Historic House Vote

Last week, the US House of Representatives cast an historic vote. 229 majority Democrats (2 voted against) and 17 Republican Congressmen adopted a resolution that stated:

“Resolved by the House of Representatives, that (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

This vote was historical because it was the first time that a branch of Congress has openly voted against a President’s conduct of a war. Not during Lincoln’s conduct of the American Civil War (which was highly unpopular in the North during most of that war); not during Truman’s conduct of the Korean War; not during Johnson and Nixon’s conduct of the Viet Nam War.

Unfortunately, the US Senate could not generate enough votes to allow this simple, yet direct resolution to be voted upon by the Senators. This was a call for a simple up/down yes/no statement: tell the American voters know where you stand on this question. Even though over 67% of the American public now disagrees with the present conduct of the Iraq war and/or the announced troop surge in particular, most Republican senators refused to let the Senate as a body stand before this question and let it come to a vote.

Our national government continues to be plagued by partisanship, politics and process, leading to stalemates instead of creating solutions to important public issues. National debate is needed over a large number of critical needs; but nothing of real consequence seems to move to conclusion. Then again, given the level of debate that often occurs in Congress, perhaps we are in fact better off with no debate at all. To wit:

During the historic House debate, each Representative was given 5 minutes of time to speak, and almost 400 representatives took advantage of that opportunity to be heard. As one can imagine, the number of historical statesmen and philosophers quoted was probably matched by an equal number of analogies and historical precedents given to support each speaker’s point.

Perhaps the most memorable imagery was from Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). His argument was “Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his Blackberry and getting a message from Congress saying ‘Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is, we are not going to send any troops.’ I’m sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.”

Well, besides the obvious mind-boggling time-travel juxtaposition of Davy Crockett holding a Blackberry, the fact is that is EXACTLY the message Davy got from the Texas legislature (Texas wasn’t a state yet, so Congress wasn’t involved!) and General Sam Houston: no more troops are coming, so you’re on your own. But they stayed in the Alamo anyway, did their job, died, and helped make possible the later victories for Texas independence and statehood. So I guess for Davy and all the men there, being impressed by Congressional statements was not their major need.

Maybe we should be thankful sometimes not to have our elected people participate in important debates?