Measuring Democracy

God I love The Economist. Not necessarily because we always seem to see eye to eye ideologically (say that 5 times fast), but because they offer some of the best news combined with commentary anywhere on the internet.

The Reluctant Warrior speaks to a number of issues with the recent American and UN intervention in Libya.

With both sides of Congress coming down hard on the President, I liked the fact that the author actually backed Obama on this one:

When he collected his Nobel peace prize from Oslo in December 2009 he made a point of saying that he accepted the case for using force on humanitarian grounds, as Bill Clinton did in the Balkans in the 1990s. But justifying a war on such grounds depends on some large atrocity looking imminent—as it did by the time Colonel Qaddafi reached the gates of Benghazi and not, arguably, very much earlier.

What did he do wrong here? He sought UN approval, he didn’t send ground troops… yet Prez-O is still getting bashed from both sides of Congress. What good does that do the American people at this point? None what so ever.

This is the problem with democracy in the States right now: the only real reason the politicians are going hard against Obama is because there is an election year coming up. As there is every year. They are truly serving the interests of themselves, and themselves alone. Fueling bi-partisan resentment doesn’t do anyone any good.

The article also points to the fact that the principles behind Obama’s decision will largely escape the average American voter (yeah, we’re stupid, I get it). It’s a fair point, but it makes it even more crucial for our politicians (the Dem’s, at the very least) to back Prez-O and help explain what is going on to the public.

Pardon me for being an ideological softy, but I’d much rather see us together on this one. Constantly bickering across party lines isn’t getting us anywhere.