Within
moments after President Obama bluntly indicated that he was ready and willing
to strike Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces for its alleged mass chemical
attack on civilians, dozens of the most liberal House Democrats signed a letter
warning him to tread very carefully on any Syrian action. Their message was cautious,
gentile, and diplomatic. The implication behind it was that an Obama
administration strike against Syria carried grave political risks. One risk was
obvious. And that is that with or without Congress's authorization, waging war
against a nation that has not directly attacked or poses any direct threat to
the United States again tags the US as the dreaded, and in the Middle East,
hated aggressor and bully.
Obama
was mindful of this risk when he early on ignored GOP war hawks and did not
rush headlong into an attack on the country without clear and verifiable
evidence that Assad's hard war against rebel factions threatened US and allied
interests in the area. He ignored the GOP hawks again when he tossed the ball
to Congress to make the decision whether to strike and what the parameters of
the strike objectives should be.
The
unstated risk was hopelessly alienating his most impassioned supporters while giving
his inveterate GOP detractors another card to play against him. The even more
long range political peril is to further taint Democrats in the eyes of
liberals and progressives as a party that is just as willing to wage war as the
GOP. All three are important considerations for Obama. They take on even more
significance given that polls show Americans overwhelmingly oppose any
involvement in Syria, masses of demonstrators have already taken to the streets
in protest of a strike, and some Tea Party affiliated GOP congressional reps
have screamed loudly against the war drums. And GOP Senate war hawks want
nothing less than an all-out attack to remove the Assad regime.
The
threat of an active and passive drift of progressives away from a full throated
support of his policies has been building for some time with deep questions on
everything from the compromises he's made on health care reform to the
perceived over catering to Wall Street interests. The hard reality, though, is that Obama needs liberal
Democrats and progressives in Congress and in the field to sell his initiatives
on immigration reform, jobs and the economy, the looming showdown with the GOP
over the budget, and his staff and judicial appointments. Red dog Democrats,
bankers, corporate CEOs and lobbyists can't and won't put the passion, energy
and, most importantly, the bodies out there to do the grunt political work to back
him and to spearhead the tough battle many Democrats face to keep their seats
in the House and Senate in 2014.
There were 120 million voters in 2012. The
Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, and the
Progressive Democratic Caucus, the third parties, left leaning labor unions,
and left independents together represent an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the
overall vote. That's 12 to 15 million voters. However, it's not just the
numbers. It's also where the numbers are. The bulk of the voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida traditionally are Republican,
independents, and moderate and conservative Democrats. With the exception of
Pennsylvania, Bush won these states in 2000 and 2004, and bagged the White
House. Obama did not change the voter demographic in these states. He did,
however, drastically rev up the numbers of black, Latino, and youth voters,
generally more socially and politically progressive, and self-designated
progressive voters that turned out. This made the crucial difference and
cinched his wins, as well as that of many House and Senate Democrats.
Liberal
Democrats and progressives within and without Congress have repeatedly reminded
Obama to remember the promises he made on Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of
Iraq, he blasted it as a failed and flawed war that should never have been
fought. He promised that as president he
would move as quickly as possible to end it. He kept that promise. As for
Afghanistan, he escalated the war, but there was always the explicit
understanding that the established timetable for phased withdrawal would be
kept and there would be an actual end to direct US military involvement in the
country. He's kept that promise.
Though
Obama has taken much heat from the left for his willingness to play the tough
guy on defense and national security issues, the truth is that he has moved
with far more apparent caution on these issues than critics claim. The Syrian
strike threat is again the best example. Obama has made it clear there will not
be direct US military involvement. This is an easy call since few Americans
will back that anyway. He's hedged on when the threatened missile strikes
against Syria will occur, saying that there's no set timetable for the launch
if Congress approves action.
This is
Obama's nod to his backers who oppose any action against the country, or demand
the most limited action possible to insure no repeat of anther Iraq and
Afghanistan quagmire. Obama's challenge is to assure them a Syria strike won't lead
to that.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He
is a frequent MSNBC contributor. He is an associate editor of New America
Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio
Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio
Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
