If you haven’t already seen it, the conservative side of the blogosphere is all atwitter with “The Pledge,” which was apparently crafted by Hugh Hewitt, in response to the growing Republican support for a non-binding congressional resolution in opposition to Bush’s latest escalation policy in Iraq. The Pledge is as follows:
“If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.”
At last count, over 8,000 people had signed the Pledge, and a few hundred blogs have linked to it (though, to be fair, some are war critics linking to it from a less-than-favorable perspective).
Ironically, just a couple of weeks ago, the GOP line, as articulated by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, was that the non-binding resolution was symbolic and meaningless. Now, it’s so serious that the Pledge has become a popular rallying cry.
It’s hard to know where to start in criticizing this little initiative, but I suppose the first problem is the authoritarian nature of it all. Bush and Petraeus have said escalations one through four weren’t enough, and that this fifth one might do the trick. As the argument behind the Pledge goes, if you’re a Democrat who backs a resolution expressing disapproval of the policy, you’re borderline treasonous. If you’re a Republican who votes with the Dems on this, you should lose your job.
Given the actual wording of the Pledge, it’s not a defense of the policy; it’s an argument that Bush and Petraeus are right by virtue of being Bush and Petraeus.
Glenn Greenwald explained this very well.
There is nothing like a feeling of besiegement and desperation to make a political movement — one that knows it is in its “last throes” — show its true colors. The Supreme General-Commander has now decreed that any opposition to the “surge” helps The Enemy. Therefore, according to Bush followers — beginning with the Vice President and moving down — it is now the solemn duty of every patriotic American, especially those in Congress, to refrain from voicing any objections to the decision made by the Leader and the General. We must merely ask ourselves only one question: how can we lend the greatest support possible to our Leader’s glorious plans? Everything else should be cleared away quietly and peacefully from our minds. […]
Now, the Leader and the General have spoken, and that settles that — now, not only do we need more troops, but it is unpatriotic to suggest otherwise…. Opposition to the “surge” is “wrong” because Gen. Petraeus said so, said that it would help The Terrorists. What is most notable about this duty of mindless submission to the General is that it emanates from the very top of the Bush movement.
It gets back the point that the right has fully embraced, more the past few weeks than the past few months — dissent is unwelcome. What matters is not whether you agree with the policy; what matters is that you shut up regardless of what you think. Bill Kristol captured the point perfectly a few days ago when he insisted the only “responsible” thing to do is to “be quiet for six to nine months.”
The Pledge is premised on the exact same idea. Lawmakers, no matter how concerned or convinced they are that Bush is off-track, must stay silent. Even a non-binding resolution is too much to bear, and Pledge backers are willing to put the future of the GOP’s hopes for the Senate on the line to prove their point — a lack of silence now will mean a lack of support later. Bush and Petraeus have spoken; that’s all we need to know.
Glenn reminds us of a 1918 quote from Theodore Roosevelt that seems to apply.
The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
Of course, Roosevelt suffered from pre-9/11 thinking….