The progressive wing of the Democratic party better get these centrist DLC types back in line soon, or they are going to piss all over Operation Yellow Elephant and the wildly popular Chickenhawk meme:
After months of internal debate and closed-door discussions, Democrats have begun to develop a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses heavily on threats they say are being neglected by the Bush administration, while avoiding taking a contentious stance on Iraq.
Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.
Democrats are also calling for better pay and benefits for soldiers and heightened efforts to protect mass transit and other potential terrorist targets.
The emerging message among Democrats reflects a recognition that winning congressional and presidential elections in the post-Sept. 11 era requires candidates to establish a willingness to use America’s military might and keep the nation safe, according to party leaders and strategists.
Despite pressure from liberal groups calling for a quick exit from Iraq, several of the party’s White House aspirants and congressional leaders are calling for the United States to intensify efforts to bring stability to the nation before troops come home.
Give it a read. Might be seeing the return of the Scoop Jackson wing.
Steve
The more the public turns against the war, the more elected Democrats decide that they have to outflank Bush to the right. It’s an interesting strategy.
Maybe it does make sense to be less anti-Iraq and more pro-doing something else. After all, I don’t think anyone is seriously advocating that we should withdraw from Iraq and then curl up in a shell as though it was 1940. We should be going after Osama and we should be devoting our resources to controlling nuclear proliferation, rather than building aqueducts in Fallujah.
As for veterans’ benefits and the like, the Democrats have been stronger on that for years, not that it seems to help them any. On the other hand, the Republicans are definitely the party of defense contractors, and that most certainly helps THEM.
Geek, Esq.
What next? Is it going to be necessary to endorse the teaching of Intelligent Design and privatizing of Social Security to be considered a ‘serious Democrat?”
Jimmy Jazz
Might be seeing the continuation of the tin-ear, out of step, defeat from the jaws of victory DLC “strategy”, just in time for Republicans to announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq next year to the deafening cheers of the media establishment and the general public.
Rick
Might be seeing the return of the Scoop Jackson wing.
That would be a welcome development, but the iron grip of the wingnuts in today’s Democratic party won’t allow it.
Cordially…
Defense Guy
I think your logic is wrong on this. If the public is turning against the war, why are these Dems positioning themselves as warlike?
capelza
Which wingnuts would that be? The ones who helped pass Cafta and the Bancuptcy bill? You give the wingnuts (though technically aren’t those on the left moonbats?) too much credit, which is to the credit of the Republican media campaign.
To lose the “wussy” image?
demimondian
Perhaps because they genuinely believe that a strong national defense is imperative? No, it isn’t the best short-term political strategy, but it is the best strategy over the long run — moderate Dems want a strong and safe nation, which can, when the need arises project force against any potential attacker. We want a solid intelligence service, which presents all parties needing information with solid data, to the extent possible, instead of presenting a tiny right-wing elite with a set of carefully crafted lies that serve the interests of that elite at the expense of the nation. We also want a reasonable welfare state, which tries to protect those who are weak from the mistakes of the strong, without encouraging the strong to pretend to be weak.
None of those are popular with the right or the left…but that, at least, is where I stand.
Steve
I used the word “interesting” to suggest that the Democrats seem to have a tin ear when it comes to forming their position on this issue. And then I went on to analyze the reasons why there might be a method to their madness.
Let’s look at it this way. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush would like to bring the bulk of the troops home in 2006. There are two possible outcomes for Iraq: (1) everything stabilizes, or (2) a chaotic Saigon-like scenario ensues. In the former case, that’s a big win for Bush, and he is going to get the credit no matter what the Democrats do. In the latter case, on the other hand, the last thing the Democrats want is to be painted as the party who forced the withdrawal.
