Reply #12: "Democrats Clinging To False Pragmatism" (no shit!)

[TahitiNut]

Democrats Clinging To False Pragmatism

Despite the passion of the anti-occupation movement, and the majority of Americans who support U.S. troops leaving Iraq, the shift in policy has stalled.

The problem, however, has been that Democrats in Congress and the Senate have been clinging to what they claimed to be a pragmatic argument: that U.S. troops leaving Iraq would lead to more violence, therefore it was not practical.

The Basra story now shows that pragmatic argument pushed by so many Democrats on the hill to be false.

In a very short period of time, the non-ideological pragmatism of the Basra story--our troops leave, violence drops--will become the dominant logic through which Americans view Iraq. As the ground of the debate shifts, Democrats who continue to cling to the prior, false pragmatism (e.g., violence rises when troops leave) will find themselves making arguments tantamount to a political suicide.

The same will be true for Democratic presidential candidates--who will likely feel the effects of this debate earthquake in the next 24 to 72 hours.

In particular, top-tier Democratic candidates for President have each been advancing a pragmatism on Iraq that the Basra story now reveals as false. As a result, the ground will shift under their campaigns.

The Achilles' Heel of "pragmatism" is and always has been the delusional prognostication ... "they'll greet us with roses" and such. More atrocities have been committed in the false name of "pragmatism" than can be counted. Blind ideological zeal is NEVER principled.

The Basra result is exactly the kind of result that can be made possible by the Kucinich (and Network of Spiritual Progressives) plan for Iraq withdrawal. Choosing to act according to PRINCIPLES rather than
"pragmatism" is always correct.