Democrats pride themselves on being progressive just as Republicans pride themselves on being for freedom. Both positions are self-serving and both should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.

But how can you really be considered progressive when you don't offer up any ideas or alternatives in the real world? There is only one answer to that question: just be a social democrat. And the Democrats of America are very similar to the social democrats of Europe.

Presently, most Democrats are against the Iraq war, but for the money to fund it. If that sounds familiar, it should. In 2004, Democrat presidential contender, John Kerry, was for the prosecution of the Iraq war, but against the additional money required to fund it. As legendary New York Yankees catcher, Yogi Berra, once said: "It's like déjà vu all over again".

Kerry's explanation for his 2004 no-vote on the $87 billion supplemental bill to provide equipment and support for US troops in harm's way was delivered without a twitch: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Right, Ok? And now, the Democrats are leading the charge in the US Senate to pass a non-binding resolution of an anti-war nature, right next to their financial support for the "wrong war", at the "wrong place", at the "wrong time".

However, it would be a mistake for Republicans to allege that Democrats therefore lack "credibility". If Republicans merely allege this, it will not be enough for them to win in 2008.

The classical perspective of a social democrat is to occupy all the available positions and win. Being a social democrat means going to a place in one's mind that anyone can choose to occupy - much like anyone can be a Scientologist. Both perspectives have, in recent times, been hugely fashionable and highly profitable - although Scientology has, thanks to the antics of Tom Cruise, come off a tad.

If Republicans are remotely interested in winning in 2008, they will need to identify and aggressively go after each identified Democratic contradiction - rather than just label the leading Democrat contender a changeling or a "flip- flopper".

In 2004, Bush debated Kerry three times but did not press him once to provide a specific answer on the most significant part of his contradiction. As a result, Kerry escaped any need to provide his reasons to the American public why he voted against $87 billion to support US troops that were in harm's way. The public worked it out anyway.

A social democrat dislikes the real world. This is her or his strength. The real world constantly throws up winners and losers. Why expose yourself to that sort of risk? You may end up a loser. Consider the 2007 Democrats. If Bush were to win the Iraq war, the Democrats can always say they voted to fund it - and aren't we all really tired of the dim-witted Republicans anyway? If Bush should lose the war, the Democrats can legitimately say that, since 2006, they've been largely against it. All positions are covered.

Whereas, the one-dimensional Republicans would seemingly have to win the Iraq war to take out the 2008 presidential election. The only person capable of throwing a spanner in the Democrats' current strategy is Republican Senator John McCain. McCain has challenged the Democrats to vote against the funding of the Iraq war - if they are truly against it. However, it's unlikely the Democrats will take any bait tangled by one of the cagiest of all Republicans. My bet is that the Democrats will continue to not adopt any real world positions.

On January, 19, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way". Well, I'm not sure if that rings true. And McCain may well reiterate his earlier advice: If you don't believe in the Iraq war, then don't fund it.

In conclusion, the truth doesn't figure in any of this. The truth is that there are no good choices in Iraq - much like there are no good political parties in Australia. The trick is to pick the least worst option at any given time. And, in the meantime, Bush and McCain will be seeking further inspiration from Yankee, Yogi Berra: "You're never out of it 'till you're out of it."


These views are solely the opinions of the writer, regardless of how close to the truth they may be.




(c) John Cavanagh
All rights reserved.

Article posted to this site on 30 January 2007.

All requests for permission to reprint, please contact Liz Foley at lizfoleyau@yahoo.com