On the drive downtown this morning, I had an interesting conversation with my mom about politics, the Bush Administration, and the war on terrorism, and I found myself saying some unexpectedly coherent things, so I figured I should post a summary of my thoughts.
It has been noted in the blogosphere — by conservative, generally Bush-friendly bloggers, no less — that the current administration is extremely vulnerable on homeland-security issues, if only some Democrat would pick up the ball and make the necessary criticisms. Specifically, various crucial aspects of homeland security are vastly underfunded (our total failure, nearly two years after 9/11, to adequately increase port security is just one glaring example), the states aren’t receiving nearly enough security-related aid, what little aid they are receiving is being distributed in an absurd way (hint: New York needs a bigger share of the money, Wyoming needs a lesser share), and Tom Ridge’s new department is becoming increasingly mired in, well, exactly the sort of bureaucratic woes that you’d expect from a new, vast, bohemoth bureaucracy.
It all adds up to one unescapable conclusion: whatever you think of the Bush Administration’s successes and/or failures in the overseas/military war on terrorism, they aren’t doing enough to fight the domestic aspect of the war. (And the steps they are taking are the ones that are most damaging to civil liberties, whereas the less onerous and arguably more important steps — such as, again, defending the ports against nuclear attack — go underfunded. More on that in a second.)
All of this would, in theory, make a potent campaign theme: “President Bush has left America vulnerable to another terrorist attack. President Bush is not defending America. If elected, I will defend America.” It also ties in nicely with other Democratic themes, e.g.: “President Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans have drained us of the money we need to defend 100% of Americans from terrorist attacks.”
The problem for the Democrats, I think, is that for a substantial portion of their base, “homeland security” is something of a bogeyman. It conjures visions of racial profiling, suspensions of habeas corpus, Japanese internment camps, and John Ashcroft tapping your phone to listen to you having phone sex — not to mention the ominous similarity between “homeland” and “fatherland,” which leads inevitably to those ever popular Bush-Hitler analogies.
The point is, many liberals seem to view the very concept of “homeland security” as a bad thing. Which, of course, is ridiculous — homeland security is necessary thing. But no one seems to have figured out how to criticize both the excesses and the inadequacies of Bush’s homeland-security policies. Liberals and ACLU types who focus only on the excesses come off looking wimpy and out-of-touch with post-9/11 realities. But nobody wants to criticize the inadequacies — that is, to call for more homeland security — because they risk being pilloried by (guess who) liberals and ACLU types.
The result: Democrats who want to win not only the nomination, but the general election (what a concept!), are seemingly caught between a rock and a hard place. (Dammit! I just realized, I don’t think I ever posted anything during Gulf War II using the phrase “between Iraq and a hard place.” Now there’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity missed.)
The two arguments — that the Bush Administration has not done enough, and that the Bush Administration has gone too far — are not mutually exclusive, however, if the case is made effectively. Indeed, I think the Democrat who figures out how to do this — and I’m not confident that any of the current crop of candidates will, but I gotta hope — will have struck political gold.
Criticizing Ashcroftesque excesses — offenses against privacy, civil liberties, and the Constitution — appeals to Naderite loonies, mainstream liberals, and conservative libertarians alike (N.R.A. types, for instance, are not too fond of big brother); making an effective case for greater security appeals to everyone. The Democrat who argues that Bush has done too much to turn America into a police state, while doing too little to actually protect its citizens, is the Democrat who would, very likely, have my support in 2004. And I suspect I’m not alone.
Even better would be a Democrat who can make that factual case — that the Bushies have failed — and also successfully explain to the public the logical fallacy that underlies the Bushies’ failures: the apparent belief among administration officials that the war on terrorism is a war that must be won almost exclusively “offensively” — that is, by “rooting out” the terrorists overseas — with domestic, “defensive” homeland-security measures mostly for show. Nobody actually says this, of course, but it is the logical conclusion one must draw from the administration’s decisions and priorities. (I’m not saying that they’re wrong to believe the war must have a substantial offensive component. But they’re wrong to believe the offensive component is so much more important than the defensive component. Both are equally important; we cannot win unless both are pursued vigorously.)
