Not So Much Anti-War As Anti-Bush
Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush’s Texas ranch.
This is now.
The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W. Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama’s escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.
As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two priorities they believed "progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." The winner, by far, was "passing comprehensive health care reform." In second place was enacting "green energy policies that address environmental concerns."
And what about "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan"? It was way down the list, in eighth place.
Perhaps more tellingly, Greenberg asked activists to name the issue that "you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently." The winner, again, was health care reform. Next came "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections." Then came a bunch of other issues. At the very bottom — last place, named by just one percent of participants — came working to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only principle it seems that the vast majority of the Left stood for was partisan politics. Their righteous indignation was so much veneer for their simple hatred of Dubya.
Filed under: Democrats • Liberal • Politics • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I understand how it could be viewed this way. I think the truth lies in that most liberals aren’t against the Afghan war to go after Bin Laden. I personally was never against it. I from day one opposed the Iraq war and I am glad we are drawing down, which leads to less disagreements. The other thing is that liberals trust that Obama wants to get soldiers out of Iraq. There are still people who are picketing the war but a quiet rally will never get as much attention as the crazies will. Look at the healthcare debate, the rational conservatives who actually want a discussion and don’t bring AR-15s to a politically charged event never get publicized because it doesn’t sell.
Overall I don’t think you’re too far off but I think there is more than just the difference of the man in office. Don’t forget the economy took a lot of focus off the Iraq war too.
I’m not just referring to media coverage. Where are the hordes of followers she used to draw at the drop of a lawn chair?
And liberals are actually souring on Afghanistan now, too. (See here and here.) And yet Sheehan can’t catch a break.
Don’t forget the American public on a whole has a short attention span. That’s why we get distracted by every shiny new problem that comes up. Like I said though, you have a point, it’s just not the full explanation, there’s also a lot of emotional fatigue. I personally still support Afghanistan and hope we continue it even though casualties are going to go up. We made the mess and we have to clean it up.