I’ve got a problem. And so do many of my politically minded
friends. It is no secret that I am a true blue-blooded Democrat. What is more,
I have been an ardent supporter of President Obama from the beginning of his
first campaign until now. He is the polar star around which my political
universe rotates. He says jump and I will only ask, “how high?” I know that any
single departure from his agenda will jeopardize other important things he
wants to accomplish. It is therefore with some pain and profound misgivings
that I have and will continue to oppose his plan to attack Syria, no matter how
circumscribed the nature of the bombardment. The split in his party caused by
those who take this position can only thwart progress and seriously disable the
rest of his presidency. And yet for reasons I have spelled out in two previous
columns, I oppose his passionate drive to involve the nation in yet another
civil war. It is wrong morally and it is wrong for peace and stability in the
near-east. So my argument is not only with the Administration, but also with
political friends who believe that failure to support the President is simply
disloyal. So be it.
I have also noted that there is a handful of Republicans who are supporting Obama’s call to arms.
Most of them are long-time hawks whose
only criticism has been the modest scale of the proposed attacks. They call for
a bombardment that will make a difference in that ongoing war. But they are
convinced that some military action is better then doing nothing. It must be
difficult for them to support his position on Syria. But they are of the
persuasion that party politics must stop at the water’s edge and therefore
believe the President’s plan, apart from any party loyalty, is the right thing
to do. Without agreeing with them, I applaud the consistency behind their
conclusion.
But then there are the substantial number of Republican
politicians who are long-time hawks and who consistently have supported
military action whenever it has been suggested by Presidents of either party. But
now they stand with those of us in rejecting Obama’s proposal. Only a casual
look at their voting records makes even clearer the obvious. Opposition to Obama
trumps all other considerations. If he is for it, it must be wrong! They refuse
to support anything the President puts forward. Injuring the President is more
important than agreeing to his war cry.
Politics is an honest aspect of democratic
government. Without party loyalty not much could be accomplished by anyone.
That is the nature of our form of government. But to oppose what by every other
standard one favors in order to injure a President, is not only bad politics
but also bad partisanship. T.S.Eliot put it this way: “The
last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong
reason.” (Murder in the Cathedral.)
I want the President to lose this argument because I believe
that it would be the best thing for the nation and the world. Others want him to lose it because that
would cause grave political damage to the rest of his term. Now that there is a
pause in any action either by Congress or the President, it is time to find some
agreeable alternative to another war.
Corrections:
on Sept 11 I suggested that the US Army used mustard gas in Korea. My evidence
was probably too limited to make that claim. In the same column I states that Napalm
is still being made by Dow Chemical. Its manufacture was terminated following the
Vietnam war.
Charles Bayer
No comments:
Post a Comment