Winds of Change.NET: Selling Grand Strategy with a Disloyal Opposition

July 24, 2003

Selling Grand Strategy with a Disloyal Opposition

by Trent Telenko at July 24, 2003 11:05 PM

I was just alerted to A.L.'s post here on Winds by reader Tom Holsinger who laid out his thoughts in A.L.'s post in the discussion thread.

Since A.L. took this public here, I am going to respond publically here. By way of background, Armed Liberal and I have been having a series of e-mail exchanges based on a a STRATFOR column Joe Katzman sent out to a blogger 'list of suspects' who have been in this Winds post and discussion thread. The STRATFOR column talked about the political problems Bush was having with the war. It contended that the lack of a debate on American Grand Strategy, and the lack of a P.R. campaign to sell it to the public, might collapse public confidence in the Bush Administration as the couple of soldiers dead a day 'meat grinder' in Iraq drags on.

Personally, I thought the STRATFOR arguement was another DEBKA level "pay attention to me, I am important" article aimed at attracting more media eyes and money to its subscription service by feeding them what they want to read. (The CIA isn't the first or last intelligence outfit to shade the truth for its customers.)

Anyway, the exchange between A.L. and I went on and centered on the need and scale of a public debate on American Grand Strategy and its political and military policy implications. I have been arguing against having the debate because of the certain warning it will give our enemies and the additional costs in lives, treasure, and time that would impose. The "Axis of Weasel's" actions in the run up to Iraq show that our enemies cooperate when given warning. So don't give them any more than is necessary.

Since Armed Liberal thinks that issues of public trust trumph issues of public policy and international diplomacy. Let us engage the debate on that point. Why should the Bush Administration trust the Democrats to debate, and the media not to distort for the Democrat's partisan advantage, American Strategy? Too date, Democrats have been a DISLOYAL OPPOSITION in this war. The "Vietnam at the 1968 Democratic Convention, Ho Chi Min is going to win," faction has been in control of the Party's stance on the war 24/7.

There are two reasons for this stance by the Democratic Party. The first reason is unreality infecting opponents of the war. Andrew Sullivan sums up the case about the "Fantasy Ideology of Anti-War Democrats" that I have been trying to make in posts and discussion threads on Winds :

THE PRE-9/11 MIND: The more I read emails or talk to anti-war types, I get a sense that 9/11 never really happened. Or if it happened, it meant nothing more than a discrete crime with discrete criminals who alone deserved justice. The notion that it meant that we were and are actually at war with a series of terrorist entities and the tyrannies that support them never truly took hold on the far left (or right). As the months have passed, their complacency and denial have undoubtedly metastasized among others as 9/11 recedes from our collective consciousness and its emotional wound begins to heal. These people, it's worth remembering, believe that the exercise of American military power is almost always more morally problematic than any foreign tyranny or even a serious security threat to the homeland. They can only justify American military power if it is wielded under imminent, grave danger that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's why they are so exercised about tiny pieces of evidence today. They still believe we were wrong to remove Saddam from power without incontrovertible proof of WMDs of a type unobtainable in police states; they still believe America had no moral sanction for such an action; and they are even more determined to prove the superiority of their case now that the war was such a military success. So they have to turn the fallible evidence before the war into "lies"; and they have to turn the difficult but worthy post-war reconstruction into a "quagmire." They know the only chance they have is to turn American public opinion against the war so as to prevent any such exercise of military power again. In that sense, they really cannot simply be mocked. They must be challenged at every turn. For they are engaged in a process that will not only stymie efforts at reforming the Middle East but will make Americans and others more vulnerable to the designs of the Islamofascists and their terrorist allies. The war abroad cannot therefore be extricated from the debate at home. We will not win the former without winning the latter.

In so many words, these Democrats are on the other side because they don't believe war is real. Anything that comes of it must be a Republican Neo-Con plot.

The difference between Pro-War Republicans and Pro-War Conservatives versus Pro-war Democrats and Pro-War Liberals is that the former two have been confronting their anti-war loons like Pat Buchanon and the latter two have been confronting President Bush over war policy.

That is nothing but cognitive dissonance in action. Pro-War Liberals and Democrats are ducking a confrontation with the anti-war loons in their own party and they are resolving their pain by attacking President Bush. Rather than do something worth while and effective like facing down the anti-war crowd in the public square or raising money for candidates to influence them in a Pro-War direction. They would rather quibble with Bush Administration policy. It's easier.

This is a sign of moral cowardice because Pro-War Liberal's confronting Bush Administration war policy affirms the anti-war leftists position in the Democratic Party and with the public. And it is the public's guilt by association view of all Democrats because of that duck out that will damn the Democratic Party for at least a generation and perhaps unto death.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Pro-War Liberals are doing nothing, and less than nothing, which is nothing new. Senator John Glenn's collapse of will in the face of the nuclear freeze movement in 1984, run by these same lefties, lead to conservative "Scoop Jackson Democrats" like Jean Kirkpatrick and Richard Perle walking from the party. The lack of internal confrontation with the anti-war lefties in 2002 election saw the beginning of a moderate walk out from the Democratic Party over the war. The 2004 election will complete the moderate walk out and start in on the Pro-War Liberals.

William Kristol pointed out what this on-going collapse of will in the face of this anti-war faction is doing to the Democratic Party in an article titled Gephardt's 16 Words. I think these are the killer 'graphs:

Dick Gephardt's 16 words, by contrast, change everything. They reflect the considered judgment of a centrist Democratic presidential candidate, one who voted to authorize the war, that his party must stand in fundamental opposition to the Bush foreign policy. They indicate the capture of the Democratic Party by the pace-setter in the presidential race, former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

Dean said on June 22 that "we don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off" with Hussein gone, and "we don't know whether we're better off." At the time, Gephardt demurred from Dean's agnosticism.

Now, exactly one month later, Gephardt is following in Dean's footsteps.

Actually, Gephardt went further than Dean. I suppose it's technically possible that things could turn out worse for the Iraqi people, or for us, post-Hussein (though I'd be happy to take that bet, and I'm sure the Bush campaign would too). But Gephardt has laid down an extraordinarily clear marker for judging the Bush administration: He claims we're less safe and less secure than we were four years ago.

And

There are plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy. But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush's foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush's Democratic critics, they know no such thing.

Tom Holsinger summed it up rather well when he posted this elsewhere on Winds:

"Nothing a Republican president says can give Democrats a backbone. That they have to find for themselves."

