Pressuring Democrats on the war

Chris Hedges, on Truthdig, expresses a level of frustration and disgust with the presidential candidates — especially the Democrats — on the war in Iraq and militarism that I can understand. Five years in and the war still rages. Republican John McCain talks of an extended military campaign, while Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton speak of an extended presence in Iraq.

But I’m not sure that his prescription is the right one.

Those of us who oppose the war, who believe that all U.S. troops should be withdrawn and the network of permanent bases in Iraq dismantled, have only two options in the coming presidential elections—Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. A vote for any of the Republican and Democratic candidates is a vote to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq and a lengthy and futile war of attrition with the Iraqi insurgency. You can sign on for the suicidal hundred-year war with John McCain or for the nebulous open-ended war-lite with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or back those who reject the war.

He says Democratic voters need to be honest about what their votes might accomplish — i.e., that the results will change nothing on the ground in Baghdad.

But the results of this election will matter. The eight-year presidency of George W. Bush proves that a mediocre liberal is better than a conservative anytime. Basically, my concern is that voting for Nader (which I did in 1996 and 2000) or McKinney would turn the election over to McCain. And as flawed as both Obama and Clinton are as candidates, a McCain presidency would be a disaster. The Arizona senator is, as either Howard Fineman or Jonathan Alter said on Countdown (I can’t remember which), not a “detail man” and he has shown a bloodthirstiness on matters of war that should give more than pause to the folks I’ve talked with who see him as less likely to do something stupid than the Democrats.

And then there are the domestic issues, of which he has interest — especially health care and poverty.

Not that the Democrats are likely to make the kind of major changes in government needed, but at least they are talking about expanding healthcare and making some noises about the war.

I agree with Hedges that the war is a moral issue, but electoral politics requires that we temper our moral expectations with pragmatism. Allowing the Democrats to continue the war while drawing it down certainly falls far short of the goal, but given the options it is not nearly as bad as it could be. Ethics sometimes requires a balancing act. That is the case here. When I weight my difference with Obama and Clinton against my fear of what a McCain presidency might sow on the international stage, I only can come to one conclusion: to vote against McCain and hope that those of us who oppose the war can convince Obama or Clinton to do the right thing.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet