Two month after the election, much of the grassroots energy that brought a supposedly unelectable liberal within one state of beating a wartime Republican incumbent has dissipated. This vacuum has allowed weak but vocal factions within the Democratic Party to lay claim to the party agenda. Although it has been quite some time since the unnecessary and murderously unsuccessful conflict in Iraq was considered a popular war, hawkish democrats are blaming John Kerry's defeat on his failure to support the protracted ordeal enthusiastically.
More generally, these Democrats are arguing that the party should become more charitably disposed to overseas conflict. Defense is a worthy goal when it is non-partisan, as it was in Afghanistan, but the conservative Democrats are advocating a dangerously militaristic hard line as a road to popularity.
A recent and increasingly influential opinion piece by Peter Beinart, editor of The New Republic, illustrates the confusion and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party's right wing. His lack of forward vision becomes immediately apparent as he compares the war on terror to the Cold War. This analogy forms the backbone of his analysis, and it forces the reader to conceive the future of the Democratic Party in the language of the Bush ideologues.
Beinart's article represents a surrender to the language and agenda of the Republican right. The idea of the Cold War still represents fear, paranoia, and political opportunity for those who exploit it. Through this language, the 21st century international effort against terrorism was abandoned in favor of an adventure in Iraq. Democratic lawmakers, following logic that bears a striking resemblance to Beinart's, authorized that war.
Precisely because election-conscious Democrats were afraid to appear "soft" (Beinart's word for non-hawks), thousands of people are dead and the U.S. is the proud owner of a brutal guerilla war. Beinart tells us that the real lesson of Nov. 2 is that Democrats should lead America into conflict Rambo style while Republicans struggle to keep up. Although he professes opposition to America's decisions in Iraq, the next Iraq is precisely where his logic leads.
Beinart is no lone nut. The Democratic Leadership Council, a conservative democratic think tank, heartily endorses his program. Although the DLC generates little popular enthusiasm within the party's grassroots networks, it is well funded by narrow interests. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the DLC still maintains that the war in Iraq was an excellent policy decision but was mishandled. On its website, the DLC lists defense and the "war" on terror as its top priorities.
Grassroots organizations were responsible for getting Kerry within one state of winning the election. The nebulous, DLC-style language of the Kerry campaign ensured that Kerry, would, in fact, fall short. Voters preferred John Kerry when he was drawing clear-cut distinctions between himself and Bush, as seen in their first debate. People doubted John Kerry when he claimed to have "supported the war but totally disagreed with the administration's handling of the war."
That language lost the election. That is the language of the DLC, not the liberal heart of the party.
Adopting DLC priorities forces the Democrats into the abyss of politics: "opposition lite." Ultimately, offering a watered down alternative to the conservative republican agenda will not make the Democratic Party a party of government. Voters prefer and respect original ideas from political parties. A party that has a real agenda can make a stand. When a party decides the best option is to react to the other party, it will never have the initiative.
Americans have not seen the worst of the war "on terror" in Iraq. Aside from those directly involved in Iraq and their families, the most the average American has been asked to suffer is five dollars for a magnetic ribbon.
This will change if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve. Iraq presents appalling TV images on a daily basis, but it also serves as a staging area and inspiration to terrorists throughout the Middle East. The hawks' war made it that way.
Iraq has energized the next generation of terrorists. With millions of people polarized against the U.S., hundreds of thousands directly or indirectly supporting terrorists and thousands engaging in violent actions against Americans, it is only a matter of time until this "war" in Iraq explodes in American territory. When it happens, people will ask why more of the over 100 billion dollars expended in Iraq wasn't spent on borders, shipping and airports. And it will be an excellent question.
Liberals must distance themselves from DLC-like cheerleading for conflict unless they want to share the shame when that violence returns to the U.S. It would be better for the Democrats to embrace the war-wary liberals and the domestic security emphasis that liberals have steadfastly championed.
There is an inordinate amount of fear in the modern Democratic Party. Every election loss, every unfavorable poll, every accusation of liberalism is seen as the end of the party. Wake up. The supposedly liberal, unelectable, flip-flopping and cold Massachusetts senator lost by just three points in a national election. Keep that liberal activism and vision alive. As the war turns sour, the meaning of "moral values" will change. "Immoral" will come to mean "unjust" as the government leads us into crisis.
Two years before the stock market crash that precipitated the Great Depression, the architects of the New Deal were on the outside looking in. This nation's enthusiasm for conflict is declining daily. Today's Democratic Party needs to be ready to meet the demands of tomorrow and not mimic a conservative movement that is blind to the future.