Until Democrats get a backbone, Bush publicly discussing and laying out American war strategy, be it grand, diplomatic, political or military, is both pointless and counter productive.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1579

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Selling Grand Strategy with a Disloyal Opposition"

Tracked: July 26, 2003 4:09 PM

Peace, Love and Understanding from Caerdroia

Excerpt: There is a discussion going on at Winds of War, as to whether or not the President should lay out the strategies he is pursuing in the war on terror. Sadly, this is starting to degenerate into a culture clash. I hope I can clear the air a little: Trent,

Comments

#1 from Sean at 1:11 am on Jul 25, 2003

Although I have felt this was the case for some time, the recent flip flop by Gephardt is making increasingly obvious that Joe Lieberman is the Democrat's last hope for credibility on national security issues.

Actually, Lieberman HAS challenged his party's orthodoxy on national security issues, though not as forcefully as I would like -- and often in the context of reminding Democrats that they can't win back the White House unless voters trust Democrats "to keep the country safe" or something like that.

My advice to Lieberman would be to accept the fact that, given the condition of the Democratic activists who dominate the primary voting process, he cannot win the nomination in 2004, and that his REAL campaign is for the Presidency in 2008. Once Lieberman comes to terms with this fact, he will be able to provide a critique of the direction the party is heading that will resonate if the Democrats lose as badly in 2004 as many here (myself included) think they will.

#2 from Armed Liberal at 1:16 am on Jul 25, 2003

Trent, I've obviously done a bad job of making my point. It isn't that GWB needs to 'reach a consensus' with the Democrats; I don't think that's possible, given the current state of the party.

But the fuel this battle requires is the faith and commitment of the American people. The tank is relatively full right now. But it's leaky (and yes, certain national politicians are out there drilling holes). And Bush isn't doing obvious things that he ought to be doing to refill it.

And believe me, when it runs dry, things will get damn ugly. I'd rather that didn't happen; I'd rather people (in both parties) moved toward where I (and to to a more extreme extent, GWB and you) stand.

A.L.

#3 from Donald Sensing at 2:01 am on Jul 25, 2003

Coincidentally, Steven Den Beste has a new, long post addressing these very same concerns. Click here.

Plain address:
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/07/Tellingthetruth-2.shtml

#4 from Tim at 2:16 am on Jul 25, 2003

Pro-War Democrats/Liberals won't confront the anti-war Democrat/Liberal loons because to do so would split the party - as there is no possible compromise. So, the pro-war Democrats/Liberals attack Bush not to vent their frustration - but to fuzz over the differences with anti-war Democrats/Liberals and to co-opt enough support to be the party's nominee/sacrificial lamb.

Regarding A.L.'s point about the tank running dry - I don't see it. Most understand the war on terrorism - but they don't need to be over-sold the war any more they were the Cold War. Americans really have no appetite for living in a society constantly mobilized for war. True, it is possible there might be times during the war on terror that the public is non-supportive, as it was in the Vietnamese war. But the difference between this war and the Cold war - to date - is unconventional weapons and state-sponsorship.

Absent terrorists securing unconventional weapons and state-sponsorship, we should be progressing toward victory. For without them, the terrorists ability to conduct large, successful operations against us is greatly diminished. Without battlefield success, the terrorist recruiting pool shrinks to the criminal, the half-hearted and the easily duped with few positive options in life. Not exactly anyone's ideal soldier.

Which takes us to the "root cause" argument. Ultimately, Arab and Islamic nations need to fix themselves. While this is a necessary condition for victory, it isn't one we can achieve by announcing it as official U.S. policy, wholly endorsed by the American people. You think they hate us now? Just wait until it's official U.S. policy that Arab and Islamic states, by their mere condition (of cultural failure), are a threat to our security.

No. Like a drunk who cannot cure himself until he hits bottom, the Arab and Islamic nations have to realize they have a problem, and that its up to them to fix themselves. Iraq (hopefully) can show them how to get there. And Iraq can also show them what happens if they don't.

Because if the Arab and Islamic nations should fail to fix themselves, and the war REALLY escalates - there won't be any Arab and Islamic nations left - because we are NOT going to let them destroy us. Really, we won't.

But nobody really wants to hear that, let alone think about it, do they? And can you (or anyone else) blame them?

#5 from Porphyrogenitus at 2:19 am on Jul 25, 2003

Sean: as Lieberman probably knows, he can't look to '08; either Hillary! will be running then and will clear the field, or she'll be running for her second term.

I think most of the guys in the race right now know that they have to run now, because the Democratic Nomination four years from all is already in the bag.

#6 from Richard A. Heddleson at 2:30 am on Jul 25, 2003

I suspect this is all a bit academic. The analysts on the other side are very smart. They will think of every Grand Strategy angle we will, possibly more as they know their weaknesses. Den Beste also makes the arguments for Bush not engage in a public debate over stratergy specifics. Bush is accustomed to being underestimated by folks like AL in situations like this. He will let it roll off his back.

Ultimately the American people do not choose strategies, they elect leaders. In the last grand strategy debate in an election the issue was decided by a five year old girl playing with a daisy. In this election the issue will be decided by a soft money ad that will not be run by either political party. Its power will be derived precisely from the fact that is has been censored domestically for over two years. It will be the image of a man and a woman leaping to their deaths, hand in hand, from a burning tower.

#7 from Tom Holsinger at 4:29 am on Jul 25, 2003

Trent and A.L. keep confusing strategy with grand strategy. Grand strategy has to be public. Strategy doesn't. Sometimes it is expedient to make strategy public and sometimes it isn't.

Grand strategy is to strategy what strategy is to operations, and operations is to tactics. Grand strategy is always, always, national in scope and scale, and lasts for decades if not generations.

Strategies are just roadmaps for grand strategy.

Tim's first paragraph was completely on point here:

"Pro-War Democrats/Liberals won't confront the anti-war Democrat/Liberal loons because to do so would split the party - as there is no possible compromise. So, the pro-war Democrats/Liberals attack Bush not to vent their frustration - but to fuzz over the differences with anti-war Democrats/Liberals and to co-opt enough support to be the party's nominee/sacrificial lamb."

A.L. is trying to divert attention from the outright refusal of non-loony Democrats to confront their loons. He wants President Bush to do what he lacks the nerve to do himself. Whence my comment:

"Nothing a Republican president says can give Democrats a backbone. That they have to find for themselves."

#8 from Provolone Ranger at 5:23 am on Jul 25, 2003

To say that "Too date, Democrats have been a DISLOYAL OPPOSITION in this war" is nonsense. It's a cheap smear to make Democrats look weak on national security.

Here in Georgia, our two Democractic Senators voted to authorize force in Iraq. Of the presidential candidates in Congress, only Graham voted against the authorization. And Graham is generally respected as a sober voice on national security.

It would be more accurate to say "Democrats have been a DIVIDED OPPOSITION in this war." As a divided opposition, the Dems have mush for an agenda.

#9 from Provone Ranger at 5:26 am on Jul 25, 2003

Amendment to previous post:

Calling the Democrats the "Disloyal Opposition" isn't just a cheap smear at their national security cred, it's also a disgusting accusation of disloyalty.

