essentially straightforward domestic corrections is irresponsible. The Iraq War is complex, and there is no instant fix. To suggest that any sort of immediate action would be effective borders on disrespect for the issue at hand.

I'm not saying that everyone has to fall in line and not discuss their differences, or their concerns. Discourse is what we're all about at this publication, and we are, after all, professionals. I'm simply saying that with Sheehan's celebrity and the power of the anti-war movement along with the cresting wave against the Iraq War in American public sentiment, is there a better way to proceed than by biting the hand that potentially could - and by all indications, will - feed you?

Now I know there will be some wailing and gnashing of teeth over a question like this. I know that some quick to judge will accuse me of trying to stifle new voices in American politics, or say that I am impugning upon the right of the mother of a fallen soldier to say and do what she pleases. I contend that I am not engaged in any such activity. I am simply asking the question - what is the value of this specific action, and were there other alternatives that may have better advanced the anti-war agenda?