As JK noted in his statement yesterday, progress has been made.

“This is an important step forward. Last summer, Senator Feingold and I offered a plan to set a one year deadline to bring our troops home from Iraq, and 13 senators voted for it. Today, 48 senators supported this approach. This debate isn’t over and none of us will rest until the war is over and our troops are home. I applaud those who had the courage to cast their vote for this plan.”

He also re-emphasized what he has said many times before:

“We must set a deadline to force Iraqis to compromise and bring our troops home from Iraq; and today’s vote represents a strong step forward toward achieving that goal,” Senator Kerry said. “Iraqis have only responded to deadlines, and a deadline for troop redeployment will force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country and bring our brave men and women home. This plan would have finally forced President Bush to realize that more of the same is not a plan, and that the American people are ready for this war to end.”

Yet many are disappointed that the resolution didn’t pass. Many have expressed equally pointed criticism about the process in the House. I found myself thinking about an insight that JK has offered before but offered again in his response to JakeTapper of ABC News:

“These things take time,” Kerry said. “Things have to percolate. That’s the nature of legislation.”

<!-more-> They do take time but are the advocates of ending the war right now any less right in what they demand?

Richard Bell made a comment in a discussion elsewhere which I think pertains.

What is the role of activists in the legislative process? How does their role differ from what legislators actually do?

These questions frame a never-ending source of confusion and misunderstanding, which is not surprising given the paradox at the heart of this activist/legislator relationship. How often are activists disappointed that some legislator failed to fight as hard as they had expected? And how often do you hear of legislators who are frustrated by their interactions with activist communities? (And note that this phenomenon is not partisan.)

It is the nature of activists to be pure of heart and purpose. They know what they want, and they will accept no compromise. I would argue that as activists, it is their duty and their responsibility to be as aggressive and bull-headed as possible in pushing their goals.

It was not for nothing that Frederick Douglass, one of the keenest activist minds in the country’s history, famously observed:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

I’ve heard that quote a million times. This time I did a little research, and discovered the much richer material from which this quote was abstracted. Here’s the complete text:

“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

“This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.”

Looking at this relationship from the legislator’s side, it is the nature of legislators to compromise. The legislator’s heart is torn between holding out for the ideal, and taking any step forward, however incremental that step may seem. There are times when doing nothing may be the best that can be done. But the legislative process is decisively tilted in the direction of getting all parties to stop talking past each other and identify whatever common ground can be found.

...In the end, I do not believe that there is any happy meeting place between deeply committed activists and their legislative representatives. If activists believe that their cause is just and absolute, then compromising is anathema. By the same token, legislators who are leaning in the activists’ direction will struggle to understand why activists are not happy with half a loaf, or two-thirds of a loaf.

The answer to this paradox is mutual understanding of the different roles they play, not changing the roles. Legislators should not be hurt or angered when people whom they think of as supporters continue to demand more than the legislative process of compromising can deliver in the moment. Activist pressure is absolutely essential if the proffered compromises are not to become even weaker, much less empowering the legislators to go back to the table once again and push for more.

At the same time, activists should understand that even the best legislators are hemmed in by the legislative process, and that taking a stand that removes the legislator from the table may produce worse results because of the absence of that voice.

For those who have been frustrated by the slowness of the response to what many perceived as a mandate delivered by the November 2006 election to change course and end the Iraq war, I must offer up JK’s insight based on his many years of experience and his understanding that though his name may not be on the Iraq War plan, nevertheless his contributions are significant and all part of the process. You don’t just make one attempt and then quit and go home. You keep on trying.

There’s one other piece to the legislative process that I want to introduce and that is that there are other priorities. There isn’t a single right priority and all the others are wrong. Rick Albertson wrote a long piece titled “Joe & Jane Citizen – Lessons on Budgeting” that illustrated this point beautifully. There are many issues, many needs that must be addressed.

Climate change is an extremely critical one as is the availability of health care. For those who are focused on a single issue, as overwhelmingly right and true as it may be, there are many priorities to be balanced. In Rick’s example, it’s a balancing act to keep the bills paid, the kids clothed and in school, to meet everyone’s needs and some of their wants with limited resources. “Everything’s a compromise. The devil is in the details. And it’s never that simple. Not in the real world, anyway.”

But we don’t quit, ala JK. We keep moving the ball down the field whether we get credit for it or not.

And what’s the take-away? What do you need to do?

Awhile back in “JK on the blogs – 11 – Special Veterans edition”, I included a dailykos diary entry which contained this story about JK:

Garrett Reppenhagen is a member of Iraq Vets Against the War and Veterans for America (formerly Vietnam Veterans Against the War). He is working on several fronts, but one of the most important is the work he is doing to find a retreat and treatment center for homeless vets. He is seeking federal and state funds to build the center.

....

Garrett met with Sen. John Kerry, who told him “Look, I’ve had 500 people here in my office this week. The other 499 were here for other reasons than the war.”

To the extent that setting a deadline and withdrawing our troops from harm’s way in a situation which they cannot bring to a successful close through military action, is a priority, it should be a visible priority in terms of communication.

There is a gap right now. Perhaps we can help JK advance that ball a little further down the field by letting the other 52 Senators know what our priorities are… provide consistent, persistent communication from those in their home states. Let them know that you support SetADeadline.com and the action plan recommended by the Senate Democrats—as Jake Tapper put it:

Dems’ Iraq Plan Looks Similar to John Kerry’s; Similar Plan to Senator’s Proposal in October 2005

 

One final note: Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily had a couple of points on the 48 senators and their vote which you may find of interest.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

UPDATE: JK is going to be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this week. Check your local listings for the time.