That sort of Ann Coulter-type trash does not belong in civil discouse.

#10 from Provone Ranger at 5:27 am on Jul 25, 2003

Amendment to previous post:

Calling the Democrats the "Disloyal Opposition" isn't just a cheap smear at their national security cred, it's also a disgusting accusation of disloyalty.

That sort of Ann Coulter-type trash does not belong in civil discouse.

#11 from roublen vesseau at 5:42 am on Jul 25, 2003

Trent, what will you do if the Democratic candidate wins the election? Will you act as the loyal opposition? Or since you know that the Democratic policy on the War on Terror is to kneel and surrender, and serving as you do a higher cause, will you adopt a "by any means necessary" approach to undermining a future Democratic administration?

#12 from Balagan at 5:52 am on Jul 25, 2003

oh! oh! i know! ...if one of the dems win the election we can all move to canada!

#13 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 6:05 am on Jul 25, 2003

Trent,

Your preemptive strike leaves me speechless: You have so narrowed the range of legitimate political debate to what suits the policies of the current occupant of the White House that I am quite literally left speechless. At the risk of little old me compromising national security, I have to take issue with that condescension.

You begin and close with the statement that the Democrats, pro-war centrists and liberals, are so complicit in the treason running rife in their party that the administration need not deign to involve them in the more serious issues of strategy reserved for the reliable grown-ups. That's a lot of grist for the mill of those who believe, with some justice apparently, that some in the administration (or at least on its side) are out to seize tyrannical powers and crush dissent using national security as a pretext. You actually advance two main themes:

1. The issue whether we should involve half of the public and political class in debate over matters of some national importance on the grounds that they are unworthy and unreliable.

2. The alleged failure of moderate and liberal democrats to confront the loons slightly to their left.

The underlying premises here are false. We may be in a war, but it is of a unique kind that raises unique issues that cry out for debate within reasonable bounds, and please, let's keep those bounds reasonable. It is as much a long-term (indeed, likely permanent in many respects) police action against an extremely fanatical criminal organization as it is a military action. What kind of "war" this is, how one combats that mafia, what actions, military or otherwise, are necessary or useful, what restrictions on civil liberties might be necessary, what are the costs and benefits, are still matters of legitimate debate and have not yet been trumped by supposed concerns about national security. Until Jane Fonda returns from her traineeship with the Taliban and publishes her travel log in Time Magazine, I am not willing to acknowledge George Bush's presumed monopoly on truth and consequences here. AL's desire for strategic clarity has suddenly become more compelling for me.

On confronting the idiots, this is still in large part a political question. There are different shades of 9/11 interpretation that have yet to be fully worked out and there are going to be extreme interpretations on both ends. Yours is but one. I believe that Joe Lieberman made a strong statement yesterday about the dangers of catering to the anti-war crowd. Howard Dean's criticism has also been directed largely at Bush's diplomacy, use of resources, and lack of forthright communication. He is not in a pre-9/11 world by any means and his criticisms are fair comment.

I am no more willing to change the nature of democratic political institutions of free and open debate by excluding the views of half of the electorate than I am willing to exclude yours as bordering on the totalitarian.

#14 from Sean at 6:13 am on Jul 25, 2003

Porphyrogenitus:

I actually forgot about Hillary! and her '08 run when I wrote my post, but I'll stand by my reccomendation. Hillary! has shown remarkably little interest in foreign policy during her tenure in the Senate (odd, given that New York bore such a huge cost in the War on Terrorism). If the general unseriousness towards foreign policy proves to be the Achilles Heel of the Democrats in 2004, a Democrat who argued against this drift will be well positioned to challenge Hillary! in '08 -- in fact, such a candidate would be the ONLY candidate who could attract enough attention to mount such a challenge.

#15 from Armed Liberal at 6:57 am on Jul 25, 2003

Tom wrote:

"A.L. is trying to divert attention from the outright refusal of non-loony Democrats to confront their loons. He wants President Bush to do what he lacks the nerve to do himself."

A.L. replies:

Bullshit.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003806.html

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003781.html

http://windsofchange.net/archives/002935.html

http://windsofchange.net/archives/002989.html

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003474.html

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003150.html

...and lots more over at Armed Liberal.

A.L.

#16 from Tim at 6:59 am on Jul 25, 2003

Gabriel,

Literally speechless? Your post suggests otherwise.

Anyway, under the law, the president is required to perform certain duties relative to Congress and the federal government; in turn Congress has certain duties to perform as well; the state of war does not diminish these.

The president is under no legal obligation to inform or involve Congress beyond these duties; the political ramifications of those choices are certainly part of the president�s calculus. The obvious Congressional Democrat contempt for the president, their frantic search for political advantage, their inability to keep classified Administration briefings confidential and their tepid-at-best support for the war on terrorism makes them extremely poor partners. Would you do any different (and you�d be a fool or liar if you would)?

Ultimately the president will be held accountable for his actions, and he knows it. The reason he doesn�t deal with Democrats is the same reason he doesn�t deal with the French or the U.N. They are utterly unreliable. Or, to restate the president�s problem � the only thing reliable about the Democrats is their unreliability. Why should he involve them when: 1) they have a clearly stated and vested interest in his failure; 2) and only he, not they, will be held accountable for failure. It makes no damn sense. Now, whether anyone wishes to characterize the Congressional Democrat position as one of treason, or if that characterization is even within the bounds of reasoned discourse, I suppose that�s a debatable point.

But what is obvious is that there is no justification for your point that some �believe, with some justice apparently, that some in the administration (or at least on its side) are out to seize tyrannical powers and crush dissent using national security as a pretext.� That is utterly paranoiac, fear-mongering nonsense. George Bush, John Ashcroft and those who support the war on terror aren�t going to seize tyrannical powers and crush your right to dissent. And if you really think so, you probably need help.

Regarding your assessment of Trent�s two themes, two points. First, notwithstanding your paranoia of tyrannical powers crushing dissent, it simply isn�t possible to not involve half of the public and political class in debate over matters of some national importance on the grounds that they are unworthy and unreliable. We have regular elections; the bar to the franchise is set extremely low; candidates of all stripes and persuasions are permitted to run; and dare I say the media is reliably anti-Bush. And, unless something happened since I last checked the news, we still have a Constitution with all of its protections for free speech and assembly. If Bush is wrong, or his approach unsupported, your side will win.

Second, it is pretty evident that the pro-defense side of the Democrat party is unwilling to confront the loons (slightly to their left? I suppose so � but that says more about how far to the left the moderates are than the loons are to the center, I think�). Lieberman, weakly, tries, when it�s safe (after an American success). Otherwise, you�ve the two-faced Kerry, the anti-macho Gephardt, and prince Edwards straddling both sides (or is it the �yes, but� position?) None support unilateral action. And then you�ve the clear anti�s, of which Dean may likely be the nominee. I don�t like your odds � either in this argument or in the election.

