Socialist Action /October 2002
Democrats Follow Bush on the Road to
War
By JOE AUCIELLO
When the president insisted that Congress declare war, a liberal Republican
rose up in the Senate to voice his opposition. The Senator condemned "the
Wall Street view."
Instead, he asked, "To whom does the war bring prosperity? Not to
the soldier," the man ready "to shed his blood and to die if necessary;
not to the broken-hearted widow who waits for the return of the mangled
body of her husband; not to the mother who weeps at the death of her brave
boy; not to the little children who shiver with cold; not to the babe who
suffers from hunger; nor to the millions of mothers and daughters who carry
broken hearts to their graves.
"War brings no prosperity to the great mass of common and patriotic
citizens. It increases the cost of living of those who toil and those who
already must strain every effort to keep soul and body together. War brings
prosperity to the stock gambler on Wall Street-to those already in possession
of more wealth than can be realized or enjoyed."
The senator was George W. Norris of Nebraska; the president was Woodrow
Wilson; the war was later called The Great War, the first international
imperialist slaughter.
Unlike his contemporary, Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene
Debs, Sen. Norris never denounced the capitalist system, which led to war.
Also, unlike Debs, Norris would never declare his solidarity equally with
German and American workers and aim his criticism directly against the ruling
powers of both countries.
Senator Norris, nonetheless, did have the conscience to recoil from and
the courage to oppose the war that capitalism created.
In the political landscape today, there is no Sen. George Norris. No
prominent Democrat-including Al Gore, Tom Daschle, and Ted Kennedy-has squarely
opposed George Bush on Iraq. No principled opposition to Bush's war drive
can be found in the Democratic Party. Quite the contrary.
The disagreement that does exist between Democrats and Republicans is
muted, inconsequential, or hopelessly compromised. It is a disagreement
about when to begin the war and whether the U.S. should attack with or without
the United Nations.
Both Republicans and Democrats agree on the use of U.S. military might
to remove the government of Saddam Hussein and to hurl Iraq into the holocaust
of war. Opposing this war will mean opposing both Democrats and Republicans-building
a mass movement in the streets independent of and opposed to the twin parties
of U.S. capitalism.
The news media highlights every shade of difference between the two parties,
emphasizing and exaggerating them because dramatic stories sell newspapers-and
also because they don't want readers to question the underlying assumptions
of the system.
In a front page story titled, "Kennedy criticizes Bush on Iraq policy,"
The Boston Globe (Sept. 28, 2002) reported on what it termed "the most
sweeping criticism yet from any Democratic congressional leader of President
Bush's request for approval to take military action against Iraq."
The mild substance of Kennedy's speech, delivered the day before at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, hardly warranted
the bold headline.
According to the Boston Globe account, "The Massachusetts Democrat
summed up concerns shared by some colleagues in his party when he said that
the president had not made the case that Iraq represents an imminent threat
to the United States and that he had not 'laid out the cost in blood and
treasure' of going to war."
The Globe further reported, "Kennedy said the first aim should be
to get UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The UN should pass a resolution
that would trigger an attack if Hussein refused to comply or cooperate with
inspectors, Kennedy said."
"No delaying tactics should be tolerated," Senator Kennedy
stated, "and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his
last chance to avoid conflict. ... We may reach the point where our only
choice is conflict, but we are not there yet."
Kennedy's position mildly reflects the majority sentiment in America
as revealed by the latest public opinion polls, which show that the U.S.
public has no love of Saddam Hussein but also no love of war.
Kennedy, like the Democratic Party leadership, is also looking ahead
to the fall elections and to the presidential election in two years. By
claiming that Bush has not yet made his case, Kennedy and the Democrats
will be able to adopt or adapt to any position in the future.
Should a war be popular, the Democrats can cite their statements of support.
If the war fares badly, they can refer to their statements of caution. In
short, the Democrats have agreed with the president's motives and goals
but have tried to keep their options open about his policy.
Within the ruling class there is a real discussion about how best to
promote U.S. imperial interests in the world. What is the least costly way
to bully Iraq and keep other countries in line?
Should the U.S., and perhaps a few allies, launch a first strike? Or
should the U.S. begin the war under the banner of the United Nations?
When President Bush stated that the Democratic-controlled Senate was
"not interested in the security of the American people," Senate
majority leader Tom Daschle angrily replied, "We ought not to politicize
this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."
Senator Daschle was speaking truthfully, in his own way. The Democrats
no less than the Republicans faithfully serve the interests of the American
ruling class. Both parties are pursuing a path to war.
For Democrats and Republicans war with Iraq is a political game, and
the prize is a few more Congressional seats. For partisan advantage both
parties will gladly kill thousands of people who live far away and whose
lives do not count because they do not vote in U.S. elections.
The average person in the United States has no interest in following
either party to war. National security and public safety do not require
the deaths of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and children.
Although the Democrats are ostensibly the opposition party, in reality
they are incapable of providing an alternative to President Bush's war drive
because the Democrats hold the same political values as the Republicans-that
is, to uphold the interests of Big Oil and other U.S. capitalists in the
Middle East.
By the time this article appears in print, Congress will have voted on
a resolution authorizing war with Iraq. The president will obtain the approval
he wants, though it is likely he will have to work through the United Nations.
The Democrats will have already jumped on war's bandwagon. As Sen. George
Norris predicted decades ago, both parties "are about to do the bidding
of wealth's terrible mandate."
The quotations from Sen. George Norris are taken from Richard Hofstadter,
ed., "Great Issues in American History From Reconstruction to the Present
Day, 1864 - 1969," pages 219 - 220.
Socialist Action /October 2002 |