Comments on: The Democrats and National Security: Israelization http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:20:36 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hal http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9435 Hal Mon, 29 May 2006 18:56:41 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9435 I agree with Poly Sci that the Dems problem dates all the way back to the Truman Administration. Kevin Baker has a fine article in the June Harper's about the "stab in the back" idea, which he dates to Truman's time also. For example, the Yalta agreement was universally admired in 1945, but by 1950 had become a conspiracy to betray Eastern Europe to godless communism, according to many Republicans. I am pessimistic about any Democrat's ability to cut through this powerful nonsense. About the only presidential candidate who did at a time of high foreign tension was JFK, and I'm not at all sure he really won in 1960. I am haunted by something that John Kerry tried in one of the debates in 2004. Kerry made the argument that terrorism is like ordinary murder, you're never going to wipe it out entirely. Instead the approach should be to attack it, track it down, punish it, but that it's more like prosecuting crime than like WW IV. Kerry suffered for this politically, and wasn't able to get out from under Bush's demagoguery on this. I can't see any Democrat doing so in 2008. If anyone can sketch out how and why I am wrong, I'd be all ears. I agree with Poly Sci that the Dems problem dates all the way back to the Truman Administration. Kevin Baker has a fine article in the June Harper’s about the “stab in the back” idea, which he dates to Truman’s time also. For example, the Yalta agreement was universally admired in 1945, but by 1950 had become a conspiracy to betray Eastern Europe to godless communism, according to many Republicans.
I am pessimistic about any Democrat’s ability to cut through this powerful nonsense. About the only presidential candidate who did at a time of high foreign tension was JFK, and I’m not at all sure he really won in 1960.
I am haunted by something that John Kerry tried in one of the debates in 2004. Kerry made the argument that terrorism is like ordinary murder, you’re never going to wipe it out entirely. Instead the approach should be to attack it, track it down, punish it, but that it’s more like prosecuting crime than like WW IV.
Kerry suffered for this politically, and wasn’t able to get out from under Bush’s demagoguery on this. I can’t see any Democrat doing so in 2008.
If anyone can sketch out how and why I am wrong, I’d be all ears.

]]> By: lizard brain http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9434 lizard brain Sat, 27 May 2006 22:12:23 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9434 > Under certain circumstances (in response to a > serious injury--like, say, 9/11, for example--we > act out in immature ways and do things that we > later realize were ultimately self-destructive. That's true, but attacking Iraq would have been just as self-destructive if the UN had approved of it. Likewise, if attacking Iraq with UN approval were a good idea, it would be a good idea to attack it without UN approval. Our actions in Kosovo were good, despite lack of UN approval. In short, UN approval had no connection whatsoever with the wisdom of attacking Iraq, or lack thereof. I would like to remind everyone that the surest way to convince the American people that we should attack Iran is to tell them that we shouldn't do it without U.N. approval. Everytime you open your mouth and declare that UN approval is required for invading a country, you are asking for bombs to be dropped on Iran. Now, there are plenty of other pragmatic reasons why invading Iran would be a horrible idea, but if you try to turn this into an argument over the United Nations, I absolutely promise you that the argument will be lost and people will die. > Under certain circumstances (in response to a
> serious injury–like, say, 9/11, for example–we
> act out in immature ways and do things that we
> later realize were ultimately self-destructive.
That’s true, but attacking Iraq would have been just as self-destructive if the UN had approved of it. Likewise, if attacking Iraq with UN approval were a good idea, it would be a good idea to attack it without UN approval. Our actions in Kosovo were good, despite lack of UN approval. In short, UN approval had no connection whatsoever with the wisdom of attacking Iraq, or lack thereof.
I would like to remind everyone that the surest way to convince the American people that we should attack Iran is to tell them that we shouldn’t do it without U.N. approval. Everytime you open your mouth and declare that UN approval is required for invading a country, you are asking for bombs to be dropped on Iran. Now, there are plenty of other pragmatic reasons why invading Iran would be a horrible idea, but if you try to turn this into an argument over the United Nations, I absolutely promise you that the argument will be lost and people will die.

]]> By: Patrick Elyas http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9433 Patrick Elyas Sat, 27 May 2006 18:51:06 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9433 I can defnitely see this trend occurring, however, let's not forget that Israeli voters have far more choices than American voters. There's always a party that's closer tot he average views of an Israeli citizen. There's liberal Labor, centrist Kadima, and right-wing Likud, but also other parties. On the religious right but economic left there is Shas, another right-wing party there is Yisraeli Beitenhu, and then we have the leftist Pensioner's Party, in addition to numerous Arab-Israeli parties. Israeli is certainly more democratic than America right now. I can defnitely see this trend occurring, however, let’s not forget that Israeli voters have far more choices than American voters. There’s always a party that’s closer tot he average views of an Israeli citizen. There’s liberal Labor, centrist Kadima, and right-wing Likud, but also other parties. On the religious right but economic left there is Shas, another right-wing party there is Yisraeli Beitenhu, and then we have the leftist Pensioner’s Party, in addition to numerous Arab-Israeli parties. Israeli is certainly more democratic than America right now.

