Congress is a noble idea. Representatives - numerous - consider issues which aren't deemed relevant as voting issues. Contemporary representatives are, also, keenly aware of politics. The differentiating characteristic between politics and representation is that politics is the means to representation. But what happens when the obligation of representation is supplanted by the awareness that being a representative is a wonderful means by which to further the political-self? If I as a representative use my position, not to consider an issue honestly or fully but rather to advantage my future political career then what becomes of representation? If instead of spending the effort to consider the issues as fully as I can, I spend the effort to ensure my reelection? Or to ensure a status leading to an even more prominent office of representation?
Well, I think this incongruity dilutes the effectiveness of representation as well as tainting the position of representation.
President O'bama has decided to put before Congress the question of retaliating against Syria for it's recent use of the nerve gas sarin. I think there is some reason to believe a political motive to this procedure. By going to Congress some of the responsibility for any decision on the issue is shared even, arguably, abnegated . But is there a reason by which to claim there is neither sincerity nor value in exercising a shared representational relationship between Congress and the President on this issue? No; not one iota of a reason. A decision not to consult Congress would have been abnegating.
A certitude of correctness in striking Syria, a knuckling under to insinuations of abnegating the constitutionally authorized power of the office of President, and a continuation of an operating procedure characterized by a group-think rusty with 'standard tradition', all would have been present. Under these conditions, a continuation of commonplace decision-making would have been an abnegation. President O'bama had the strength of character to make a turn of course; A characteristic of his I've, unfortunately, come to take for granted.
Because the value of the Presidential - Congressional relationship is evident, in this case, I think it important that Congress put politics aside on the issue. I'm not refering to a Congressional deference to the Presidency such that Congress abnegates it's responsibility thus pandering to the President's wishes. I am referring to a necessity to admit;
- Doubts concerning the issue - to which doubts President O'bama's consultiveness admits.
- A President willing to break from a tradition of a certitude of, both, 'moral superiority' and the 'realpolitik'.
- A President willing to put some responsibility on Congress - as a recognition of Congresses share in a somewhat unprecedented issue - which issue should sensibly gather the considerations of the peoples' representatives.
None of this opinion is designed to decide a military strike as wrong. In fact, personally, I think a military strike is necessary. What is not necessary is a continuation of a prideful international stance in an ever-changing world. Nor is it necessary to acquiesce to domestic politics as a career-game. Congressional representatives are supposed to be some of are brightest, most able citizens. I hope they're political advantaging is put aside to take on the task of actual consideration on a demanding and difficult issue. One of many that has been faced by a strong-minded President.