The Will of the People

To my brother Tony:

The light came on, for me, after the '94 election. I was reading an article in The New Yorker about the Republican takeover of Congress. It made the American people sound like a group of elderly people that got suddenly very confused and ill-tempered at election time, and did something that would have terrible repercussions by voting in those horrible creatures - and this needed to be explained to them with condescending patience.

The 'will of the people' has always been valuable in the minds of beltway lefties and the fourth estate insofar as it reflects their eminently reasonable doctrine. If it doesn't, we're a bunch of self-interested idiots from JesusLand.

Let's review. We elected the Executive branch in 2004. (Never mind that some people still dispute that with all kinds of arm-waving, while conveniently forgetting that the popular vote, which some might see as a reflection of the 'will of the people', wasn't even close.) We put in place a president that was, like it or not, a stay-the-course type of dude.

This, of course, was America in it's "What's wrong with Kansas?" mode - a bunch of ignoramuses that obviously don't know anything. There were sanctimonious websites on which Americans offered their apologies for the results of the election, Democrats loudly complained that no mandate existed, and "Still Not My President" bumper-stickers proliferated. The suggestion was made repeatedly that will of the people, having been constitutionally expressed at the ballot box, should be entirely ignored. The editors at the New York Times repeatedly wagged one scolding gray-lady finger - this president better be moderate and compromise. Or else.

Now in 2006, armed with a congressional majority and an opinion poll - the Democrats feel like the American people have finally come to their senses. And we are obliged to listen to them on Iraq. And nobody is urging moderation.

And brother, to your point about the military. Yes, it would be wise to listen to the generals when it comes to these types of conflicts - including General Lynch, who makes it clear that a sudden departure is basically abandonment, and the world will watch as the chaos in Iraq accelerates to truly horrific proportions. The Left always warns of "slippery slopes" and cause célèbres like Darfur. Our departure from Iraq may be a prelude to a truly historic event.

Is that the will of the people? And will the people who claims do be doing their bidding take any responsibility afterwards?