It’s possible that Iraq can never, ever be stablized by our presence, and that even if we stuck around for 10 years, Saigon would still fall as soon as we left. But the fact is, if we withdraw, no one will ever know for sure, and the war supporters will always be able to claim that we would have won if we had just stuck around – something that gets argued to this day with respect to Vietnam. So perhaps the Democrats are avoiding public calls for withdrawing the troops because they don’t want to be scapegoated when a withdrawal does happen and chaos ensues in Iraq.
Defense Guy
Steve
I didn’t mean to imply that your question was in itself illogical, I meant that if it is true it is an illogical position for them to be taking. If the country is turning against the war, which I don’t entirely buy into, then it doesn’t make sense for them to be changing positions now.
Of course, IMO, the Dems are all about making mistakes lately, so this wouldn’t really be a shock.
Steve
The thinking is something like, even if being against the war is the right position right now, it’s going to contribute to a greater sense that the Democrats are a bunch of wimps.
I think it’s hard for the Democrats to score a lot of points by coming out against the Iraq war now, when so many of them went along with it in the first place. Most people don’t realize that the vote on the first Gulf War was far closer than the vote on the current war, because the Gulf War seems so noncontroversial in hindsight, but in fact the difference is like night and day.
JC
Actually, I’m a frequent reader at Liberals Against Terrorism, which I would highly recommend for a center-liberal take on dealing with other countries and terrorism.
Also, if you go to TPM Cafe, and look at various posts by Ivo Daalder, especially regarding the tough liberal order – that’s a good place to start.
This post is also good.
BinkyBoy
There was a vote on this war?
Can you provide me with a link that shows what they were voting for and the exact wording of the resolution?
Mainly because, as far as I can tell, Congress was told that force was not going to be used, this was only granting the President the right to move the forces into the area, and a future vote would be necessary to actually use force. All of a sudden that second vote disappeared and we were racing for Baghdad against imaginary sand faeries.
Vlad
“…we were racing for Baghdad against imaginary sand faeries.”
Why do imaginary sand faeries hate our freedom?
Don Surber
Why not call for opening Harvard and other federally subsidized Ivy League institutions open their campuses to recruiters?
Why not a statement saying since most Democrats in the Senate supported sending the troops in, we are 100 percent behind keeping the troops in until the job is done?
Those two things put the money where the mouths are. The troops don’t need money, they need assurance that they will not be sold off for political game.
Otherwise, it is all posturing
Geek, Esq.
And at the same time, they can call for an end to the military’s stupid refusal to allow homosexuals to serve their country.
Rick
Don,
Ah, but posturing is the essence of the Democratic wingnuts. Or moonbats, if I am to stand corrected.
Cordially…
Steve
Don Surber spouts the standard Republican party line. What matters to the troops is not money, equipment or body armor; what matters is not how many National Guardsmen will be called up or how many stop-loss provisions will be cited to keep them in Iraq for years; what matters is how loudly we cheer for them.
In Don’s world, actions are mere posturing; only words can prove one’s sincerity.
KC
I get the Conservative Chronicle and read it every week. One of the reasons I like it is because it shows the variety of thought that exists in the Republican Party on any number of issues. One look at it and you’ll see there’s plenty of people worried about this war and plenty of differences between them about what is to be done. The real big difference between Republicans and Democrats right now is that the Republicans have the White House. If things were reversed, I’d bet we’d see the divisions more markedly in the Republican Party too.
Defense Guy
It’s a civilian controlled military. Knowing that the civilians have your back is a very important thing. The question is, do we?
Steve
You lost me. In what sense do you or I control the military?
The dichotomy between words and actions is ably demonstrated by Paul Hackett, who said that he opposed the war, but that if he lost his congressional election, he would be returning to Iraq for another tour of duty. Various Republicans said, “Paul Hackett is another Democrat who claims to support the troops, but doesn’t support their mission.” In that world, a world I decline to enter, even GOING TO IRAQ YOURSELF is insufficient to demonstrate support for the mission; the words are even more important than whether you put your life on the line!
