Is it Possible for Congress to End a War?
By this I don't mean to ask whether it's constitutionally possible--of course it is. Congress can vote to undeclare a war and to unfund a war, and although SCOTUS may uphold the Pres-o-dent's commander-in-chiefdom to do whatever, I for one would consider them nutso. They DO do nutso things, but again this isn't the question I'm asking.
THIS is the question I'm asking. Is it politically possible for Congress to end a war?
When I was in Europe for half of 2006, people repeatedly asked me how the Pres-o-dent got himself re-elected. They could see that he'd stolen the first election--no one I met doubted this--but then after 9/11, massive deficits, Enron, Iraq, and all the rest, a kind of unprecedented display of incompetence and crookedness, how did he actually do better the second time around? After fumbling a few times, I settled on a foolproof answer, which was this: The US has never voted a president out during a war. This has the virtue of being true, but moreso of being Historical. When you can come up with a Historical explanation, people will rarely put up much of a fight. The Historical seems so authoritative.
Has Congress ever ended a war? Plenty of em were unpopular with the Congresses of their day. The War of 1812 spawned an actual secessionist movement, and ALL of the nineteenth century wars faced significant Congressional opposition, but none of em actually got ended by anything except the other guy surrendering. Since World War II, though, things have been different. Wars don't get declared anymore, and they seem to last forever. But still Congress hasn't ended one, or not that I know of.
Could this change? I don't think so. First, the sitting Pres-o-dent won't let it happen. He'll hang on to his war til someone pries it from his cold post-presidential hands. He'll veto any legislation that threatens to end it. And the Congress won't impeach him, and if it did the next one would be worse. Now it would be possible for the Congress to draw a line in the sand, and say "We won't appropriate any more money for this war." The Pres-o-dent couldn't make them either. A significant majority of the public wants them to do this. But they won't, anyway. Why not?
No Congress ever has. See the power of the Historical answer? But again, why not? Who would actually not get reelected because of a vote to end the war? Representatives have a 98% reelection rate. No one would not get reelected. So why not? Because at some point the leadership would blink. Or do I think that just because the leadership blinked the last time around?
No, there's something hegemonic at work here. Tough guys don't hang tough for peace. Tough guys hang tough for war. People like me can say over and over again that it's manly to be for peace, but Congress won't buy it. And War Pres-o-dents don't get unreelected. But they should.
By this I don't mean to ask whether it's constitutionally possible--of course it is. Congress can vote to undeclare a war and to unfund a war, and although SCOTUS may uphold the Pres-o-dent's commander-in-chiefdom to do whatever, I for one would consider them nutso. They DO do nutso things, but again this isn't the question I'm asking.
THIS is the question I'm asking. Is it politically possible for Congress to end a war?
When I was in Europe for half of 2006, people repeatedly asked me how the Pres-o-dent got himself re-elected. They could see that he'd stolen the first election--no one I met doubted this--but then after 9/11, massive deficits, Enron, Iraq, and all the rest, a kind of unprecedented display of incompetence and crookedness, how did he actually do better the second time around? After fumbling a few times, I settled on a foolproof answer, which was this: The US has never voted a president out during a war. This has the virtue of being true, but moreso of being Historical. When you can come up with a Historical explanation, people will rarely put up much of a fight. The Historical seems so authoritative.
Has Congress ever ended a war? Plenty of em were unpopular with the Congresses of their day. The War of 1812 spawned an actual secessionist movement, and ALL of the nineteenth century wars faced significant Congressional opposition, but none of em actually got ended by anything except the other guy surrendering. Since World War II, though, things have been different. Wars don't get declared anymore, and they seem to last forever. But still Congress hasn't ended one, or not that I know of.
Could this change? I don't think so. First, the sitting Pres-o-dent won't let it happen. He'll hang on to his war til someone pries it from his cold post-presidential hands. He'll veto any legislation that threatens to end it. And the Congress won't impeach him, and if it did the next one would be worse. Now it would be possible for the Congress to draw a line in the sand, and say "We won't appropriate any more money for this war." The Pres-o-dent couldn't make them either. A significant majority of the public wants them to do this. But they won't, anyway. Why not?
No Congress ever has. See the power of the Historical answer? But again, why not? Who would actually not get reelected because of a vote to end the war? Representatives have a 98% reelection rate. No one would not get reelected. So why not? Because at some point the leadership would blink. Or do I think that just because the leadership blinked the last time around?
No, there's something hegemonic at work here. Tough guys don't hang tough for peace. Tough guys hang tough for war. People like me can say over and over again that it's manly to be for peace, but Congress won't buy it. And War Pres-o-dents don't get unreelected. But they should.
posted by jnerone at 3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home