In Praise of the Rotation of Power

Townhall.com ^ | March 12, 2010 | charles Krauthammer

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON -- As the Afghanistan War intensifies -- Marja, soon Kandahar, and the steady arrival of 30,000 new American troops -- it has come to be seen as Obama's war.

Not so. It's become America's war. When the former opposition party -- habitually anti-war for the last four decades -- adopts, reaffirms and escalates a war begun by the habitually hawkish other party, partisanship falls away, and the war becomes nationalized.

And legitimized. Do you think if John McCain, let alone George W. Bush, were president, we would not see growing demonstrations protesting our continued presence in Iraq and the escalation of Afghanistan? That we wouldn't see a serious push in Congress to cut off funds?

Why not? Because Barack Obama is now commander in chief. The lack of opposition is not a matter of hypocrisy. It is a natural result of the rotation of power. When a party is in opposition, it opposes. That's its job. But when it comes to power, it must govern. Easy rhetoric is over, the press of reality becomes irresistible. By necessity, it adopts some of the policies it had once denounced. And a new national consensus is born.

In this case, the anti-war party has followed the Bush endgame to a T in Iraq and has doubled down in Afghanistan. And there is no general restiveness (at least over this).

[dps.inspect]

Oh, now war is no longer immoral and there is a moral imperative placed on every citizen to not criticize a DEMOCRAT president’s efforts. Delegitimize the Republican president and legitimize the Democrat. Actually, I’m all for kicking the $he+it out of terrorism, regardless of who is in power. Articles like this are mainly written for left progressives, to calm their souls into accepting war as a essential component of national security, at least as long as a Democrat is POTUS. Just wait though, when a Republican gets back in, it’ll all be nag, nag, nag all the time.

[neverdem]

The lack of opposition is not a matter of hypocrisy.

Utter BS!

Since 1968 the antiwar left is only reliably antiwar when the GOP controls the White House.

They pretty much went mum with Clinton in the Balkans and now with Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Biden who wanted to partition Iraq at one time, now wants to give credit to this administration. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

The only good thing about it is that it shows the antiwar left to be completes hypocrites who undermine our foreign policy after many originally voted for war.

It's worse than just despicable. It aids our enemies and causes us to have more casualties.

[Kaslin]

As much as I respect Charles Krauthammer. I agree with you, he is wrong on this.

[SunkenCiv]

Do you think if John McCain, let alone George W. Bush, were president, we would not see growing demonstrations protesting our continued presence in Iraq and the escalation of Afghanistan? That we wouldn't see a serious push in Congress to cut off funds? Why not? Because Barack Obama is now commander in chief. The lack of opposition is not a matter of hypocrisy. It is a natural result of the rotation of power. When a party is in opposition, it opposes. That's its job. But when it comes to power, it must govern. Easy rhetoric is over, the press of reality becomes irresistible. By necessity, it adopts some of the policies it had once denounced. And a new national consensus is born. In this case, the anti-war party has followed the Bush endgame to a T in Iraq and has doubled down in Afghanistan.

Thanks Kaslin for the topic and neverdem for the link!