I think you have to remember that politicians are political animals. A politician is required to have several loyalities some of which conflict at times. Let's take the case of Joe Senator.
Loyalty 1
His home state
Joe is a nice guy by and large. But he is a Senator and he got there because he was elected. Not by the US, but by the people in his state. He is their representative. He is morally obligated to represent their views. Now if Joe is from Texas, his constituency as a whole is considerably different than his distinguished collegue from Mass, Ted Kennedy. Although I do not know this for a fact, I would be willing to bet that the typical Texan's call to his office is much like "Why the hell are we talkin about this son? Lets go get that bastard!" Teddy's call is more like "Why are we doing this? WTF does GB think he is doing? Are you really going to rush into a Vietnam again?" Now I said typical call. Yes there are those in Texas who think GB is an embarrasment and those in MA who think Teddy is a self serving weasel who ought to get out of the way of good clean war. That said, Joe or Ted represent the majority in their home state. Should either say "Hell you elected me, but why should I care what you think?" It is their job represent, and not tell their own state's people what they have to think. Therefore if MA residents on the whole have reservation about military action, then he had better say something.
Loyalty 2
Political parties.
Joe got to be on the ballot because people heard of him. A lot. He was in their face. To do this he had to have organization. Money. Influence. Power. Where did he get it? From a donkey or elephant. Moreover these animals have different stated goals and priorities that people can identify with. They have different ideologies. Democrats tend to be more liberal than Republicans. You do have conservative Democrats in the south and liberal Republicans in the northeast, but broadly speaking that is true. Now because you belong to a party, you can align yourself with others to bring back jobs and resources to your state. You can block the oppositions legislation that you philosophically dislike. You can promote the agenda of like minded individuals that approve of. That fact is you are united with individuals who can make the country you live in a better place according to your point of view. Little is truly free though. Your party got you in office. You owe them. If Teddy feels that his point if view is correct, and Joe does not agree, but is in the same party, he often has to go against his judgement and the majority of those he represents, because Ted is far more senior. Joe can pick his battles of course and one may say he is selling out, but this is not the only issue that will ever come before Congress. One day something may happen of great import to his state, and he may need Teddys support. He may or may not like Ted, but he had better remember that he has to work with him. When the time comes that Joes state need something, and the opposition party wants to deny it, or if several states are competing for the same piece of pork, then Ted will either see him as the guy that supported him on what he felt was a key issue, or the guy that shafted him when he needed help. Joe has to look at a lot of things. Obviously, this can cause conflict with loyalty 1.
Loyalty 3
The US as a whole.
Joe takes a look at this whole Saddam thing. There are some saying that Saddam is an immediate threat to the US and needs to go. What harm can come of removing a dictator? It is the right thing to do. He tortures and kills his own people. Perhaps those in his family. Crazy and dangerous. There are those who say that Saddam is a threat to his own people for sure and wish him off this planet too, but waht are the consequences of military intervention. Do we have the moral right to launch our own Pearl Harbor? If Saddams goal is survival, which has been what he has been all about, why would he use WMD against us when it assures his own death? To many uncertanties to attack, at least right now.
Loyalty 4
To thy ownself be true.
Joe has to ask himself what he can live with. Can he accept the consequences of war? Does he have the mindset that war is not only warrented, but in this case the best option? Does he think the President is well meaning, but premature? Someones blood may be on his hands. Did it have to be there? Bottom line... when he gets up in the morning and looks at himself, can he see someone he respects?
This is a simplified version of something far more complicated than a simple post can ever hope to cover. But we try.
Where do all these loyalties fit together?. Does the Party override considerations of his state? In fact do any of these conflict at all?
Joe may decide that the war is unwarranted at this time. If that is so, could the opposition be using popular sentiment to boost their party's position?
I can "what if" this to death, If you think about it, reaching a position in Congress is not an easy one. You say that Congress must allow use of military force. You have many voices in Congress who voice that sentiment. I do not agree with you however. Why is a different topic, but for now let's leave it at that, Where then is my voice? Why cannot I be heard through my representative? FYI I DO believe Bush wants to do what is best, but I disagree with him, and I want my voice to be known, even if it is disregarded.
The Congress struggles with all the above and more. Parties (Both of them) will strive for dominance and use circumstances for that purpose, but it is not all sinister. Some of it is. There is the lust for power. Human failings all fit into the equation of behavior, but I think it is wrong to lump all of debate and dissent as needless obstructionism
Facebook
Twitter