Because we do not live in a parliamentary system, after such a vote we’ll simply have to muddle through. But muddle through we will – and have, many times before, through far more serious crises in confidence. I mean, good heavens – the House of Representatives impeached the last Democratic President, and not only did the heavens not fall but there was no discernible diminution on the President’s authority in any sphere. Presidents Ford and Carter faced much more serious rebukes from Congress in foreign policy where there was far clearer damage to Presidential credibility. We don’t generally count their Presidencies as successes – but America’s foreign policy was not crippled. If President Obama loses this vote, he will just have to count his votes more carefully in the future before committing himself where America does not already have clear and binding treaty obligations. Why again would that be so terrible?

Moreover, how much worse would the Obama Administration – and America’s foreign policy – be damaged if it gets bogged down in a proper war in Syria that the country largely opposes? Or, alternatively, if it limits itself to a pinprick response, and al-Assad continues to prosecute his suppression of the rebellion with maximal brutality (whether or not he uses chemical weapons in so doing)? Even if all we care about is the President’s credibility, shouldn’t those possible negative consequences of action be weighed in the balance?…

If Congress votes “yes,” and does so for the reasons Douthat articulates (fear of crippling the Presidency), then “authorization” by Congress will have been reduced to a literal formality. How is that better than having a future President try to avoid facing Congress (and possibly face rebuke for doing so)? How, in particular, does it make it more likely that future Congresses will have the courage to stand up to Presidents who ignore or try to railroad them?