Finally, your real problem is this: ��police action against an extremely fanatical criminal organization as it is a military action.� No. Wrong. They are not criminals. They aren�t even fanatical criminals. They are soldiers waging holy war against us. We don�t win through policing them up and trying them in court. We win by sending an infantry squad to knock down the doors to their homes at 4 a.m. and kill them before they can return fire. We win by sending cruise missiles one after the another into the homes and command centers of their leaders. We win by sending airborne units to secure their oil fields and mechanized infantry divisions and Marines to seize their capitals. We win when we fight their war with our war � not with police action. They aren�t criminals. They are at war with us. Which means we are at war with them. And you wonder why Democrats aren�t part of the discussion? It�s because they don�t even know what the problem is.

#17 from Armed Liberal at 7:21 am on Jul 25, 2003

Tom:

A few more while I think about a reply to Tim's comment:

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000424.html

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000430.html

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000363.html

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000431.html

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000490.html

Yup, shilling for the spineless Dems, that's me...

A.L.

#18 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 7:53 am on Jul 25, 2003

Tim,

You have a point of view, and it's merely that: a point of view. I'll debate it - hell I agree with a good part of it on substance - but I am not nearly ready to posit it as a first principle of legitimate discourse.

My point is simple: We live in a democracy. "Police Action", "War" , that's semantic: This is not a traditional war. Tony Blair made that point a couple of days ago and others have made it repeatedly.

You cannot close off public and political debate on the a priori notion that your political opponents are unworthy (if not yet fit to be jailed on national security grounds). My paranoia is tempered by the fact that the views Trent appears to be advancing (or at least the slope he would have us slide down) is not close to representing administration policy, Ashcroft's excesses notwithstanding.

#19 from Mitch H. at 3:06 pm on Jul 25, 2003

This "outstretched hand from the Bush camp to the pro-war Democrats" business is somewhat disingenuous. It wasn't too long ago that Chambliss let Cleland have it with spiked boots on. Should Chambliss have let Cleland win because Cleland was right on foreign affairs? No, but that doesn't mean that pro-war Democrats can trust lions not to be lions in electoral terms.

It is disingenuous to cry "support the Bush administration", when we know that the Chamblisses will only knife the supporters in the back when the elections come.

Pro-War Democrats have an obligation to do what is right, but they have to maintain proper and clear distinctions between themselves and the administration. Elsewise the Chamblisses will gut them. Again.

From the anti-war, activist point of view, pro-war moderation led directly to moderate defeats in the 2002 elections. These opportunists figure that anyone standing in the middle will be knifed by their neighbors to the right, and the safest place is with one's back to the wall on the left.

Now, this makes for terrible foreign policy, and bad grand strategy. But until pro-war Democrats can get assurances that the Chamblisses can be restrained in their electoral outrages, they are deeply exposed.

#20 from Joe Katzman at 3:25 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Yes, they are deeply exposed. They will remain so as long as a number of their colleagues are (as they have always been: Rangel, Conyers, McDermott, et. al.) "the disloyal opposition" who hate America. That isn't true for all liberals, but it's true for some... and things have reached a point that the American Right are losing their reluctance to engage on this issue.

The pro-war Dems will find themselves caught in the crossfire. Those are the wages of the position they have allowed themselves to be put in over the last 30+ years. What they do about it... is up to them, though Gephardt's recent speech (whose answer was "make some sense and then on a critical point, surrender to the Left") doesn't strike me as an especially promising approach.

#21 from Sean at 4:40 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Mitch:

Out here in California, the Democrats spent several million dollars to unseat a Republican Congressman named Steve Kykkendal (sp?) in the 2000 election, despite the fact that he was the very model of a modern moderate Republican. Why? Because his district was in the LA County South Bay region and was too tempting a target for the Democrats to ignore. Not only that, the Democrats won the seat by pinning the purported extremism of the national Republican Party on Kykkendal's chest, even though most of the charges didn't apply to him personally. The Democrats did much the same thing to Connie Morello in the 2002 election, and for much the same reason.

It's called POLITICS. Republicans targeted Cleland because he was a Democrat in a staunch Republican state. Democrats do likewise (see also moderate former Senator Joe Roth). Complain about the tactics all you want, but ask yourself this: if Cleland had woke up on Labor day 2002 and decided that, from that point on, he was going to adopt Howard Dean's confrontational strategy, voted against the war resolution and denounced Bush as a right-wing extremist at every turn, do you honestly think he would have won? Or would he have lost by an even greater margain?

Yes, the lack of a clear message did hurt the Democrats in 2002. But if the Democrats only alternative is a message of confrontation for its own sake (during a time of war no less), they're better off without a message at all.

#22 from Tim at 4:52 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Gabriel,

At the risk of being pedantic, we actually live in a democratic republic in which our elected representatives make decisions, and we left to elect, ratify or reject those leaders on the basis of their performance or promise. And another election is right around the corner.

To that end there is no closing off of public and political debate � just read the ranting editorial and opinion pages of any newspapers; listen to the nearly-suicidal statements of the Democrats running for president; listen to the verbal flatulence emanating from Congress; read the big-oil, fascist conspiracy theories burning on the web. The peanut gallery of carpers and second-guessers is in a full-throated roar.

You may wish it otherwise, but the president and his administration are not required to partner with such obvious opponents of his efforts and his administration, regardless of how traditional or non-traditional this war may be. And he, and those associated with him, will be held accountable, first by the electorate and second by history. I�m pretty sure he understands that.

And no one, least of all Ashcroft, is sending paddy wagons to round up dissenters. It just isn�t happening.

For Mitch H.,

Of course Chambliss shouldn�t have let Cleland win; but Cleland wasn�t defenseless � he ran his own, well-funded campaign � and if he couldn�t refute Chambliss�s charges to the satisfaction of Georgia�s voters, well, that�s electoral politics in America. (And I�m sure you remember that his pro-union based opposition to the Homeland Security Department authorizing legislation is what left him vulnerable to Chambliss � it became a surrogate � as so many political issues do � for national security overall.)

Candidates don�t �knife� other candidates in the back � they run races, and they do what they can to win. Few on the left complained when the NAACP ran ads essentially asserting Bush supported those who killed James Byrd in Texas because he failed to support �hate crimes� legislation. In this case Bush�s opposition to �hate crimes� legislation became a surrogate for his being an accomplice to racial murder, or at least racially insensitive. But unlike the Chambliss-Cleland race; it didn�t quite (but given Florida, it almost did) work out.

