Has anyone else noticed how the fortunes of the Dixie Chicks and the Democrats seem to have been strangely intertwined?
It's a virtual parallel. The Dixie Chicks emerged in the early '90s with a new lead singer and experienced nearly a decade of solid stardom. Meanwhile, Slick Willy becomes the new captain of the Democratic team and helps to turn the economy around and implement relatively progressive policies. In 2003, the Chicks, very briefly and rather casually, opposed President Bush's rush to war in Iraq and were promptly cast off into the dungeons of the country music world by overzealous and misguidedly "patriotic" radio conglomerates, fans and fellow artists. Frighteningly timid on security issues in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Dems sheepishly kinda-sorta opposed but really supported the war in Iraq in the classic I-voted-for-the-war-before-I-voted-against-it manner. Much like the ladies from Dixie, the Dems were also cast off into the cellar of American politics during a dark period of war-mongering, fear-manufacturing and hypernationalistic political discourse that we will call the "The Bush Administration 2001-2006."
But things changed last Nov. 7. The party that took us to victory in both major world wars surged back to power in Congress on lots of anti-war, anti-the past six years of abysmal governance rhetoric. Sunday night, the Dixie Chicks got its comeuppance by scoring five Grammys, including best song for "Not Ready To Make Nice," its anthem to dissent, even and especially in a time of war.
So much has changed for the Dems and the Dixies that I'd like to submit a modest proposal for a merger. A "Dixiecrat" was formerly a Southern Democrat who defected from the party in opposition to the extension of civil rights in and around 1948. But a Dixiecrat should now be defined as any Democrat who makes no bones about opposing the very premise of this immoral war, stands up to this weapon of mass destruction incarnate we call a president and offers progressive solutions in response to the poverty of ambition we have witnessed among our leaders in both parties over the past few years.
Let's put the new Democratic contenders for the presidency to the Dixiecrat test. Of course, there are a number of domestic issues that require urgent address from our leaders. But none of them can be attended to properly while we are currently having our nation's blood and treasure siphoned off by our involvement in Iraq. This war is the elephant in the room, the whirlpool in the sea of our best-laid plans and efforts to move forward as nation. So how do those seeking to lead the country stack up on this issue?
Edwards has called for an immediate withdrawal and has repudiated his own vote to authorize force in 2002 saying plainly, "I was wrong." Clinton has not committed herself to any specific plan, straddling the middle ground between getting us out of the war sometime in the very near future and being wary about leaving too soon and putting Iraq in greater peril than its current circumstance. She voted to authorize force in 2002 as well but has not admitted that her vote was a mistake or indicated that she would have definitely voted differently. Obama opposed the war in 2002 and continues to do so. Dodd and Biden both voted to authorize force as well and have not second-guessed that vote in any real way since. Richardson was busy running New Mexico.
The crux of it all is this: the Dixie Chicks and the neo-Dixiecrats got it right. Twenty-one senators and 133 representatives had the gumption to oppose this misadventure from the start. The establishment candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden) did not and therefore share significant responsibility for this war with the administration. The Bushies executed it while plenty of Democrats authorized it. And somehow we buy it when they get on their soapboxes and assail a war that they voted for? Saying nothing against changing one's mind about this war as many have, of course. But should we really choose someone to represent a new way forward for our foreign policy among those who were complicit in facilitating our old, flawed ways? I don't think so.
As an odd twist of history and turn of a phrase, Barack Obama has turned out to be the most promising neo-Dixiecrat and presidential contender on the issue of the war. Sen. Obama had it right from the start, has a specific plan for phased withdrawal, and thus far has been too busy "disagreeing without being disagreeable" with his competitors to call them out for their utter failure of leadership on Iraq. So I'll take up that mantle and be disagreeable for him. We know that Bush lied and got us there. And frankly he should be impeached for it, but that's another story. But until then, how should we reward our progressive leaders (Clinton, Edwards and company) for their devastating lack of backbone with regards to this war? Here's a suggestion: Don't hand them the presidency. They do not deserve it and we deserve better.
Paul Perry is a senior in the School of International Service
and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
