July 10, 2007 06:11 PM UTC
Salazar Afflicted With Virulent Strain of Autoshadowphobia
32 Comments- by: davidsirota
FYI – Senate votes are expected soon (aka. today or later this week) on various proposals related to the Iraq War. Head on over to Working Assets for an update later today. – D
John Kerry had a bad case of it in 2004. The consultants, operatives and self-described strategists in the Democratic Party’s Washington Establishment spreads it as a profession. Now, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar (D) looks like he just contracted a virulent strain of it, and some of his other colleagues may soon be susceptible to it. No, I’m not talking about a venereal disease, I’m talking about something far more politically toxic: A disease known as Autoshadowphobia, or fear of one’s own shadow.
Here in America, we like our politicians to emulate descriptions used in tire ads or SUV commercials: We like our leaders “tough” and “strong” (and maybe even with some “torque”) as any number of the aspiring, cliche-peddling pundits who crowd the nation’s capital will happily tell you. That’s why Autoshadowphobia is so dangerous: Because regardless of the issues where its symptoms most clearly present themselves, the disease lets the public know about a deeper sense of insecurity, fear, spinelessness and unprincipled calculation that governs a politician’s decision making. It projects the opposite of a Michelin ad or Dodge Ram spot. For voters, Autoshadowphobia elicits at best what a Kleenex ad portrays (softness), and more likely recalls the impulses associated with watching a commercial for Raid (a desire to spray the scurrying varmints down with a blast of industrial strength repellent).
Out of all the professional politicians in the Senate club, Salazar seems to have the worst case of Autoshadowphobia, and the disease is plaguing him on the most high-profile issue – Iraq – an issue that his own Democratic colleagues in the Colorado legislature bravely drew attention to in just the last few months. With USA Today’s new poll showing “opposition to the Iraq war has reached a record high” and thus with most Senate Democrats and a faction of Republicans poised to support legislation taking concrete steps to end the war, Salazar has crafted a proposal that devotes an impressive deal of rhetoric praising the Wise Old Men of Washington who comprised the now-idolized Iraq Study Group, but deliberately “does not include specific terms for a withdrawal of U.S. forces” from Iraq. This is a bill that only Brigadier General Karl Rove could love – a bill that lets Autoshadowphobia-plagued Washington politicians like Salazar pretend they are doing something to end the war, when in fact they are doing nothing other than legislatively ratifying a deliberately toothless, self-congratulatory press release as American casualties mount.
This is a particularly destructive proposal considering the political tectonics. Thanks to Salazar coming down with such a nasty case of Autoshadowphobia, wavering Republicans who otherwise would be under enormous pressure to support a real bill to truly end the war will now have the Salazar-delivered political cover to help perpetuate the war indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Democrats who are actually working sincerely to end the war and who come either from Colorado or from far tougher political states – these folks will be humiliated, as Salazar and the other faction of Autoshadowphobia-plagued Democrats continue running to the media to self-servingly trumpeting their behavior as some sort of Patton-esque act of Bravery and Patriotism (which will undoubtedly be the way it is reported by Beltway stenographers like David Broder, who recently attacked Congress for considering legislation that does what the majority of America says it wants).
But you don’t have to believe me when I say Republican war supporters are ecstatic about Salazar’s legislation – you can believe them, because they are out there saying it. In a Hill Newspaper story today about how the Bush White House has embraced the toothless Iraq Study Group report as a way to create political cover for its plans to prepetuate the war, we get this:
“Republicans view [Salazar’s] bill as an opening to overshadow the Democrats’ Iraq pullout push, conscious that the combination of non-binding withdrawal goals and diplomatic conditions could win more GOP supporters than any plan created by the new majority. ‘I think [Salazar’s bill is] the biggest fear Democrats have,” one senior Republican aide said. ‘It would be really embarrassing for Reid, because the guy who’s pushing for all these things to make his base happy would [have to back] something the president has pushed for.'”
But just in case you think Autoshadowphobia is limited only to Iraq, make sure to check out the Washington Post’s story today on health care. With polls long showing that Americans strongly support a government-sponsored universal health care system, we find out that Democratic presidential candidates are taking political advice from one courageous MIT economist who is telling them that they shouldn’t push any serious health care reforms because he has deemed them politically unrealistic. Yes, you read that correctly. As cloistered MIT economist is now being listened to by Autoshadowphobic presidential candidates as not one academic expert – but as a supposed expert campaign strategist and political guru. In medical terms, what he really is, of course, is a classic enabler – a person who tells these politicians that fear of their own shadow is perfectly fine (truth be told, he’d fit right in in many Democratic consulting firms).
