Is Congress Hopeless on the War? Maybe Not

Critics of the war are properly critical of the failure of the Democratic Congress to cut off funds. Does this mean that it is time to conclude that influencing roll call votes is a hopeless enterprise?

Carolyn Eisenberg of Historians Against the War argues that it is not. While I am not yet convinced, she makes a good case that the trends are moving in the right direction and these trends will continue if the public keeps up the pressure:

....in the absence of a strong Congressional mandate, it is difficult to imagine a Chief Executive reversing the policy. Who besides Ron Paul, among that dismal group of Republican contenders, is prepared to orchestrate what will inevitably appear as an American defeat? And, as for the Democrats, which of the leading candidates is prepared to take on their own shoulders such a burden? Certainly not Hillary Clinton, who has already demonstrated that “military toughness” is central to her political persona.

.....many members of Congress are listening and there has been a dramatic evolution in their attitudes and voting behavior. Some of that change has come about because of the hard work of thousands of peace activists across the country.

This past spring, 171 members of the House of Representatives voted for a bill introduced by Representative James McGovern that would have required a redeployment of US troops and contractors within 90 days and a complete withdrawal six months later. The previous year, less than 30 representatives were prepared to support such legislation. As for the 2007 Supplemental funding bill, by the time the blank-check version came to the House floor, 142 members voted “No,” more than doubling the number of legislators who had taken this stand previously. The votes in each instance were preceded by a substantial mobilization at the grassroots.