...I'm okay with being REALITY-based.




Friday, July 25, 2003
      ( 10:07 AM )
 
They Still Don't Get It

There is a very interesting debate on the TNR website between Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait regarding Howard Dean's campaign and whether he is truly able to win the candidacy and the presidency. Whether you are a Dean supporter or not, it's a very thought-provoking debate, and I enjoyed reading it and pondering the points both of them raised.

Chait believes that Dean is not only non-viable as a candidate, but he also thinks that Dean will detrimentally divide the party. He lauds Edwards' strategy of supporting the Iraq war but taking Bush to task on underfunding Homeland Security, of courting centrist big money supporters and staying away from the left. He also brings up the old non-starter that Democrats are "weak on foreign policy" and that this will be bad for Dean because he has consistently been against the war and the plans for the occupation of Iraq, along with calling for more international cooperation (which I don't get, I guess not being a pre-emptive cowboy makes you look weak?). He seems to be, as far as I can tell, echoing the DLC line of how the Democrats can really win...and yet, it hasn't proven to be a winning formula in years.

What I don't think Chait, Edwards, the DLC and the rest of the "ignore the left, they are just radicals" folks get is that Dean is not simply attracting the 2000 Nader voters and the so-far-left-progressives-that-they're-practically-communists, as is the oft-repeated mantra from the likes of the DLC. Dean is bringing in independants and centrist voters because his message is not wholly left-leaning. I do think good points are made by both Chait and Cohn regarding the broader base that needs to be reached by Dean, but I also know that many of these judgments are being made very early on. The thing I will say about this subject right now is that Dean's campaign has blossomed virtually overnight in the last two months - he has gone from being totally unknown to raising the most money from the most people and gaining over 200,000 registered volunteers. This is not the whole of his campaign, this is the foundation that will launch his campaign - he is doing in-person appearances in cities all over the country this summer (coming to Portland Aug 25!). I think that as more and more people become aware of him, more and more of the voters in this country will be attracted to his message of change and his appeal as a non-Washington insider and his complete independence from big-corporate interests. I think the naysayers with regard to Dean's broader appeal will need to keep a good look-out in the coming six months.

On the subject of the "weakness" of Democrats on foreign policy and the use of the military - where did this start? Wasn't it Carter who used diplomacy to bring about one of the first major peace agreements in the Middle East? Wasn't it a Democratic president who strongly led the US during WWII, who used the first nuclear weapons and who committed troops to the Korean War? Wasn't it a Democrat's hawkish treatment of Vietnam (not that democrats actually agreed with him, but you have to concede he wasn't exactly a "wimp") that caused his downfall? Was it not a democrat president who committed troops to the Balkans and who carried on continuous bombing raids of Iraq for 8 years, including a major effort in late 1998? On the diplomatic side, was it not a Democrat president who contributed to the formation of the UN, wasn't it a Democrat who resolved the Cuban Missle Crisis without violence, wasn't it a Democrat who urged along and saw the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland, who aided in the Oslo Agreement, who oversaw the initiation of NAFTA (again, not that we agree wholly with these things, just that they are foreign policy accomplishments from a political point of view)? Where does this rhetoric of Democrats being "weak" on use of the military and foreign affaris come from? This has got to be countered by clear thinking and speaking candidates who not only oppose this administration's policies, but can move beyond that and propose new and forward-thinking foreign policies.

Bush came into the White House on a platform that basically said he was going to ignore other countries as much as possible. Even the most obvious risks were not a part of his agenda. This was clearly evident when our plane was shot down by China and it came out that Bush had eliminated the China desk from the NSA and had no one in his administration with the knowledge and experience to advise him in the first part of that episode. Does alienating our allies and almost all other countries in the world count as being "strong?" Does initiating invasions of sovereign nations and targeting rulers for assasination count as being "strong?" Does ignoring the Middle East conflict until it's obvious you can't get out of it, and then letting it flounder count as being "strong?" Does exploiting African nations for good photo ops and then not following through with the promised aid or taking care of expected responsibilities in Liberia count as "strong?"

This entire "Democrats are weak on foreign policy" rhetoric ignores the foreign policy triumphs of every Democrat president since the turn of the century. Whether you believe they were right or not, I don't think that Democrat governments in the 20th century showed "weakness." It's part of that Republican strategy: repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth, even if it's not (witness: "liberal media"). It's this false rhetoric, just like the idea that the President being strong makes up for him lying, that Democrats must fight this year, in the media, in Congress, and in our backyards talking over the fence to our neighbors.

One final note, It would be hard for the GOP to use this argument if they ultimately face Kerry, who is a Vietnam veteran, or if Dean wins out and picks up Gen. Clark as a running mate. I think either of these options would quell this GOP falsehood and severely limit their campaign strength on that issue.

| -- permanent link