Clausewitz on the Hill

I was thinking of the old phrase "war is politics by other means" in relation to current Republican politics. There are times where the more belligerent Tea Party types are on the verge of seeing politics as war by other means, with certain breeds of leftists (Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" comes to mind) ready to return serve.

That begged a quick Google to check on the father of that quote, which is Carl von Clausewitz. "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means" is the longer version of that.

Serious students of geopolitics and military theory will know more about Clausewitz than I do, so I'm not in position to delve too deeply here. However, some of what I read in his Wikipedia actually starts to apply to the battle of wills between the parties in Washington. This line stuck with me as I read-

Clausewitz saw military force as an instrument that states and other political actors use to pursue the ends of policy, in a dialectic between opposing wills, each with the aim of imposing his policies and will upon his enemy.

The threat of a budget impasse shutting down government is a political weapon in this contact. It can turn into battle of wills to see which side will "blink" first and give in. In the meantime, the collateral damage of a non-functioning government (or at least parts of it, since time-critical "essential" players aren't laid off) wears on both sides until one (or both) camp gives and an agreement is reached. Some working agreement will wind up being reached in all but the most dysfunctional cases.

Another thing that caught my eye is this-"Clausewitz's emphasis on the inherent superiority of the defense suggests that habitual aggressors are likely to end up as failures." If one side is defending the status quo and the other is trying to change it, the side on defense is in a stronger position. That, unfortunately, puts conservatives at a disadvantage, since cutting unwelcome parts of the budget lets liberals play defense; warping normal lingo, liberals conserve a big-government status quo and conservatives seek change.

At some point, a political version of Just War theory seems to fit.

(1) Can you win? If the answer is no, what is the point of trying? Hurting folks just to make a political point doesn't seem all that good, unless waking up the polity on that issue is worth the pain.

(2) Does the battle change anything? If not, then you're fighting for the sake of fighting.

(3) Is the result worth the damage caused by the combat? If not, then the combat isn't worth doing.

Another line is worth noting-"War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." If you're unlikely to win that battle of wills, then the battle is very short-sighted and ill-advised if there is significant damage done in the battle.

Laws get passed two ways. Either you get both houses of Congress and the President to agree or you get two-thirds of both houses to give the President a middle-digit salute.

In the current setting, who will lose a battle of wills? The President? Enough congressional Democrats to get to a veto override? Or enough moderate Republicans to create a center-left coalition to get a bill passed?

The reality at this point is that it's the third option. Moderate Republicans will be the ones to bow to the sausage-making realities and work out a deal with the White House. There are some issues where the second option is feasible, as was the case with the Iran nuke deal; even there, the number of Democrats willing to buck the President wasn't enough to carry the day.

For the next 15 months, Obama has that fortified defense position called the presidency. Pickett's Charge should be left to reenactors and not lived out in Washington.

At the risk of casting conservatives as the Confederates, the Lost Cause is only lost for now, as there is an exit ramp off the expressway to serfdom coming up next November. Thus, some grace should be extended to the wurstmeisters like Boehner and (if he gets talked into it) Ryan who have to herd GOP cats and keeping things muddling through until then.

Comments

[Anne Wolfe]

I see something very good - a reasonable conservative who can argue, or comment, very intelligently. Voting is a good way to effect change, I think I hear you say. Voting by the populace to vote in representatives who will represent us well, I gather. May I make a comment? You suggest that democrats are for "preserving the big-government status quo" while conservatives want to effect change. Show me a president who has actually made government smaller overall, any republican in the past twenty or thirty years. Or even earnestly tried. (Reagan never made government smaller, not in California, not the federal government.) Like it or not, the military counts as part of our budget of government, and that is always made larger - possibly by both parties - definitely by conservatives. I'd personally like to see more money invested in training forces in "peace-keeping" - real peace-keeping skills, different from warfare. And far, far less in drones, for example. As for "big government" -- do you mean feeding the hungry, tending to the sick and those who need medical insurance and care is bloated government? In other words, social programs? I don't know what you personally think, but I know that there are many conservatives who feel that we can't afford them. I see that as sadly misplaced values, and misunderstanding the economy. It is like saying, "I cant afford to spend money on my infected leg or eat breakfast and lunch - I just have got to go to work." A country can't be a successful country that way, and one cannot be a successful person that way. If you really believe we can't afford it, there is a bridge you can buy, really cheap. So in the sense that the dems want everyone fed, housed, with proper medical care, including mental health care - that is forward progress as we see it. We can't wait until everyone has a job before that happens. In fact, there is never going to be a time when everyone has a job - we all know that. Equal opportunity - is that just hype? Affordable education? Those in the older generation who say they worked their way through school and such should be glad they lived in a time when that was possible...And back to my first point, why is it ideal to make government smaller when our country is growing larger, when we are having more natural disasters...why should a growing country have a shrinking government? Does that make sense? What makes sense to me is that a well-equipped government can efficiently watch business and curb excesses, while a small, poorly equipped government is a lousy watchdog and can't "mind the store..." - hence what happened when our stock markets took a terrific dive and big businesses were being bailed out years ago. Still, some came out, if not smelling like roses, doing well financially, and the upper class is more "upper" than ever. (I know I cannot discuss this as well as you can. I admit this is not a focused essay. It is a number of responses to your point.)