]]> By: Poly Sci http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9432 Poly Sci Sat, 27 May 2006 18:06:24 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9432 As a political scientist and a former Democrat (I am now an independent - I don't trust either party with the security of the country, domestically or internationally) there is much to what you say. It is a variation on the old "it took a Nixon to go to China" argument. The American public at that time wanted to curb some of our military commitments, especially in Asia, but did not trust George McGovern to do it. Similarly, in my view, they wanted to cut back some of the excesses of the welfare state (e.g., welfare reform) in the 1990s, but wanted Bill Clinton to do it, not the Republicans. I think there are other examples that could be cited. What this leads to, of course, is a certain frrustration built in to American politics. Democrats will always end up acting more conservative than much of their base likes, and Republicans will end up being more liberal than much of their base likes (hence conservative anger at Bush for his immigration and fiscal policies, for example.) But that is what democracy is: you do what you can, not what you'd like. And the purists on either side stand and jeer. BTW, I would disagree with one thing. The Dems problems with national security started long before Jimmy Carter, though he certainly helped. They probably began in earnest with the "Who Lost China?" charge of the 1940s and 1950s. Remember that Truman, who many lefties now consider a reckless hawk (see Arnold Offner's and Bruce Cumings's books, for example)was seen at the time as kind of a wimp. Personally, I thought he got it about right. As a political scientist and a former Democrat (I am now an independent – I don’t trust either party with the security of the country, domestically or internationally) there is much to what you say. It is a variation on the old “it took a Nixon to go to China” argument. The American public at that time wanted to curb some of our military commitments, especially in Asia, but did not trust George McGovern to do it. Similarly, in my view, they wanted to cut back some of the excesses of the welfare state (e.g., welfare reform) in the 1990s, but wanted Bill Clinton to do it, not the Republicans. I think there are other examples that could be cited.
What this leads to, of course, is a certain frrustration built in to American politics. Democrats will always end up acting more conservative than much of their base likes, and Republicans will end up being more liberal than much of their base likes (hence conservative anger at Bush for his immigration and fiscal policies, for example.) But that is what democracy is: you do what you can, not what you’d like. And the purists on either side stand and jeer.
BTW, I would disagree with one thing. The Dems problems with national security started long before Jimmy Carter, though he certainly helped. They probably began in earnest with the “Who Lost China?” charge of the 1940s and 1950s. Remember that Truman, who many lefties now consider a reckless hawk (see Arnold Offner’s and Bruce Cumings’s books, for example)was seen at the time as kind of a wimp. Personally, I thought he got it about right.

]]> By: Bloodless Coup http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9443 Bloodless Coup Fri, 26 May 2006 15:41:47 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9443 <strong>What to Do About the Democrats' Image Problems on Security?</strong> Jonathan Zasloff has this post which raises a few key points. One (just for Morris) is that one party often implements the other party's program, and that voters might prefer one party's policies and still vote for the other party.... What to Do About the Democrats’ Image Problems on Security?

Jonathan Zasloff has this post which raises a few key points. One (just for Morris) is that one party often implements the other party’s program, and that voters might prefer one party’s policies and still vote for the other party….

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9431 Cranky Observer Fri, 26 May 2006 15:03:07 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9431 > One big political step that the Democrats > could take toward regaining credibility on > national security with the electorate would > be to shed the image as the party of > internationalism. Back in the Regean era I had a professor who was an actual living, breathing Communist whose analysis of the Democrat's election problems was "given the choice between a real conservative and a fake Democratic conservative, voters will take the real one every time". I understand Zasloff's point, even if I don't agree with it, but 'slide to the right' is useless advice; it will just get us a McCain/Jeb Administration. Probably with Cheney as Defense Secretary. Cranky > One big political step that the Democrats
> could take toward regaining credibility on
> national security with the electorate would
> be to shed the image as the party of
> internationalism.
Back in the Regean era I had a professor who was an actual living, breathing Communist whose analysis of the Democrat’s election problems was “given the choice between a real conservative and a fake Democratic conservative, voters will take the real one every time”. I understand Zasloff’s point, even if I don’t agree with it, but ’slide to the right’ is useless advice; it will just get us a McCain/Jeb Administration. Probably with Cheney as Defense Secretary.
Cranky