So who�s responsible for the pro-war Democrat problem? You could blame the voters. They make the ultimate call. If pro-war Democrats can�t support their position because Republicans �knife� them in elections, well, it�s because the voters didn�t believe the pro-war Democrat. Unfortunately, there is one problem with this �knifed by a Republican� analysis.

Democrats used to have people like Henry Jackson whose credentials on national security were impeccable and therefore impervious to partisan attack. Those Democrats simply don�t exist anymore. Anywhere. Not since the Vietnamese War they don't. Even Sam Nunn, an alleged �hawk,� voted against authorizing the first Gulf War.

The pro-war Democrat problem stems from the now solid anti-war Democrat base. The overwhelming anti-war majority of the Democrat party has left it with little or no credibility on national security issues. Pro-war Democrats are like �pro-life� Democrats: few in number and weak in influence. And when push comes to shove, they�ll pay homage to the anti-war majority just as Kucinich repudiated his pro-life position to advance his ambitions within the party.

Pro-war Democrats don�t need assurances that the Chamblisses will be restrained; they need assurances from other Democrats that the Deans, Byrds, Kucinichs and nutters who vote in Democrat primaries and populate Moveon.org and the Democratic Underground will be restrained. It just isn't safe for pro-war Democrats to walk around Democrat precints.

Fat chance it will happen. And good luck. I fear you're going to need it.

#23 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 7:04 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Tim,

I think you've missed my point. Your argument, like Trent's, is entirely circular: It assumes its conclusions about treasonous Democrats, a complicit anti-Bush media, a need for blind faith in the administration on national security grounds, and most disturbingly a father-knows-best monopoly on truth. That is what I mean by "preemptive strike", in the terms of the debate itself.

Characterizing the present conflict as "war" rather than a "police action" is not particularly helpful. The fact that it is likely to be a permanent state of conflict involving asymetrical warfare (that is not going away) and and having potentially profound institutional implications on civil liberties and international relations, to mention just two areas, makes it all the more essential that there be open and public debate involving both sides of the aisle on where we are going and how we intend to get there. Public debate always involves some risks, in particular the risk that your side will lose the argument. It's called democracy.

Invoking the supposed treason of the opposition and the media is a lame, and dangerous, pretext.

As for your civic lesson in electoral democracy, your rebuttal to the Ashcroft-crushing-of-dissent argument (which I know by heart), and your presumption to know whose side I'm on, yes you can take that elsewhere.

#24 from Tim at 8:03 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Gabriel,

It is not apparent you even read my posts. So, in order:

I've made no assumptions about "treasonous" Democrats - I've just discussed (the clear majority) of those on the wrong side of the issue and they problem they pose to those on the right side. Does that make them treasonous? I suppose it depends upon what your definition of "treason" is.

I've made no arguments supporting "a need for blind faith in the administration on national security grounds."

How you infer a "father-knows-best monopoly on truth" from my posts is not at all clear. However, if confidence in my position offends you; I meant no offense.

Responding to points raised in debate, logically, cannot be a "preemptive strike."

Characterizing the present conflict as "war" rather than a "police action" is they only way to understand our national security problem, whether you like or not. The inability of the majority of Democrats (this seem to cleary indicate which side you are on) to understand this fundamental truth is why they will always be upside-down on this issue.

The "potentially profound institutional implications on civil liberties and international relations" is, of course, a serious issue for all Americans. I've never argued otherwise. While the parties may have different approaches, neither has a monopoly on the concern for civil liberties and international relations. One can support the war on terror, promote or defend civil liberties and seek to foster international relations. None of these are mutually exclusive. In fact, some of us argue they are mutually dependent. Our enemy cares not for civil liberties or international relations in any way we would recognize or support.

Your point "that there be open and public debate involving both sides of the aisle" presumes there is no debate. There clearly is debate. The evidence of the debate is overwhelming The fact that your side (excuse my assumption, but it is evident whose side you are arguing) is ignored by the president; comes up short in the polls; and loses elections (all positive indicators of whose losing) does not mean the debate is not happening. The debate hasn't stopped since 8:45 a.m. September 11, 2001. Your side is losing. Or you just are not paying attention.

I have never invoked "the supposed treason of the opposition and the media." I have, however, pointed out they are, as you so eloquently put it, "the opposition." Forgive me for stating the exceedingly obvious.

Regarding my "civic lesson in electoral democracy," you are welcome. I always try to help.

And, if you know "the Ashcroft-crushing-of-dissent argument" "by heart," then your concern is disingenuous. Or you are just confused. The roster of those whose rights of dissent have been crushed is...non existent.

However, if you really wish to expose the "crushing of dissent," you need not look any further than the Democratic party. The national debate over national security is far more robust and diverse than the same debate within the Party.

Which really is the entire problem, isn't it?

#25 from Trent Telenko at 8:32 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Tom H.

>Sometimes it is expedient to make strategy
>public and sometimes it isn't.

We have talked about this. My take is that it isn't useful to have a grand strategy public debate until after the the Democrats have a Presidential nominee.

If debates on real war grand strategy will drive away loonie Democratic voters from politics. That is when to have it.

G.G.,

In politics, unlike criminal trials, guilt by association can be a capital criminal offense with the voting public.

For Pro-war Liberals to be creditable, they must be attacking Democratic loons on their own side several times more often than Pres. George Bush. And when they attack Bush, it has to be an attack from the right.

The only legitimate attack (by which I mean legitimate with the general election voting public) they can make on Bush is one that has this at its heart:

"How do we win the war faster by killing terrorists and destroying terrorist supporting states."

Arguements for kissing up to the French and giving them oil contracts to get their troops into Iraq is Democratic loon pandering. The loons want to see Bush humiliated, whatever the policy it takes for that to happen.

The whole Saudi Wahhabi lobby connection to 9/11 is sitting out there like a political low hanging fruit and not one Democratic candidate is picking it. The whole Democratic field, including Lieberman, is flat out ignoring it.

JAMES TARANTO puts it this way in Best of the Web:

"Meanwhile, where are the Democrats? The Times does quote Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York: "I just don't understand the administration here. There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis."

Well, maybe, or maybe the administration is just practicing diplomacy. Not everything in foreign affairs is a matter of black and white, and while the Saudi regime is not the solid ally Prince Bandar would like us to believe it is, nor is it an implacable enemy like the erstwhile Iraqi regime. The administration seems to be of the view that behind-the-scenes persuasion is a more promising way of inducing the Saudis to cooperate than public criticism. We're not entirely persuaded by this argument, but it is true that the Saudis cooperated with the liberation of Iraq.

You'd think, though, that the Democratic presidential candidates would jump at the opportunity to bash the administration for being soft on the Saudis. Dick Gephardt does raise the issue occasionally, but then earlier this week he urged a softer foreign policy all the way around. Gephardt and his fellow Dems, meanwhile, have been making a very big deal of the claim that Saddam Hussein was less bad than the president once said he was. Go figure."