BinkyBoy
You have their back? In what sense? You mean you’ll stand in front of them as they get off the plane and intercept the hallucinated spit from the crowd?
Please, putting a yellow sticker on your 2 gigantic SUV’s isn’t supporting the troops.
Standing up for better VA benefits, better benefits for wounded soldiers returning, counselling families through the adjustment of return, THATS what support counts. Your empty words and gestures only make you feel justified and superior.
srv
Ah, the Scoop Jackson wing that spawned the neocons? Great…
Defense Guy
Ignoring your usual partisan assholery, I will just state that this is ONE of the ways in which you support them.
The people control the government in the sense that we send them there and they ignore us at their own peril. The government controls the militray. Is the math too hard?
You see, they still largely believe that this fight is one that cannot be run away from. You may feel free to disagree, but don’t pretend that this is support.
Steve
If the military wants to know whether the government supports them, I think they might be rather worried by the rumors that a pullout is planned in time for the 2006 midterm elections, but there’s nothing I can do about that.
If the military wants to know whether the people are 100% in support of the government, I don’t think I can make that promise. I rather doubt that 100% of the military wants to remain in Iraq indefinitely, myself.
BinkyBoy
yeah, I’m sure they are really enjoying all that time away from their families.
BinkyBoy
So if I try to understand your twisted logic: by not having a plan for the aftermath, not sending enough troops, poor/no armor, and lying to the American public is ok, as long as they are re-elected so we show support for the original screwup?
Wow, just wow. I had no idea electing Bush was showing support for the troops. How idiotic of me.
Maybe we should do away with that pesky amendment that says he can’t run for another term, since it appears we’ll be there for a heck of a lot longer than that.
Mike
BinkyBoy Says:
“So if I try to understand your twisted logic: by not having a plan for the aftermath, not sending enough troops, poor/no armor, and lying to the American public is ok, as long as they are re-elected so we show support for the original screwup?
Wow, just wow. I had no idea electing Bush was showing support for the troops. How idiotic of me.
Maybe we should do away with that pesky amendment that says he can’t run for another term, since it appears we’ll be there for a heck of a lot longer than that.”
Forget all this silliness. Do you support what the Democrats in the story are doing or not BinkyBoy?
Demdude
Defense Guy Says:
You see, they still largely believe that this fight is one that cannot be run away from. You may feel free to disagree, but don’t pretend that this is support.
DG: Tryiing to understand your point. Rather than guess, could you expand please?
Thanks.
Pelikan
God only knows what the Democrats are thinking, most of the online set of democrats seem to have figured out long ago that the lifers in Washington are fairly insulated from what their constituents actually want. It’s some Republican types who can’t let go of that fantasy average-guy politician.
More to the point though, everything they’re proposing sounds like a good idea except for this “staying the course” bullshit, and america being america means it it political suicide to suggest otherwise right now. The people just aren’t ready for it yet.
They will be though, it’s inevitable. The question is John, Defense Guy and so on… What is it that you think is going to happen in Iraq that’s going to make all of this worth it?
Do you really still think there’s going to be a free open and democratic government in Baghdad? I mean one that can survive without a fresh infusion of young american men and women on a regular basis?
Do you still think there’s going to be a domino effect of freedom? Because unless it involves a change in Iran and most especially Saudi Arabia, I don’t think it’s going to amount to much.
So what is it? I’m not questioning anyone’s patriotism, and I’m sure as hell trying to avoid the dreaded strawman.
Can you give a concise and realistic prediction of what would happen if we stay in Iraq beyond tomorrow?
Sorry, got a bit tangental there.
-Pelikan
Kimmitt
Morans.
BinkyBoy
Actually, I support a party with a broad base. I don’t like the current divisions within the Democratic party, as it allows wedge issues to further drive them apart, such as the Iraq war. If Democrats accepted Democrats for supporting/challenging the war while presenting a unified front for social and progressive issues, I’d be extremely happy.
I’d rather there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It makes for a more honest debate.