]]> By: rilkefan http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9430 rilkefan Fri, 26 May 2006 01:10:43 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9430 Wesley Clark isn't exactly gruff, but he doesn't suffer fools or insolent Fox reporters gladly... Wesley Clark isn’t exactly gruff, but he doesn’t suffer fools or insolent Fox reporters gladly…

]]> By: BroD http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9429 BroD Thu, 25 May 2006 22:23:05 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9429 I think a hyper-assertive approach to the rest of the world has great appeal to our reptilian mind--both as individuals and as a collective national entity. In maturity, we understand the reality of our interdependence and the benefits of cooperative action. Under certain circumstances (in response to a serious injury--like, say, 9/11, for example--we act out in immature ways and do things that we later realize were ultimately self-destructive. I think a hyper-assertive approach to the rest of the world has great appeal to our reptilian mind–both as individuals and as a collective national entity.
In maturity, we understand the reality of our interdependence and the benefits of cooperative action.
Under certain circumstances (in response to a serious injury–like, say, 9/11, for example–we act out in immature ways and do things that we later realize were ultimately self-destructive.

]]> By: Vaxalon http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9428 Vaxalon Thu, 25 May 2006 21:11:40 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9428 What you seem to be saying, sd, is that when it comes down to it, Americans would rather be independent, alone, poor, and dying, than interdependent, peaceful and prosperous? If that's so, why are Americans giving up so many of their freedoms to the US government, in order to buy what they think is peace and prosperity? What you seem to be saying, sd, is that when it comes down to it, Americans would rather be independent, alone, poor, and dying, than interdependent, peaceful and prosperous?
If that’s so, why are Americans giving up so many of their freedoms to the US government, in order to buy what they think is peace and prosperity?

]]> By: sd http://www.samefacts.com/2006/05/politics-and-leadership/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/comment-page-1/#comment-9427 sd Thu, 25 May 2006 21:02:00 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/05/uncategorized/the-democrats-and-national-security-israelization/#comment-9427 Another factor that I think contributes to Democrats' inability to get traction on national security issues with the electorate is their alignment (real and imagined) with international bodies and with the idea that securing the approval of the international community is a highly desirable goal. In the run-up to the Iraq War, one of the biggest stated objections to Bush's intentions from Democrats, especially those on the left of the political spectrum, was that the U.N. was not on board and that Bush had failed to assemble an international consensus for action. I have no proof of this, but I strongly suspect that most Americans' attitude to this is - So F*cking What? One can be opposed to Bush's policy for all sorts of reasons rooted entirely in concern for U.S. interests. But the perception (again, right or wrong) was that a large part of the anti-war crowd's objection before the war started was based on the fact that France and Russia did not approve. And for this the American people will not stand. On saltier days, most Americans think its a good thing to piss off France and Russia. One big political step that the Democrats could take toward regaining credibility on national security with the electorate would be to shed the image as the party of internationalism. Now, one might think this is a bad policy direction, but politically it would work very well. To the extent that voters tend to trust Republicans more on these questions I suspect that its not entirely because they think Republicans are tougher, but also because they think that Republicans are unabashedly for the promotion of U.S. interests. Again, you may think this is not the case in fact, but its a very real perception. Another factor that I think contributes to Democrats’ inability to get traction on national security issues with the electorate is their alignment (real and imagined) with international bodies and with the idea that securing the approval of the international community is a highly desirable goal.
In the run-up to the Iraq War, one of the biggest stated objections to Bush’s intentions from Democrats, especially those on the left of the political spectrum, was that the U.N. was not on board and that Bush had failed to assemble an international consensus for action. I have no proof of this, but I strongly suspect that most Americans’ attitude to this is – So F*cking What?
One can be opposed to Bush’s policy for all sorts of reasons rooted entirely in concern for U.S. interests. But the perception (again, right or wrong) was that a large part of the anti-war crowd’s objection before the war started was based on the fact that France and Russia did not approve. And for this the American people will not stand. On saltier days, most Americans think its a good thing to piss off France and Russia.
One big political step that the Democrats could take toward regaining credibility on national security with the electorate would be to shed the image as the party of internationalism. Now, one might think this is a bad policy direction, but politically it would work very well.
To the extent that voters tend to trust Republicans more on these questions I suspect that its not entirely because they think Republicans are tougher, but also because they think that Republicans are unabashedly for the promotion of U.S. interests. Again, you may think this is not the case in fact, but its a very real perception.

]]>