Go figure indeed.

When Democratic candidates for president cannot be distringuished from French and Maylasian politicians, It is over for the whole party.

See here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/103905.html

and here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/23/MN278817.DTL

Please go right on arguing about how the Republicans and people like me, by arguing the way we do, are narrowing "the legitimate grounds of debate."

All I and other Republicans have to do in order to win the political arguement in the next election is nothing.

Your loons are stealing you blind when it comes to the "bounds of legitimate political debate" inside your own party.

When you wear a "I'm a loser, please kick me" sign, expect a sore butt.

>A.L. replies:
>
>Bullshit.

And right back atch.

When was the last time you went out fund raising for Lieberman?

When was the last time you had a letter to the editor or an op-ed in a Democratic publication confronting the loons over the war?

When was the last time you went to a local Democratic party meeting or candidate meet and greet to challenge the loon's positions?

When was the last time you showed up at a Dean or Kusinich Rally with a sign saying "I want a Democratic President for America, not for France?"

On issues of principle, you must be willing to split the party, if they really are principles you believe worth fighting for.

From Glenn to Nunn to Gephardt, whenever a "pro-war/National Security" Democrat has met in intraparty combat with the loon faction, the so-called peaceniks have won in a walk because your faction candidate didn't even put up a fight.

Bush has to see more than oatmeal for backbone Pro-War Democratic leadership in order to reach out and build a bi-partisan pro-war coalition.

He hasn't seen any and he isn't going too.

#26 from Mitch H. at 9:16 pm on Jul 25, 2003

What I was trying to say is that raising the war issue in the primaries (or in electoral terms at all) is a loser for pro-war Democrats. It alienates the antis and gives the other party the opportunity to throw spitballs. The WoT is as much of a loser for pro-war Democrats and the Democracy in general, I think, as slavery was for the Whigs. It shatters the party coalition, gives the rhetorical edge to the other party, and neglects the party issues.

When the Whigs went to pieces, it wasn't the pro-Compromise conservatives that found their way to power in a Union party. It was the anti-slavery ultras who rose, phoenix-like, in the Republican Party, and everything eventually went to shit, four bloody years of it. A fight between the pros and antis in the Democratic party will, I fear, leave the pros spread to the four corners of the earth, with some kind of a transnational progressive fragment to rise again, under the name of "Democratic Party". I don't like the idea of a vast majority-Republican party and a permanent minority party. I fear the lack of balance that such systems produce.

What's really infuriating is that Dean, neglecting his monumentally asinine foreign policy and anti-military notions, is otherwise quite attractive. Fiscal conservatism and social progressivism are two-thirds of the New Democratic platform. Sadly, a strong foreign policy is the third, and without that leg, the stool goes hurtling to the floor. Edwards is my current no-better-choice candidate. Leiberman is too conservative on social issues, Kerry's a flat-out jackass, Gephardt is lacking fiscally, and let's not get into the munchkins.

#27 from Tom Holsinger at 10:22 pm on Jul 25, 2003

A.L.,

I saw only one instance of you going directly after your party�s loons in the links you posted � this one:
http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000430.html

The pattern I did see is exemplified by your link here:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/002989.html, at (my capitalization):

�But you undermine my case when your official media broadcast hate and incitement, when your governments turn a blind eye to terrorists and their sponsors, and when you allow those who strike at the people of this nation - not with words, not with economic boycotts or peaceful action, but with violence - TO ACT IN YOUR NAME WITHOUT RAISING YOUR HANDS OR VOICES - you risk the wrath of the American people.�

It is the failure of patriotic Democratics to directly attack their parties� loons on the War on Terror which lets the loons define the Democratic Party�s position in the war. I repeat that Tim is dead on in stating:

You guys are going after President Bush to divert attention from your refusal to confront Democratic crazies. This is why your party is in danger of extinction. Trent quoted the adage: �Evil can ultimately triumph only when good men do nothing.�

My father, Joe Rauh and other liberal Democratics drove the Communists and fellow travelers from the Democratic Party in the 1940�s. There�s no one like them in the party anymore.

Sure it�s harder now. Trent has pointed out that Democratic factions need leaders and yours just doesn�t have one. That is why I left � Senator John Glenn wouldn�t take on the nuclear freeze lefties in 1984, and even then I didn�t change my registration until Jean Kirkpatrick did. Trent is also right that the Democrat�s pattern of having a small number of really hefty contributors, almost all of whom are of the lefty monoculture, has much to do with this. And Tim correctly states:

�Democrats used to have people like Henry Jackson whose credentials on national security were impeccable and therefore impervious to partisan attack. Those Democrats simply don�t exist anymore. Anywhere. Not since the Vietnamese War they don't. Even Sam Nunn, an alleged �hawk,� voted against authorizing the first Gulf War.

This means patriotic Democrats like you must work harder. You have to organize, proslyetize, go to endless meetings, contribute more money than you can reasonably afford, develop iron butts and leather lungs to outlast and outshout the lefties, and all those other things taking more time and effort than you have to spare. It�s your party.

Most importantly, you have to deem the lefties more your enemy than Republicans are. That�s the hardest part. You haven�t started yet.

#28 from Porphyrogenitus at 10:46 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Tom, in all sincerity and fairness, I've read A.L.'s writings, too, and I think that it's very clear that he opposes those elements staunchly. I think he's been spending more time and effort writing against the "loons" than you're giving him credit for, and in a very articulate and firm manner.

He's spent the last several weeks in particular lamenting what has happened to the Democratic Party and asserting that he wants it remade, finding fault with all their Presidential Candidates, castigating the very elements in the Party that you want him to.

He's done that consistently for, oh, I donno - how long has he been Blogging?

#29 from Porphyrogenitus at 10:51 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Also, I must say that I am very keen on detecting people, Liberals or Democrats, who to me seem to hate Republicans or Conservatives more than our enemies, or see your average Republican as more of an enemy than these hard Left elements are.

A.L. treats Republicans as political opponents, but not as enemies - IMO, if one reads his writings, its clear that he knows the difference. I think your characterization of his attitude is unfair.

I do agree with you and have written to the effect that patriotic Democrats need to work harder, organize, reclaim their Party from the fringe. And Armed Liberal has concurred and has posted to that effect, and his plans to start working on just that.

#30 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 11:23 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Tim -

Since I believe, as you do, that the alleged crushing of dissent is non-existent hysteria by Hollywood types looking for more press coverage of their views, then we must be speaking at cross purposes. My point concerns accusations of disloyalty by Democrats and their alleged unworthiness for inclusion in policy debates.