Democrats may not be able to agree among themselves on whether there should be an offensive component of the war on terrorism at all — there must be, of course, but many liberals don’t want to accept this — but they should all be able to agree that the defensive component should be, at the very least, equal in importance to the offensive component. That’s a bit of an esoteric point, but if a candidate can articulate it in a way that rallies the troops for 2004, we’ll really be on to something.
|
Categories: Election 2004, News: Terrorism & War
|
July 23rd, 2003 at 11:26:52 am
Hmmm, interesting. Who would be most likely of the Democrats in the race so far to take up this banner? John Edwards has consistently supported the President on Iraq and the like, but Howard Dean seems to be the one with the most to gain. Indeed, your ideas, Brendan, are echoed in Slate.com’s characterization of his agenda.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085791/
(I’ll learn to link it in the text, but I’m still only recently an ex-Luddite.)
I quote: “Protection would involve extra funding and more stringent security measures for ports and borders, plus money for detection and identification technology.”
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:06:57 pm
I enjoyed this post immensely, and I wish more Democrats were reading it. There are some major flaws in your substantive argument though. Before I get there however, I would like to point out that if the Democrats want a roadmap for not only how to defeat President Bush in 2004 but also how to lay a claim to real presidential leadership, they should study carefully Tony Blair’s speech to Congress last week. I’m half-convinced that Blair gave that speech not to support and back up Bush (which it plainly did, which is why the media has so underreported it), but to give an example of where the Democrats should be moving philosophically.
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:45:11 pm
Here’s the problem with your analysis, Brendan. To believe a Democrat could win the party nomination and then general election, you would have to assume that the candidates had embraced these presuppositions:
1. What happened on 9/11 changed the world forever.
2. Terrorism is an existential threat that must be confronted with diplomatic, military, and economic means.
3. We must go on offense, attacking the terrorists where they live and breed, and at home, we must be proactive in reducing/eliminating/streamlining the bureaucratic modalities that are more suited to 19th Century problems than 21st Century problems.
The problem with the Democratic Party is that it is not clear the party or its leadership accept 1. I would accept Lieberman, and perhaps Edwards, but every other candidate else out there is a non-starter. Even Wesley Clarke, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Bob Graham are not credible, despite their military/intelligence backgrounds.
I don’t believe most Democrats accept terrorism as an existential threat. They don’t seem to agree that there is a threat of terrorists getting their hands on the wrong weapons and blowing us to smithereens, and to the extent that they do, they certainly seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time attacking the actions of those who are purporting to do something about it (e.g., Bush taking out Saddam). Furthermore, the Dems post-LBJ have a well-documented tendency to fear, loathe, and misunderstand the military. They don’t believe its legitimate, they don’t want to fund it adequately, and they want to apply all sorts of social and politically correct criteria to it to make it more palatable an institution–all these things directly impede the military from being lethal, powerful, effective, and efficient. To the extent they do acknowledge the importance of the military, they want to use it for, say, fixing Haiti, Somalia, or Liberia, but heaven forbid we stand down Syria or North Korea (or Iraq). Whatever the case, they are more keen on words than actions, and UN mandates than bold American leadership. That is going to have to change, for as even Blair has now admitted, the UN is a failed institution in need of serious reform.
Finally, Democrats will be loathe to address the root problems that are the true causes of Bush’s political weakness on Homeland Security. Sure, Homeland Security is just this side of being a farce, but it’s not really for lack of effort or funding. The allocation of the funding is a farce, you’ve hit that nail on the head, but that’s not the GOP’s fault, really (or more accurately, it’s not one the Dems could solve if they were in power); it’s like the farm bill: the rural states gang up on the urban states and foster bad legislation and appropriations. The problem lies in the bureaucracy and turf battles, but then I ask you: who do public employees vote for, Democrats or Republicans? Precisely. So if you think the Dems are going to reform the bureaucracy, your head is in the sand. Their only response is, “Throw more money at the problem and the wise, good-intentioned civil servants will fix the problem!” And yet aren’t they now whining about deficits? And don’t they also want to pass universal health care and a more generous Rx drug package? How are they going to pay for that, reverse the tax cut? I just dare any Democratic candidate to come out and say, “Let’s reverse the Bush tax cut(s) to pay for all this new spending.”
