I RULE!

As I've mentioned before, I've taken to reading Andrew Sullivan's blog pretty regularly. It's not that I agree with him, although I frequently do, it's that his method of approaching argument is fruitful. Yesterday I was reading a post and felt I had something to contribute, so I wrote him an e-mail just to help steer his intellectual ship. Well I checked the site today and he posted part of my letter! Cool! I have to say I feel a little bit proud. The lead-ups to my e-mail are this post and this letter from another reader. He cut out what I thought was a relevant section, so here's the whole thing:

I understand your sentiment, and I even felt it myself during the 2004 election. "George W. has made his bed, now let's make him lie in it. Then the world will see how bad this guy really is." At first I understood it as an impulse to see the man get the public derision he so richly deserves. I've come to realize, however, that it's not about him. It's about history. The reason we want Bush to be at the helm when his course runs aground is so everyone, even his Republican backers, will be forced to admit how drastically ill-conceived his neoconservative philosophy is. In so doing, we hope that when the history books are written, their authors will vindicate those of us who opposed him.

I hope they do, but I hope that the drastic and catastrophic failure we're headed for isn't what it takes to make the historians wise up. What we have to consider is more than just Bush's image (which, let's face it, is what he's really fighting for at this point). The continuation of the Bush policy has real consequences for real people, and while enabling that policy may provide a certain degree of moral separation from the actual implementer(s) of the policy, it does not absolve the Democrats (or anyone else) of their responsibility to the troops, to the Iraqis, or to themselves. I know you know this, because you said as much in your last post on the subject. But then you follow it with this shocker:

"On reflection, I should have been more precise: the Democrats should support funding this war as long as the critical swing-vote Republicans do."

I understand that not every ideal is politically realistic, and that the president still holds veto power over anything the Congress does. Certainly the Democrats should do everything in their realistic scope of power, and we can't hold them responsible if Bush's power still trumps theirs, but to say that they should take their lead from moderate Republicans, from anyone besides their own moral compass, makes my eyes bleed. As I understand it, your argument is that if they stop "supporting the troops," the Democrats will be giving Rove and company exactly the ammunition they dream about. This may be true, but surely by now America (the part for which we can hold out any hope) has woken up to what Rove's game really is. Surely by now we can stop cowering before the spectre of Karl Rove saying something mean about us. It's time we do everything we can to mitigate the consequences of Bush's hold over this country, and let the legacies fall where they may.