My must read of the day is "Obama endures as the lesser evil for liberals," by Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post:
The anti-Obama left was out in force. All 22 of them.
As the president stood on the South Lawn to announce the bombing campaign in Syria, liberal demonstrators gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue on the other side of the White House to protest the man they thought was their ally. […]
The liberal activists’ list of grievances was long: drone warfare, insufficient action on climate change and wages, "failed economic policies," bending to corporate interests. But the roll call of activists was short: Obama starts a war, multiple antiwar groups schedule a joint demonstration with plenty of advance warning — and only 22 people show up?
It was the latest display of how Obama has neutralized the left.
He has disappointed liberal constituencies on immigration, on climate change, on Guantanamo Bay and targeted killings, and now on Syria. Yet this month’s Washington Post-ABC News poll shows him with 69 percent support among liberals, 87 percent among African Americans and 75 percent among Democrats. Liberals supported airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (64 percent and 54 percent, respectively), as did Democrats (67 percent and 60 percent).
Set aside whether or not you agree with the airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, and whether or not you think the 2001/2002 AUMF or Title II give President Obama the authority to execute them without congressional authority, it is very odd that the people you would expect to hear protesting the loudest are silent.
As much as I hate the inconvenience of protesters, I’m not particularly keen on the newly apathetic activists either. Even if I think they’re wrong, I prefer to see someone have conviction in their beliefs and by and large the "doves," whether they’re activists or lawmakers, don’t seem to have any at all—and that is not just a phenomenon on the left.
There’s been, what many called an "unusual," coalition of lawmakers from the libertarian right and the liberal left who join together to stand up for civil liberties or to demand constitutionality. They joined together on things such as the NSA’s PRISM program, opposition to the use of drones, and so-called corporate welfare.
Recently, the Washington Post wrote about this alliance and pointed out that it seems to be "faltering this time around."
The article went on to note that it was just a year ago when so many lawmakers were furious about the idea of the president striking Syria without first coming to Congress. And it was July of 2013 when the House held a vote on an amendment to dramatically alter the NSA’s surveillance program, and it garnered 205 aye votes.
You have to wonder, where is that coalition now?
It seems many of them voted in favor of the latest Syrian amendment and few have publicly called for congressional authorization on the airstrikes going on today.
Look at the yes votes on Rep. Justin Amash’s (R., Mich.) NSA Amendment, and then look at the people calling for congressional authorization today or those who voted against the Syrian amendment to arm and train Syrian rebels. Shockingly, there’s not a lot of overlap and (with about three exceptions—Kaine, Amash, and Schiff) they are a whole lot quieter.
So what changed in their perspective in the last year? Either they realized that the dove-ish foreign policy doesn’t work or they’re disingenuous cowards. If it’s the first, they should buck up and explain it to their constituents. If it’s the second, they are the worst.