Not in my name. . .

We live in a representative democracy. As a citizen I cast votes for people who were elected to act in my name. Most recently the number of Democrats elected dictated that their majority party now gets to take the lead in Congress.
What did my votes purchase? What does being a Democrat "buy" for me? I am not a registered lobbyist. Nor I have anything to offer in return for adequate representation, except another vote or perhaps a letter of support for an action. Would someone act in my name if I called myself an Independent? What if I did not vote? Must I vote to be considered "a constituent?"
Who does what in my name? Does a U.S. Senator from another state represent me? I notice, for instance, that many Senators' websites offer to make replies only to people form their states. What about a U.S. Representative from a neighboring district in my state? Do they serve "at large" for the state, or do they feel pressure only from those who write from their district?
I have no voice. The hardest thing for me is that, except for my mayor and my county commissioner, I am officially represented only by Republicans. Elected officials for whom I have not voted from my city, my state, and my nation - from the lowest office to the highest - do not speak for me. Do any of them feel bound to act in the name of Democrats too? What is my Governor authorized to do in my name, or my mayor?
No official can make war in my name with my permission. Does Our Current President (OCP) act in my name? Do I want him to represent me? Making the war in Iraq is not what I would choose. It does not protect me; it makes me more unsafe.
(photo credit - "Taken by William M. Connolley on the march, feb 2003.")





Resources:

• Not in Our Name Project.
• NION Statement of Conscience Against War and Repression
• United for Peace and Justice - March on Washington, January 27-29, 2007

Speaking for me - To conclude this post I have linked and quoted from a number of fairly current editorial/opinions from a sampling of leading sources around the country. I have italicized the portions of the quotes that speak for me, that represent the way I also feel.
Washington Post's op-ed by Sally Quinn is heart-felt and passionateIt is a great read:

I hope that when President Bush discusses sending more troops to Iraq, knowing that we will have to pull out sooner rather than later, that the conversation comes around to the human suffering. Does anyone at the table ask about the personal anguish, the long-term effects, emotional, psychological and financial, on the families of those killed, wounded or permanently disabled?
When I hear about the surge, all I can think of is those young soldiers on the plane to Texas. We have already lost more than 3,000 soldiers, and many more have been wounded and disabled.
We have three choices here. All three are immoral. We can keep the status quo and gradually pull out; we can surge; or we can pull out now. When I think about those young soldiers on that plane coming back from Japan years ago, I believe pulling out now is the least immoral choice.

USA Today's Don Campbell's op-ed editorial is too luke warm overall for my taste:

It's not too late for President Bush to acknowledge reality, and perhaps improve his legacy before media pundits and historians carve it in stone. Some of us are old enough to remember the last two White House years of another president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, and that he left office dispirited and reviled because of the war in Vietnam.
. . . Vietnam and Iraq have few similarities, but on two counts they are identical twins. In both wars, the commander in chief underestimated the enemy. And in both wars, the commander in chief failed to "speak with candor."

LA Times' editorial is "getting there," as far as I am concerned:

Bush needs to spell out a realistic plan for ameliorating the ongoing disaster in Iraq. But if he wants to reassure Americans and give warning to Shiite leaders in Baghdad, he must do something more. The president needs to articulate the conditions under which the U.S. will pull out altogether, in the near future. As painful as that would be, it sure beats becoming embroiled in someone else's civil war.

New York Times' editorial is wishful thinking that OCP will behave any differently:

We’ve been down this road before. This time, it has to be different.
There have been too many times that President Bush has promised a new strategy on Iraq, only to repeat the same old set of failed approaches and unachievable objectives. Americans need to hear Mr. Bush offer something truly new — not more glossy statements about ultimate victory, condescending platitudes about what hard work war is, or aimless vows to remain “until the job is done.”
If the voters sent one clear message to Mr. Bush last November, it was that it is time to start winding down America’s involvement in this going-nowhere war.
. . . Mr. Bush is widely expected to announce a significant increase in American troops to deploy in Baghdad’s violent neighborhoods. He needs to explain to Congress and the American people where the dangerously tapped-out military is going to find those troops. And he needs to place a strict time limit on any increase, or it will turn into a thinly disguised escalation of the American combat role.

US News & World Report's opinion piece by Gloria Borger is far too passive, it seems to me:

It always happens this way in Washington: A policy gets hatched, it fails, then the leaders look for the best way to fix it. And that kind of change can be a good thing.
In the case of the Iraq war, it would be a very good thing. So all eyes will be on President Bush on Wednesday night as he calls for a new policy in Iraq. So far, that seems to include a troop surge of about 20,000, accompanied by domestic aid–and a set of benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqi government. . .
(paraphrasing Leon Panetta) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made promises that have not been kept. Promises such as policing Sunni neighborhoods and gaining command of Iraq's 10 Army divisions. And the administration itself clearly has concerns and questions about Maliki–but he's the only horse the White House has right now. And he's the one the administration has to trust–like it or not.
So it's a "riverboat gamble," as Howard Baker used to say. And the president needs to walk a fine line, without making it appear as if he believes he has made some very big mistakes. It's hard, maybe even impossible. Stay tuned.

OCP speaks tonight but not in my name. Today is Wednesday, "Activism Citizenship Environment Day" at South by Southwest. A suggestion for today's activism: if you agree with the premise, link to my post or communicate with your Senator or U.S. Representative. Let them know they still have a "no."


Technorati tags: bush security war news news and politics Congress activism opinion media