The human toll of Autoshadowphobia is obvious. More American troops will die or be maimed in Iraq because people like Salazar are pushing legislative vehicles specifically designed to create the necessary political cover to continue the war indefinitely. Similarly, 18,000 Americans will continue dying each year because presidential candidates dress up cloistered academics as political experts in order to reassure themselves they don’t need to expend real political capital to fix America’s health care crisis.
What’s less obvious but politically significant is what this outbreak of Autoshadowphobia says about the political terrain Democrats and the larger progressive movement faces.
The national Democratic Party clearly faces “I voted for it before I voted against it” peril on both the Iraq and health care fronts. In 2006 they campaigned against the war, and are now watching a weak-kneed faction of their own party bow down to a president with the lowest approval ratings in contemporary history and work to continue the war – even in the face of overwhelming public opposition to the war. In 2008, they are promising real health care reform, while largely refusing to have the guts to go up against the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry, instead pushing proposals that perpetuate a broken system – primarily because an MIT economist says that while he admits truly fixing the system is of urgent importance, politicians shouldn’t try because he believes he is a political expert and he has deemed that goal politically unrealistic. Forget, for a moment, about where you stand on any of these issues or on any of these specific proposals, and just ask yourself: Could the Democratic Party project weakness and equivocation any more clearly? And from just a purely partisan, political perspective, shouldn’t folks be worried that such brazen equivocation on the biggest issues of the day weakens the Democrats chances in upcoming elections?
For the progressive movement, this (unsurprising) plague of Autoshadowphobia once again reiterates the requirement to pressure both parties if we are to be an effective movement – and particularly on Iraq, this specific outbreak of Autoshadowphobia exposes the clear shortcomings of trying to fuse movement and party (otherwise known as Partisan War Syndrome).
It’s fun for those of us working to end the war to congratulate ourselves for behaving like an arm of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, targeting canned ads almost exclusively at Republicans up for reelection, and landing breathless stories in D.C. newsletters like Roll Call and The Politico, which almost no one outside of the Beltway actually reads (or has even heard of). It makes us feel like we are doing something to simultaneously end the war and smack the GOP, which after all, is so bad on so many issues.
But as the unfolding Iraq debate shows, the failure – whether deliberate or merely unintended – to spend similar resources on pressuring Democrats has further emboldened individuals like Salazar diseased with Autoshadowphobia (and a fairly solid dose of conceit) to play a decisive role in undermining the progressive movement’s objectives. Certainly, it’s not too late for that bipartisan pressure to help deliver the only cure for Autoshadowphobia: Insertion of a backbone. But whether that pressure comes, and whether it is as well-financed as the attacks exclusively on the GOP remains to be seen.
Originally posted at Working Assets
at providing political cover for Republicans to save face with toothless proposals like this one. “Counterproductive” doesn’t even come close.
This diary is so long and unreadable no one will read it. It’s a hard left attack on a run-of-the-mill partisan Democrat who apparently hasn’t fallen into perfect step with the anti-American moveon.org crowd.
your comment is worthless.
A bunch of gibberish.
Seriously – I’m laughing hysterically. Nothing like a substance-free comment from a fringe right-wing troll for a good chuckle…
Silliness about Iraq and global warming is typical about trolls. Nice job. We know who you are.
count on Rove Blast-fax Talking Points for any issue. Nothing else.
My comment is on the length of this guy’s posts. They are hard to read with the length…
you are good, when you are bad…I feel like I need to get a refund for the time I waste.
I opposed the war from the start, but now we are there. Iraq is not simple and if we pullout, we (as Americans) have to be accept responsibility for what happens.
Trying to chart a middle way is the correct way, even though I do not agree with this particular plan.
I am a moderate, I am a Democrat.
Ken Salazar is a moderate and a Democrat: he is not afraid of his shadow. This legislation is consistent with his views. He is willing to stick his neck out when he believes in something, witness the heat he’s taking from the single minded left.
The lathered up left is more interested in defeating Bush. Things will get worse if we leave; for American interests and the Iraqis.
We do need to ratchet our involvement down and stop policing a civil war. We do have a responsibility to the Kurds to protect them from a Turkish invasion. We do have an interest in preventing Saudi’s supporting a religious Sunni insurgency, we do have an interest in preventing Iranian influence becoming Iranian control.
The left’s fantasy that if we leave the Iraqis will start throwing flowers at each other is just as over the top as Bushies, we will be greated as liberators, claptrap.
Nicely put
Even when they are a reasonable guy like you.
