| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| They Still Blame America First |
| 2005-06-29 |
| Written By -> Fred Barnes -> executive editor of The Weekly Standard. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A DEATH wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994. The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning. At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day," Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire." Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security. Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years. In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. Granted, McGovern's stance on national security wasn't the only factor in his loss, but it played a part. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily. In 1988, the elder George Bush won after Democrat Michael Dukakis undermined his own credibility as a potential commander in chief by riding in a tank wearing silly-looking headgear. But in 1992, things were different. Bill Clinton and Al Gore avoided the national security trap. Clinton was hawkish toward China (later he mellowed) and Gore had voted for the Gulf war as a senator in 1991. They won. In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. In 2000, national security was a secondary issue and Al Gore won the popular vote and Democrats gained 5 Senate seats. In 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats. Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq. John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure. Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #19 aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhh! |
| Posted by: Just About Enough! 2005-06-29 23:27 |
| #18 darn speel check, ...out....mush... |
| Posted by: Just About Enough! 2005-06-29 23:26 |
| #17 Some poor parent actually paid good money to fill vew's head with utter crap. No more connection to how the real, ugly world works than nancy pelosi. How long do you thing such foolishness would stop any jihadist in the same room with her? Many of us have stood on the walls prepared to do violence to those who would do our country harm, only to discover the schools we were protected were turning our such mush. Worse than must, actually delusionally dangerous twits! Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the rot is really is deep! |
| Posted by: Just About Enough! 2005-06-29 23:25 |
| #16 Go crawl back under your Berkeley rock vew |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-06-29 20:01 |
| #15 Sprots! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-29 18:58 |
| #14 and i bet she's never voted. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-06-29 17:27 |
| #13 vew's view: You're giving it away for an illusion of more security, but in reality you're wasting so much time and energy that could be better invested in thinking of the situation of the very person, that just happens to be next to you this very moment. Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid. That's less expensive, less dangerous and less populistic, i.e. you won't win an election on taking such an intelligent approach. Why? Because, the majority of citizens is guided by their guts and if they're made to believe they've reason to have fear... then you don't win by any clever arguments, but by appealing to the guts. That's the game. Give people little time to discuss and think freely - give them a tight schedule and good blinders and then control the guts. vew has a gut full of mung spouts /eeninglish second langoouage |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-06-29 17:23 |
| #12 Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid. You are making my point for me. You object, you criticize, but you offer no alternatives, no policies. I am asking you, Democratic Policy Maker to enumerate: 1. The things we are doing to make them attack us. And that means all of the attacks: Munich, Beirut, Nairobi, Achille Lauro, 9/11, Bali, Madrid, et al. This started way before GWB. 2. What would you do differently to take away this "justification?" Cut and run from Iraq is not sufficient because numerous attacks took place well before Iraq. I eagerly await your non-answer. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-06-29 13:45 |
| #11 We're cool then! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-29 13:29 |
| #10 ahh...ok. I understand that as long as they kill him first, we're cool. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-29 13:24 |
| #9 No, 2b, you misunderstand him/her. We must UNDERSTAND those who wish to kill us because we're American/Christian/Jewish/heck, even Muslim! So, instead of taking the fight to them, we must hold Dr. Phil moments to understand them! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-29 13:17 |
| #8 More likely to die of old age than in Gitmo. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-29 13:17 |
| #7 Remember the ancestors laying the foundation we're standing on today ... at a cost - by the way, not just at their own cost, but also the cost of native inhabitants and colonialists LOL! Death by Cliche, it's cruel and unusual. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-29 13:15 |
| #6 oh...you are so courageous!! I understand!! I see the light. When confronted, do nothing!! It's brilliant. clap, clap, clap!!! |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-29 12:56 |
| #5 Hm, this is just about fear. You'll get support for anything, if you just can make people believe in some danger. Note, that it's much more likely to be killed by drinking, smoking, driving or handguns than by some terrorist. Note as well, that fighting terrorism by giving them more reason to view you as an enemy is kind of stupid and counterproductive. In a democracy you just cannot have complete control, which is what you would need to eradicate terrorism completely. Freedom comes at a price, i.e. it's not for free. Remember the ancestors laying the foundation we're standing on today ... at a cost - by the way, not just at their own cost, but also the cost of native inhabitants and colonialists. You're giving it away for an illusion of more security, but in reality you're wasting so much time and energy that could be better invested in thinking of the situation of the very person, that just happens to be next to you this very moment. Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid. That's less expensive, less dangerous and less populistic, i.e. you won't win an election on taking such an intelligent approach. Why? Because, the majority of citizens is guided by their guts and if they're made to believe they've reason to have fear... then you don't win by any clever arguments, but by appealing to the guts. That's the game. Give people little time to discuss and think freely - give them a tight schedule and good blinders and then control the guts. |
| Posted by: vew. 2005-06-29 12:49 |
| #4 Perhaps this is a subset of Barnes' argument, but I don't know if the issue is so much "Republicans, strong; Democrats, weak; ugh" as the Republicans have consistently put forth a strategy for dealing with our nation's enemies be it Soviet or Islamic. You can agree or disagree with that strategy, but it's there open for debate. In the past 30 years I've yet to see a Democrat state a coherent articulation of what states/parties pose a threat to this country and what should be done about it. If you don't think the nation needs a dozen aircraft carriers, then state why, but this "It'll be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber" crap is not the stuff of a responsible political party that should entrusted with the safety of this great land. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-06-29 10:42 |
| #3 lol! Right you are. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-29 10:13 |
| #2 No worries, 2b. They never listen anyway. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-06-29 10:05 |
| #1 shhh...don't tell them. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-29 08:21 |