And now you know why the Dems are stuck in low gear spinning their wheels in the mud and not going anywhere. They can barely appease their base, let alone shift their philosophy to accommodate a changed reality. When I start hearing echos of Blair in the Democratic Party, then I’ll believe they have even a snowball’s chance in hell at winning a presidential election.
July 23rd, 2003 at 1:04:19 pm
Don’t get me wrong: I do think Bush is very vulnerable on the Homeland Security issue, and I hope the Dems bring it up. The problem is, on the surface it’s a winner for them, but in the heat of a presidential campaign battle, they’ll have to come up with concrete solutions. I doubt they can do that without genuinely worrying a significant portion of the Democratic base, but I’m more than willing to watch them try. Thing is, I don’t think the real problem here is the Dem base; I bet they can get around that problem somehow. No, their real problem is their lack of ability to move their philosophy in the right direction, as I outlined above. Furthermore, if the Dems do somehow get a candidate that shifts the party and has credibility on both foreign policy and homeland security, then I could quite possibly hold my hose and vote for him (My what-have-you-done-for-me-lately disgust towards the Bush administration’s spending habits is palpable, trust me). And yet, if the Democratic Party could move far enough to where I could vote for a Democratic candidate for president, I predict that the Democratic Party would be split and deeply divided over that movement, just like the Labour Party in Britain has become under Blair. Labour is ready to crumble, held together only by a brilliant but unpopular-in-his-own-party Blair and an ineffectual opposition party. The GOP however is on top of its game (finally!) and would be very ready to exploit the ensuing fissures in the Democratic ranks.
July 23rd, 2003 at 6:56:07 pm
And here *I* always thought the Existential threat was Jean-Paul Sartre.
Good Coherent Thoughts, Brendan. (Were Mom’s? :)
Long Song Wrong (hi Andrew:) — especially re the culpability of “the wise, good-intentioned civil servants” (for which deserved compliment we do thank you kindly sir:) for instituting the bigtime turf battles & then voting Democratic in order to win them — BUT, let us forgive him; for suddenly out of Right field he has, with mighty arm & deadeye aim, hurled to the plate the THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT! (Hey hey hey waddaaya there, some kinda dam’ gravytrain Bureaucratic Grunt? :)
heeheehee
OKOKOKOK! ahem Sorry. / Well & honorably said & analyzed, Andrew. You are not a blind partisan; nor could you be, being too smart & principled for it. / Do I hear the faint stirring of oldstyle New England-type Fiscal Responsibility Republicanism? As distinct from today’s
Doan’ Mess Wif Taxes Coalition for the Flag, the Bible, & Pies in the Skies Over Texas?
(Your sweet and shiny eyes
Are like the stars above Laredo,
Like meat and potato
To me…
- Linda Ronstadt)
I agree nomination of a Blairy Democrat is (a) advisable, (b) unlikely, and (c) certain to split the party. BUT keep in mind (retired bureaucratic electionsgrunt mode now) that *IF* the dissidents *wait* till after, or not very long before, the Convention to start their drive — it will then be, de jure in many states & de facto in probably all, **TOO LATE** to get *new-party* candidates for the elective state office of Presidential Elector onto the ballots for the 51 state elections occurring in the November preliminaries to the December election of the President & VP. / The Bullmoose Dem tickets might (???) try to grab on to the ballot-qualified Green Party lines. If the Greenies go along. / The Libertarians, HAHAHA fuggedaboudit.
And in conclusion [massive applause, footstomping], re the obvious New Labor Dem choice under the Loy/Long criteria:
Lieberman. Lieberman. Lieberman. Lieberman.
July 23rd, 2003 at 9:50:57 pm
Maybe Lieberman is the man we’re looking for, but I doubt it. He’s already shown by the way he caved on affirmative action (and the schwartza shmucks at the NAACP), school choice, and abortion that he is more beholden to the Left’s interest groups than he is a free-thinker. More importantly, he has no appeal as a frontrunner candidate. He can’t win. And thus, he helps prove my point.