Essay: On Getting It Wrong

• Share

"Nothing ever gets settled in this town," George Shultz once said of Washington. "The debate never stops." Which is why no one can ever decide which side won. It takes so long for the consequences of a critical policy -- say, welfare -- to become apparent, and the results are so murky, that in the end few can remember who said what, assuming those who said anything are still living.

Not so the Persian Gulf war. Rarely in the life of a nation is a question so vital settled so decisively. The gulf debate is the closest politics gets to a controlled experiment. Hypotheses were advanced, and 43 days later the results were in. In the scientific world, one side admits error at this point. Those who believe in Lamarck or cold fusion either recant or retire.

In politics, however, you just carry on, trusting to the short memory of the audience. Well, maybe not this time. For once, an issue was settled. For once, the vaunted sagacity of Sam Nunn, the angry isolationism of Pat Buchanan, the "street"-smart Arabism of the Middle East experts have been put to the test: an encounter with reality. The results are not pretty, and the tested don't like it.

In January, Democrats solemnly warned that history would closely scrutinize the great gulf debate. Now, barely three months later, they indignantly cry "Foul!" when their antiwar words are recalled to them. How unseemly, they charge, to so manipulate a "vote of conscience."

Vote of conscience? What an odd distribution of congressional consciences we have, when 98% of Republican consciences just happen to fall on the President's side of the argument, and 70% of Democratic consciences on the other. Mathematicians will long be studying this extraordinary exception to the law of random probabilities.

Conscience? If this was a vote of conscience, what are we to make of Congress's other votes? Votes of pocketbook and partisanship? One would expect members of Congress to vote their consciences -- i.e., to decide what is in the best interest of the country -- every time.

And since when has conscience been a defense? It is hard to think of a more genuinely conscientious question for any legislator than abortion. And yet in the election campaign of 1989, the Democratic Party consciously, and successfully, focused savage partisan attacks on antiabortion Republicans.

I have no doubt that Democrats acted in the highest patriotism, seeking the best for their country, when they voted to deny the President war authority. I have no doubt that they voted their deep-seated feelings. But, and this may come as news to Democrats, feelings aren't enough in life. Representatives are elected not for their feelings but for their judgment. And this time the Democrats got it wrong.