I was going to compliment your post too, but I don’t want to add more dirt than you can bare:)
The Salazar bashing gets old. I guess lockstep is the only acceptable move he can make.
If I were a jerk, I would agree with ya on purpose, just to make people think you’re “right-er” than you really are. But I promise I won’t do that… 😉
What can I say? A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.
Usually I find myself nodding my head in agreement with just about anything you post, but on this issue we part ways.
First of all, your last paragraph is pure hyperbole (im talking bare bones). Your second to last paragraph, while theoretically a necessity, is a pipe dream. Speaking only for myself, I believe we need to remove ourselves to maybe 30-50,000 troops in-country to provide training and the most basic protection services. I believe there needs to be a sovereign Kurdistan.
How do we prevent Saudi Arabia, our forth top provider of oil and bosom buddy of this administration, from supporting a Sunni insurgency? Same for Iran? Lets not forget that both of these countries have populations that are not found of the current overseers of their respective countries.
This is something that always bothers me, and honestly, Im always curious as to why people say it: I am a (insert political affiliation here)? What does that add to the conversation? I think anyone who reads more than two posts of another person can easily identify their party affiliation.
I, too, opposed this war from the start, and, yes, we are there now. The majority of americans may not fully grasp what the ramifications may be of a pullout (christ, I may be one of them), but with a significant portion of the population saying that they want out Salazar and company should reconsider their positions.
If I may be so self-centered, another pet peeve. A drive to the center is not always the best course of action. I know that you are talking about alternatives between pull out now and indefinite bases, but essentially you are saying we need a bi-partisan plan (stop me if I am putting words in your mouth).
The single minded left? Who or whom are single minded? The left is not some great monolith that marches lockstep to the beat of…Randi Rhodes?
The lathered up left? Oh man, I cant help but laugh. Sure, I am interested in defeating Bush, but I am interested in seeing him defeated by way of congressional oversight with regards to not just Iraq, but also Valerie Plame, US Attorneys, suspension of Habeas corpus, Guantanamo (sp?) Bay, getting a stem cell bill passed, etc. Things will probably get worse if they leave, but it has been four years, and I will be damned if things have gotten better.
Dick Cheney quite literally said, prior to the war, that we would be “greeted as liberators.” (Again: his exact words.)
I’m not sure I’ve read of anyone on the anti-war left — or the anti-war right; or among anti-war moderates, for that matter — who is saying, literally or figuratively, that the “Iraqis will start throwing flowers at each other” when we leave.
that pulling troops out of Iraq, we will be rid of the ‘Iraq problem’ – it will no longer be an issue for us. Couldn’t be further from the truth and I think that is what Danny alluded to.
All that Danny described needs to be priorities for us. Highest concern, for me, is getting Turkey to back off. I’m more worried about what happens if Turkey ‘invades’ northern Iraq than I am about the insurgency in Baghdad.
Everything Toodles speaks to in his post regarding what the left hates about Bush, was said by Republicans during Clinton’s term (different examples but same vehemence). I feel like I’ve fallen through the looking glass and am forced to see the partisan hacks at play again, except this time they are from my own party.
Of all the players that seemingly would be most responsive to diplomatic pressure, I would think it would be Turkey. After all, modern-day Turkey already wants to join the E.U.
An escalation of the conflict between Turkey and Kurds would be horrible. Turkey wants EU status and has worked towards achieving it (walking the secular line, changing economic systems…). But the secular government and the military are very chummy and eastern Turkey is light years behind western Turkey.
It does have a kind of eerie resonance doesn’t it? turkey is claiming they must go in to fight the terrorists in Iraq so they don’t infiltrate Turkey. So they go in, take control, an insurgency starts, attacks increase, more troops sent and voila…
I worry about how much sway the current administration has with Ankara. A friend in the embassy during 02/03 described some poor diplomacy skills exhibited by the US. How likely is it that the Turks shrug their shoulders and tell the world, “we’re here to help the US maintain order”.
I just don’t hear a plan being articulated by any politicians on the matter: i.e., How long do we station U.S. troops in the region between Turkey and Kurdish Iraq?
and that’s troubling, to say the least.
IMO, we can’t station troops between the two. Hopefully, the Kurds will stand up and reel in/denounce any ‘terrorist’ efforts the PKK contributes to. Also, the US diplomacy needs to get tough with serious ramifications if Turkey oversteps it boundaries.
didn’t need to chime in.
tukey has some good english language dailies and they are interesting.
There is a certain amount of bluster since it is an election season, but it is clear that turkey is positioning itself for a US pullout.