The term "war" is reductionist, but you have explained your reasons for preferring it and frankly I don't care what you call it as long as we're talking about the same thing (of which I am not entirely sure).

#31 from Trent Telenko at 11:40 pm on Jul 25, 2003

Mitch H,

Either pro-war liberals have the guts, determination and organizational skill to face down the anti-war loons in their own party or they don't.

If they don't -- and they have not to date -- they can and will be ignored as irrelevant.

As long as Pro-War Liberals view Republicans as their primary enemy rather than the Democratic loons, they will lose every time and deserve too.

#32 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 1:36 am on Jul 26, 2003

Trent -

Are we talking substance or tactics? On substance, I personally don't have a problem with any of the viable Democratic candidates, including Dean, and certainly haven't written them off as ideological fantasists. On tactics, why alienate the loons when you need them now and can talk over them a bit by criticizing Bush on style - and boy is he vulnerable on that score. That would seem to be the politically smart thing to do at this point.

It's all well for people to say that Dean is the perfect moderate, if only he were more pro-war, but then, if that were the case, he wouldn't be in the running. The trick for the Democrats is to hit Bush on specifics of implementation and poor diplomacy, while preserving enough credibility to tack back to the center, during the playoffs. It may not be pretty, but that's politics. It's also a tough line to walk, Gephardt maybe just tripped over it - but not fatally I think - and it may simply not be doable. That's also politics, but I'm not sure the Democrats have much choice here. I do not see what they have to gain from ceding the security issue to Bush. That would seem foolish. And I don't think anyone's going to be squeezing much juice out of the low lying Saudi fruit you mention.

If the Democrats are truly indistinguishable from the French, then the battle is over anyway. I think that's a gross mischaracterization and what you really mean is that Bush is vulnerable on his inability to navigate his way in a contentious and complicated international arena. Maybe you're misoverestimating him?

I'm told that, in contrast to the cowardly Democrats, the Republicans are vigorously criticizing their own anti-war fringe. Where? And why would they have to: they are the incumbents with a single candidate.

Ultimately, come election time, people will have to make a judgment whether voting for George Bush is potentially a matter of life or death. If I so concluded, I would vote for Bush. But I'm not even close to that point.

It may be irrelevant inasmuch as the Democrats don't have much of a chance anyway and pro-war moderate and liberal Democrats are defecting in droves. A lot of them show up on this site. I think they are wrongly taking out their frustration at the nutcases on the fringes of their party and would be better advised to wait and see what the state of play is come November 2004.

#33 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 1:40 am on Jul 26, 2003

Let me add: Bush is a disaster as a President on every issue but national security. It really has to be a matter of life or death. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to vote for him.

#34 from Fredrik Nyman at 5:00 am on Jul 26, 2003

Gabriel:

The war is about life and death. When the national security folks talk about the likely loss of a US city, they're realistic, not crying wolf.

Bush and his administration understand this. They understand that we are at war, that we have been for quite some time, and what is at stake.

They have also shown considerable courage in their willingness to fight this war, and in taking on the root causes.

I am not sure if any of the current D presidential candidates understand this. I doubt it; if they understood, there would be far fewer arrows in president Bush's back.

In the end, it doesn't matter. I don't trust any of the D presidential candidates with national security and with making hard decisions.

Let's face it -- the current bunch is a lost cause. We saw their performance at the NAACP panderfest the other week, complete with a 3-way groveling contest. These people will not confront the loons in their party. Should any of them be elected, they'll make Jimmy Carter look like a forceful leader. Which would be funny, if it wasn't so scary.

#35 from Tim at 5:02 am on Jul 26, 2003

Gabriel,

"A disaster on every issue but national security?" And, of course it follows, the Democrats aren�t a disaster on anything.

It's a good thing you're not given to exaggerations and hyperbole; else I'd be really concerned.

#36 from cbk at 4:10 pm on Jul 26, 2003

Thought some of you might find this speech entertaining.

It begins...

"Friday, July 25, 2003

Fear and Loathing in the Mother Ship

Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: �Bonjour!�

I'm sure you've already heard a good many speakers today and will hear a bunch more after I'm done.

So you'll probably judge my speech more on its brevity than its persuasiveness.

But that's okay, because as you may have heard, we Republicans from Texas aren't known for our el-o-qua-city.

But we are known for being clear.

So in the interests of clarity, I have a simple message to pass along: the national Democrat party seems to have lost its marbles."

The rest...

http://www.majorityleader.gov/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=127

#37 from Igor Schrenk at 5:36 pm on Jul 26, 2003

Porphy, don't you know?

FACTS ARE SPIN

#38 from Trent Telenko at 8:23 pm on Jul 26, 2003

>The trick for the Democrats is to hit Bush on
>specifics of implementation and poor diplomacy,
>while preserving enough credibility to tack back
>to the center, during the playoffs.

As long as your first priority is beating Bush rather than reclaiming your party from the loons. You are going to lose to them, and deserve too, every time.

And Republican's can ignore Pro-War Democrats as irrelevant, because they are.

#39 from Trent Telenko at 11:54 pm on Jul 26, 2003

G.G.

A friend of mine said the following about Democrats recently that captures why I blow off pro-war Democrats:

"If the administration makes mistakes and refuses to acknowledge them, they lose. If they do acknowledge them and address them, they also lose.

If we kill the Hussein boys, we lose. If we let them run around alive, we also lose.

After a while, the story here looks to me like: no matter what we do, we lose. Maybe we ought to just go home and admit the whole thing was a mistake.

This is a remarkably unhelpful attitude -- and not terribly constructive."

I go beyond that. It is profoundly unserious in a deeply serious war. Why should I care what you or other pro-war Democratic moderates and liberals think if all of you repeatedly demonstrate that you lack the courage of your convictions?

There are many ways to confront the loons. You can face them in Democratic party functions. You can contribute money to pro-war candidates and PACs. You can make your own pro-war PACs if there aren't any. You can organize like minded Democrats. Hell, you can simply confront them publically.

But whatever you do, DO SOMETHING TO CONFRONT THEM!

You and others like you are not doing a blessed thing except criticizing Bush, in other words, placating your loons. You, and others like you, are in a co-dependent relationship with your anti-war loons. All of you Democratic pro-war liberals and moderates keep hoping that by sharing the loon's phobias about Bush, that you won't get beaten as badly.

There is nothing anyone outside that relationship can do until you pro-war Democrats decide to get out of it.

#40 from linden at 1:26 am on Jul 27, 2003

"All of you Democratic pro-war liberals and moderates keep hoping that by sharing the loon's phobias about Bush, that you won't get beaten as badly."
In my experience, unless you act like you share Bush!Phobia, they will simply stop listening to you. I cannot tell you how many times people I believed were intelligent and open, have now told me I am no longer a liberal for being pro-war. The LoonyLeft is purging its ranks. This is partly why I want them to lose. I believe only a resounding McGovern-style defeat will knock some sense into them.

