WE the people

 

This is an admittedly quick response to the growing discussion around Syria, but I thought I would jot it down while it was still fresh.

It is prompted by remarks read today in the New York Times from leading congressional Republicans.

As we know, President Obama favors military action in Syria as a response to what is claimed to be irrefutable evidence that the President of Syria used chemical weapons on his citizens.

But rather than striking out unilaterally President Obama hopes to secure congressional approval.  This was a politically strategic move.  Although President Obama retains his authority to act, he is placing Congress in a position of having to share responsibility for the outcome.  If congress fails to grant approval there may well be political and moral consequences.  If they grant approval it is more difficult to blame "the Syrian conflict" on the President alone.

But today we have a twist which is predictable and disheartening.  Here is the excerpt from the Times article:

Speaker John A. Boehner said on Tuesday that he would “support the president’s call to action” in Syria after meeting with President Obama, giving the president a crucial ally in the quest for votes in the House.

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, quickly joined Mr. Boehner to say he also backed Mr. Obama.

“Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.






At face value this appears to be a positive step: bi-partisan agreement moving forward on Syria.  But the time bomb is planted in Mr. Cantor's quoted remarks.  After voicing support, Mr. Cantor adds "It is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor.

Here is where the language becomes quite deliberate.  Why is it not "our" job to make the case?  Here is the quote again, not as it was but how it might have been. 

 “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to all of us, the President and Republican leadership who support his cause,  to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope WE are successful in that endeavor,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.

By being very specific in identifying the task of convincing Congress as Mr. Obama's, Republican leadership has distanced itself from the outcome.  When the Republicans in the House are not persuaded, whose fault will this be?  Mr. Obama's.  I will grant this is quite ingenious, but it is also disingenuous.   If the Republican leadership truly wishes to give evidence that they support the President than they should share in the responsibility to support the President's ongoing disclosure of rational.  They need to move from the second person plural to the first person plural. But I will bet you dollars to donuts that when the Republicans hinder this effort, those who previously "backed" Mr. Obama will lament his poor ability to make the case and, in so doing, suggest that they are blameless all the way around. 

Certainly such military action needs justification.  Surely there is justification for skepticism on behalf of lawmakers.  My skepticism runs deeper and it is exemplified in the refusal of Mr. Cantor to shift to the first person plural even as Republicans are claiming to offer support.
 
And so it goes... and will continue to go until someone in a position of leadership in Washington reacquaints themselves with the first three words of the Constitution and thereby come to understand the importance of that first word,  the first person plural "we".