political courage and the Democrats

/* possible partisan hackery alert

I think people are generally wrong to trust the Democrats to make significant and effective changes in American policy, domestic or otherwise. They repeatedly demonstrate they have no interest in making tough choices. In fact, they may be opposed to it in principle. Significantly changing policy would require conviction, and the Democrats are only convicted insofar as the popular will is convicted, and this is a rare circumstance.

Even a successful policy change is in some ways a loss for the Democrats, because after the policy is implemented and assuming it is at least somewhat successful, there will be less to give to the people. Therefore there will be less reason to keep the Democrats in power. Say, for example, the Democrats successfully implemented a national health care program. What happens after this starts running smoothly? What issue is left to fight for? What will be the party's raison d'etre? Successful maintenance of bureaucracy is not the best campaign platform.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Democratic inaction is their unwillingness to follow through on their promises about Iraq. They were elected in a landslide in 2006 to get us out of Iraq, and they did not have the political courage to do it. They capitulated to Bush, and they are given a pass by many people for no good reason. The Democrats could have us out of Iraq tomorrow. They control the war because they control the funding for the war. Because there is the chance that pulling out of Iraq would result in some type of disaster, and that they might be held responsible, they have avoided the responsibility altogether. They are concerned only about power. This came up in the conversation Prof. Andrew Bacevich had with Bill Moyers the other day (HT: Rod):

BILL MOYERS: And, yet, you say that the prime example of political dysfunction today is the Democratic Party in relation to Iraq.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, "Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War."

And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war.

BILL MOYERS: And you say the promises of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi prove to be empty. Reid and Pelosi's commitment to forcing a change in policy took a backseat to their concern to protect the Democratic majority.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Could anybody disagree with that?

end hackery */

I'd add that the Republicans are not exempt from this criticism. Political courage is a virtue largely absent from American politics today; but I do think the Republicans, in this regard, are better than the Democrats. Indeed, this is one of the things I admire about President Bush - he never sold himself as a classically republican(small r) conservative - and he followed through on all of his policy propositions, as wrongheaded as some of them may have been. At least he had the courage to do so.

A good statesman must have both good ideas and the courage to act. Know any good statesmen?