An article by Peter Beinart has set off a round of the Democrats' second-favorite sport, trashing each other. (Fortunately, griping about the Republicans is still the #1 favorite for most of us.) Actually, as Democratic infighting goes, this isn't nearly as much fun as as "I'm more pure in opposing the war than you are." Since Bush seems clueless about how to get the troops out of Iraq, I'm figuring that the 2008 primaries will be full of that argument.
But for now, it's about this article arguing that, golly, if the Democrats keep on opposing disastrous wars that Republicans keep dreaming up, they won't look "tough" on defence. Oh, and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and pretty much any Democrat who's not afraid to actually criticize the Republicans should be regarded as a plague-carrier.
A Fighting Faith by Peter Beinart New Republic 12/02/04.
And here are links to some of the entries in the discussion:
Kevin Drum, Liberals and Terrorism 12/02/04
Kevin Drum, Liberalism and Terror....A Followup.... 12/05/04
Kevin Drum, Liberals and War 12/06/04
Atrios (Duncan Black) No 12/06/04
Atrios One More Thing 12/06/04
Atrios A**hats 12/06/04
Atrios Honesty 12/06/04
Matt Iglesias Pacifists and Alternatives 12/06/04
Steve Gilliard Vichy Dems 12/06/04. Readers of Old Hickory's Weblog have heard before how much I dislike bad historical analogies. Bad analogies from the Second World War have had a particular workout in recent years. But I must admit, I kind of like the term Vichy Democrats for the "Republican lite" variety of Democrats, especially the ones who only get worked up about scolding other Dems for actually opposing what the Republicans are trying to do (start needless wars, gut Social Security, etc.).
Roy Edroso (12/07/04) has another suggestion. Instead of trying to create a beachead within the Democratic Party, why don't the Republicans just set up there very own subsidiary party? He suggests calling it the Perublicans. I first thought he meant Peru-blicans, but I didn't get the Peru connection. Finally it dawned on me that the was switching the first two consonants in "Republicans." Anyway:
The Perublicans could recruit political talent from within its own ranks, from the more cooperative precincts of the Democratic Party, and, of course, from the blogosphere. To each Republican proposal, the Perublicans could offer a serious "Yes, but..." that would probe, test, invite debate on, and ultimately validate that proposal.
The President's proposal to borrow massively to pay for Social Security reform, for example, would be seriously challenged by Perublicans, probably after the manner of Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert Bixby on the subject: "Ideally, Social Security reform should be done without any borrowing. That would require hard choices that politicians aren't inclined to make... If they do have to do some borrowing, I hope they keep it to a minimum." The Perublicans would keep this line of argument up until Republicans were ready to vote on a bill; being Loyal, the Perublicans would attempt no filibusters or parliamentary hanky-panky as the measure was being passed; and they would unite with their Republican brothers behind the new program, with several of their number appearing for photographs with the President as he signed it into law.
When quizzed by disappointed constituents or the press, Perublicans would point out that each disastrous proposal got a full hearing before it was approved, and that this full and fair exchange of ideas was a stern rebuke to Michael Moore.
David Neiwert A liberal war on terror 12/07/04
Steve Gilliard Blame Moore, Not Bush 12/08/04
Purpose Driven by John Judis New Republic Online 12/08/04. (Annoying registration required.)
Should we be engaged, as Peter suggests, in a "global campaign for freedom"? America should always stand for freedom--although not the Republicans' Wal-Mart variety--but what we ought to do about it depends on historical circumstances. No one is suggesting, I hope, that the United States invade or break relations with China because it is still a communist oligarchy. And the Middle East is, if anything, an even more problematic region for advocates of global democracy. Genuine democracy, and not simply a transient, jerry-rigged electoral process erected atop sectarian chaos, will eventually come to that region, but it will be through the initiative of the people themselves, not through the imposition of a hostile power.
Steve Gilliard Al From: Shut the [expletive deleted] up 12/09/04.
Josh Marshall 12/09/04.
[T]he War on Terror is not comparable to the Cold War. Let’s focus the point a little more closely and say that the war against militant Islam is not comparable to the Cold War.
You can find more of this is Liberal Blogostan. The links above are just a selection.
3 comments:
Unfortunately most young people today have no idea what WWII was about, how the US got into it and what developed in the world after it. So an analogy like "Vichy Democrats" wouldn't make sense to them at all.
That Happy Chica,
Marcia Ellen
I've been following this argument in the blogosphere as well, and am planning to write an entry about it. As I've said over at Neil's blog, I'm not too fond of The New Republic crew who have been especially hawkish since Martin Peretz took over.
Three things: First, you're right, Islamic totalitarianism and Communism don't compare. Islamic religious fundamentalists don't have the potential to be as powerful as the Communists could have been during its heyday.
Second, even if "soft" Dems turn a new leaf and declare themselves strongly anti-totalitarian, war isn't always the answer. Not favoring the Iraq war nor for that matter, the Afghanistan war, doesn't mean that the dovish faction of the party thinks national security isn't a concern; they just don't think that the problem deserves such drastic solutions.
Third, we can't be the world police. Not only can't we afford to do it long term, but we can't afford the consequences, e.g. increasing hostility and/or retaliation, which will likely result from such an excursion.
It is a good discussion -- and a necessary one -- for all Americans, not merely Democrats.
I think even Republicans have to ask what they are going to be about in the future -- so much has changed under Bush. He has radically changed the GOP and it remains to be seen whether the party will pull back from such extremism. My sense is they will get even more extreme, but it is something I hope they will at least debate.
For Democrats, it has always been harder to find common ground -- we are a more diverse assortment of interests and social groups, and since the end of the Clinton presidency there has been no individual who could pull us together. The next four years will be interesting.
By the way, The New Republic published my letter in response to the Beinart piece you mention. If you are interested, look here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=letters&s=beinart120804#reality
Neil
http://journals.aol.com/purcellneil/NeilsJournal/
Post a Comment