david sirota posted about something i have been thinking about for a while, the disconnect on iraq between the democratic party establishment in washington and the lay members of the democratic party.
when you think about it, it's really a failure of the system. our representative democracy is supposed to produce politicians who, at least roughly, reflect the views ot the country as a whole, at least on the major issues. that's what makes them our "representatives" and that's how we get to call ourselves a "democracy." when one of the major two viewpoints on a large issue is not represented by any of the major political parties, historically it has led to either a third party movement or a switch by one major parties to adopt the popular viewpoint. neither has happened yet on the iraq issue.
the disconnect really is nothing new either. right now, thinking the iraq war was a mistake is clearly mainstream, indeed most of the american public now holds that view by a wide margin. two years ago, it was a little different. back then 54% of americans thought the war was "worth the costs," but that still leaves a rather large segment of the population who believes it was a mistake. at yet, at around the same time, howard dean was being branded as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal for openly stating what over 40% of the american public apparently believed at the time.
as things continue to go down the crapper in iraq, by a wider and wider margin the american public is recognizing the decision to invade in the first place was a mistake. how big can the anti-war crowd get before the powers that be notice this growing vein of votes waiting to be tapped?
