Monday
January 3 2005
A QUESTION DEMOCRATS MUST ANSWER: Yesterday Adam
Nagourney looked at the difficulty Democrats are having
in coming to a consensus about why John Kerry lost on November
2.
Everyone
Nagourney quotes in his article seems to have at least some
grasp of the dynamics of this year's race and has come to
some conclusions about the loss. Well, almost everyone:
"I
don't subscribe to any of these notions that we have to
examine our conscience as to who we are," Ms. Pelosi
said. "We know who we are. We know what we stand
for. We'll make it clearer in the non-presidential election
year what the differences are between the Democrats and
the Republicans."
This
is the sort of head-in-the-sand, "thank you sir, may
I have another" attitude that frankly should scare
a lot of Democrats to death. It's the reason they've been
reduced to being the minority party for the foreseeable
future.
Yet
as Ron
Brownstein noted in a related piece yesterday, this
hasn't prevented an all out battle among the left's intelligentsia
for the soul of the Democratic party. To oversimplify: On
one hand there is the "progressive" American
Prospect crowd (Kuttner, Meyerson, Sirota, et al) who
want to focus primarily on domestic issues and a theme of
economic populism - also known as class warfare. On the
other hand there is the "centrist" DLC/New
Republic crowd (Reed, From, Beinart, et al) who argue
that Democrats won't get anywhere unless they first pass
the national security test with the American people.
Theoretically,
progressives will take a position on national security that
is similar in many respects to the one John Kerry took this
year: they'll say they will fight terrorism and protect
America (largely through investment in homeland security)
but they will continue to oppose the War in Iraq, as well
as any future military action taken without the approval
of the United Nations. Perhaps it will play differently
with the public four years from now, but the inherent contradictions
in this position didn't make it very convincing at all this
year - even coming from a decorated military veteran.
Beinart's
centrist vision on national security certainly sounds
better in theory, but arguing Democrats should adopt a "Cold
Warrior" mentality toward the current War on Terror
is much easier said than done. The real problem for Democrats
is rooted almost entirely in the their continuing inability
to move beyond the experience of Vietnam.
The
anti-military, peace-at-all-costs mentality which infiltrated
the party in the late 1960's and early 1970's has finally
grown to maturity and solidified to the point where not
even an event as dramatic as September 11, 2001 causes much
more than a ripple among the party elite and the activist
base.
The
question that Americans want Democrats to answer with clarity
is this: when and where is the use of military force justified
in the war against terrorism?
After
September 11 President Bush set forth a clear doctrine giving
the American people answers to those questions. It's an
aggressive policy and many people disagree with it, but
at least it's something they can see, touch, and feel.
Democrats,
on the other hand, have sent the country very mixed signals
since 9/11. This year John Kerry did little to help - indeed,
he may have even hurt - the cause of clarifying the party's
position on the use of American military force in the world.
When
part of the Democratic base doesn't believe military action
in Afghanistan was justified, or when leaders of the Democratic
party were wholeheartedly in favor of military action in
Kosovo without UN approval but were against the first Gulf
War or are opposed to the current War in Iraq, Americans
have every right to wonder what they're thinking and be
skeptical of their judgment.
As
a follow up to "A Fighting Faith" I'd love to
see Peter Beinart tackle the job of putting forth a doctrine
that would articulate, as best as possible, the principles
that would guide Democrats in considering the use of American
military force in the future. At least then the public could
understand, rather than guess, what a centrist Democrat
would be committed to with regard to national security.
If they want to return to the majority any time soon, it's
a question the Democrats simply have to answer. -
T. Bevan 9:30 am Link
| Email |
Send
to a Friend