#41 from Joe Katzman at 2:14 am on Jul 27, 2003

Odd. Trent, I seem to notice rather a few neo-liberals taking a rather different tack. I'm always wary of statements that begin with "all of..."

It might also be helpful to acknowledge that perusal of right-wing publications reveals its own set of phobias concerning the current administration. Some are even similar, hence the recent close cooperation of many Republicans with the ACLU. After all, any politician will generate phobias, or to use a better term "anti-stories." The real questions are whether anti-stories (normal) have morphed into paranoia (not normal), disloyalty to the nation as a whole (ditto), or a substitute for a positive platform (more normal, but unsustainable).

I'm not seeing that from pro-war liberals generally. If you were referring to the current Democratic Party candidates, your criticism would have some justice. But you explicitly made it broader, and in a serious debate that would cost you the argument right there. Simply deleting your second to last paragraph would have made for a much smarter argument, with its basic points left intact.

---
"All of you Democratic pro-war liberals and moderates keep hoping that by sharing the loon's phobias about Bush, that you won't get beaten as badly."

#42 from Porphyrogenitus at 4:55 am on Jul 27, 2003

"The LoonyLeft is purging its ranks."

To come to Trent's point a bit, I see that, too; it's as if the Buchananites were in control of who counted as Conservative - a power they definately wanted (which is why they're off sulking loudly in the corner) but weren't permitted to have. Instead they were the ones who got purged.

Some are taking a different tack than Trent outlines, but for every article in TNR over the years that has complained about this to nil impact (unlike, say, the articles in NR that read out Buchanan and others), there are several in countless other organs that accept the fringe Left as spokesmen; if one looks at the sort of organizations that are cited as mainstream, even "nonpartisan" (Moveon.org's mask), "public interests" or the like, the line up of who's behind it all tends to be the elements of the sort Trent is pointing to - who's taken over the humanitarian/human rights groups long associated with Liberal politics? Civil Rights organizations once mainstream but now led by rather extreme and intemperate elements, dittoes.

One can go down the line. Some NeoLibs are standing up to this but not enough; the task is for more to. Trent is right that until they do, they're a non-factor in politics for all their good will. Which is why there needs to be a stronger effort to create a broad movement along those lines to counterbalance the disproportionate influence of the hard Left who, again, aren't really Liberals at all but are masquerading as Liberals so as to take over Liberal institutions for their own purposes - and with too much success, and with Liberals actually attacking organizations (such as, say, the National Association of Scholars) founded by true Liberals to combat the influence of the antiLiberal Left.

A series of epic defeats may be what it ends up taking. Previous ones obviously weren't sufficient.

By the by, I thought that the neologism "Neo-Liberal" had gone out of vogue; interesting to see it back. IMO in part a sign that the "move to the center" that Clinton was supposed to represent failed to take.

#43 from Porphyrogenitus at 5:15 am on Jul 27, 2003

(IIRC, the bylaws of the Democratic Party got re-written at the '68 Convention as a concession to those protesting its make up - one of many concessions made by the Establishment in this era - which was why the forces that were "outside" in '68 were firmly in control "inside" in '72; I just wanted to clarify that before anyone corrected the omission).

#44 from M. Simon at 1:06 pm on Jul 27, 2003

The Democrats have one big iron albatross around their neck. Vietnam.

We were told by the Democrat left that if the North won the war there would be no re-education camps as other communist countries had, no massacres. Peace and harmony. No mention of boat people.

It was all one big sack of lies.

And now they are doing it again re:Saddam. Just like in Vietnam, at war's end the truth came out. Thank god it was only three weeks.

My take is still the same as it was when I last posted on the subject. The fracturing of the Democrat Party and its replacement with a pro-war, pro-capitalist, civil liberties party.

From the looks of this discussion the fracturing is propagating quite nicely.

I think the loons will retain the name Democrat. It will come to mean "up against the wall" communist. There is a good chance the Greens might rejoin the fold under those circumstances.

#45 from M. Simon at 1:15 pm on Jul 27, 2003

Re: Ashcroft and the patriot Act. Congress is doing a bit to reign in the sneak and peak section.

We do live in a representative Democracy. The government listens. Not well, but that just means the citizens need a bigger clue by four.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Liberty is not a natural state among men. It takes energy to maintain.

#46 from M. Simon at 1:44 pm on Jul 27, 2003

The thing to keep in mind here is that the "up against the wall" left is not about pragmatism and solutions. What works. It is about beliefs. Thus no amount of reason can shake them.

This is very powerful if your beliefs corespond roughly to reality. If not. Kaboom.

Which is why doubt is such a powerful ally.

The west is built on the scientific method which can be summed in one word - DOUBT. It is very powerful. More powerful than belief; even though at first glance it appears weaker.

#47 from M. Simon at 2:17 pm on Jul 27, 2003

Islam with its fragmented preachers is in many ways like Judaism at the beginning of the rabinical period.

To reach that state it's hope of gain from violence must be utterly destroyed. Rome did that for the Jews from 70 AD on.

America will now be helping Islam in the same way.

Or as others have said America has been drawn into the Saudi/Islam civil war.

Could Bush say that without getting into serious hot water? No.

So he calls it a war on terrorism. Whatever. If you have been paying attention at all you know that the definition of winning this war is a Moslem Reformation. Truth be told we have nation built, but this project of redoing a religion is a first for America.

So it is not hard to figure the general outlines: take out countries supporting violent Islam one by one either by conquest or reformation.

Immediately post 9/11 I'd say that confusion about Bush policy was not unreasonable. For the Democrats to say they have seen no written articulated policy they could agree to, I have this answer: Bush's policy is pretty obvious now given his actions. As to not agreeing with his policy I'd say that was a given.

The question of when and how we will hit the next target(s) has to be uppermost in the minds of the autocrats of the ME. I don't want to know the answer to that question given how well Bush has done so far. Let him keep them and me guessing.

We have been in a war at least since WTC '93 or Lebanon '83. We pretended not to notice. We have been fully joined since 9/11. So the policy is war.

So we have a policy of war against Fascist Islam. Future targets unspecified. How can Ds say there is no policy? The best they can say is that they don't like the targets chosen so far. Or methods used. To ask for target approval in public discussion is stupid in war. It is especially stupid given that support for the war is high. And is being bolstered by troop reports which come in unfiltered over the net. The steady drip drip of deaths is painful but if the Israelis have been able to take it for years so can we.

The Ds ought to wise up and take the war off the table. The tax cut too. Lieberman said that. He sees the future of the party.

Too bad no other majory lefty does.

Joe and I are on the same page and I'm a neo-con.

Go figure.