In addition US arms supplied to the Kurds are showing up with the PKK.
Diplomacy is the way, but we need some troops to support our efforts.
I think what I’m hearing is that we need troops in Northern Iraq in order to help a Kurdish government to root out the PKK, which they may or may not be allied with. Or to push back our allies, the Turks, if they cross the border.
I think we need to encourage diplomacy. but we need to stay the turks won’t cross as long as we are there.
At the same time we need to get the kurds (the PUK in particular) to root out the PKK. In return we need to push Turkey to grant the kurds more cultural freedom (not political)–we don’t need to see the PKK go jihadist.
seems like all good conversations happen on the right side of the screen, hmmmmm….
I didn’t mean to hijack the thread to speak about Turkey, but agree with Danny.
I don’t see the PKK going jihadist, historically they’ve been more Marxist than Islamic, and have fought for a free Kurdistan rather than against the infidels.
The Turks must come around to allowing more autonomy for the minorities in eastern Turkey and they must get out of northern Iraq.
From what I gather here, the Kurds we’ve been supporting have either been giving or selling arms to Marxists.
But shame is a good way of driving people that are just interested in working, taking care of their families and drinking tea with their friends into people that support terror.
The way to beat a terror movement is to isolate it, address any valid concerns it raises, and choke its fuel and oxygen. The terror spark can’t burn without the support of the people.
Kemalism, which even the AK supports in some ways, is dedicated to wiping out or at least supressing minorities. This creates shame and rage. The PKK is a terror movement that would die if the Turk’s would back off.
The question of whether the kurds would be satisfied with cultural autonomy within a greater Turkey has everything to do with EU admission. It’s been a long time since I looked at these issues in depth, so my info may be out of date.
First of all, I never used the word hate. I said that I wanted to see him defeated. I used defeated because that is the word that Danny used, an oversimplification at best. I should have said that Bush needs to be reined in by congressional oversight.
Next, can we drop the Clinton canard, please? Comparing what I said about Bush to what republicans said about Clinton is totally off base. Everything I listed, and I could go on, is a real issue. Whitewater was not a real issue. Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, whatever else Newt and company tried to throw at clinton are nothing in comparison to enemy combatants.
Why is criticizing a president for clear over reaches by the office all of a sudden partisan hackery? What do you suggest we do?
and apologize if interpreted that way. I’m doing too many things at once.
My point was the poisonous partisanship that Bush and Clinton both engender leads to the focus on what makes people angry about our leaders instead of what we can accomplish. This trend is part of modern politics and must be reversed somehow.
Am I a partisan? Yes. But I would like to think that I am above it in a way. If Clinton suspended habeas corpus I would like to think that I would be just as vocal in my opposition. In fact, I am a very vocal in my opposition to the DLC.
My biggest problem with the Bush administration is that so many of the major power players believe in the unitary executive theory. That is what drives my anger, and is effectively what has caused, at least for me, rabid partisan with specific regard to the president. I have great respect and admiration for many republicans holding higher office, but i can not respect people who actively try and co-opt the other branches of government.
the damage he has done to the republic is great it sounds like hyperbole.
My point is that we can’t base policy on simple opposition to anything bush supports. this is exactly the bush policy regarding clinton; if clinton did it it must be wrong.
we should establish objectives, develop a plan, and execute. iraq was a plan, not an objective, this is why it is destined to fail.
I have get out of my own quagmire, and stop posting about the war.
I wont say that I hate him, because my personal feelings are a little moot. I did say that I am a rabid partisan with regards to the president, because, like you say, the damage he has caused is on the verge of hyperbole.
I dont oppose anything bush supports because bush supports it. I oppose trickle down economics on principle. I am for stem cells, because I believe that there is great scientific and medical potential in them. The list can go on, and I would be happy to expound on any major issue.
We have been on a long derail about the war, which is part of the article Sirota wrote, but this thread was also originally about Salazar. Im not going to call him a DINO. I always roll my eyes when people throw out the DINO/RINO label (pardon my tangential writing/speaking style). What frustrates me about Salazar is that he tries to be the guy in the middle on everything. I understand that thats a great way to make friends across the aisle and it is also a great way to get press and to become an influential power inside the beltway.
To me, toeing the line can be disingenuous. Its as though he is doing it to compromise for comprise sake. I think trying to strike a middle ground, where no middle ground should be struck, is a mistake. Obviously, what I believe with regard to Iraq is going to be different, but I believe we need to leave as quickly as possible, but leave a small contingent of troops for our embassy, training, and quick response.