In the middle and late-twentieth century the nation's biggest political enemy was "global Communism". Politically this specifically meant the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries, but it also entailed efforts to stop the spread of Communism as an ideology throughout the world. This situation greatly helped Republican politicians at the time because of the fact that it was fairly easy to claim Democrats were "closer" to Communist ideology. The Dems stood up for civil rights, social justice, social welfare, a strong government, and a secular society. This was similar to Communist rhetoric, although not reality. The Republicans were therefore able to cast themselves as more "American" or more "patriotic" than the Dems. It led to their rebirth and rise as the dominant American political force.
Today I think the Dems have a similar opportunity in the way we deal with our country's new major enemy: radical Islam.
In the middle and late-twentieth century the nation's biggest political enemy was "global Communism". In practice, this most often meant the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact countries, and East Asia, but it also entailed efforts to stop the spread of Communism as an ideology throughout the world. This situation greatly helped Republican politicians at the time because of the fact that it was fairly easy to claim Democrats were "closer" to Communists.
Imagine it's the 1950s. The Cold War is raging across the world. McCarthy is "rooting out Communists" throughout the country, and an atmosphere of total paranoia hangs in the air. There's a generally liberal feeling to national politics, but there's a deep suspicion of social movements and their ties to the Soviet Union.
Imagine that an incumbent liberal politician suddenly gets endorsed by Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union in the course of his re-election campaign. How long would his campaign last? Could he possibly be re-elected?
That politician would be facing political doom.
George W. Bush has racked up some real winners in his endorsement race, and they tell us a lot about the appeal of his governing style. Vladimir Putin, Russia's new autocrat, is pro-Bush. Iran, land of fundamentalist "moo-laows" is pro-Bush. And now we hear that groups associated with al-Qaeda are pro-Bush. Not to mention the family's close connection to the fundamentalist Saudis.
The Republican Cold War appeal was simple. 1) As liberals, Democrats support some of the same general goals as Communists. 2) Democrats are more in favor of diplomatic engagement with the Communists. 3) Therefore, voting for Democrats promotes Communism here in the United States. Implicit in that argument was the threat that voting for Democrats in the USA would lead to an impoverished autocratic state like the USSR.
It's an argument of fear and nationalism. And it's one we can totally use. As conservatives, Republicans support many of the same general ideals that fundie Islamic states do. They are against the separation of church and state. They attack the protections of religious and ethnic minorities. They attack the rights of women. They are in favor of highly centralized government power-- a "permanent Republican majority" as Tom Delay called it. They have a strong reliance on the military as a bulwark of political power. They have an autocratic bent, and they reject or intimidate independent media sources which would undermine their power. They have a contempt for democracy, and do their best to rig elections to ensure victory for approved candidates (the Iranians and Saudis both have elections, guess who wins?)
The Republicans are much more likely to actually negotiate with fundamentalist states. Cheney came under fire earlier this year for suggesting that we actually supply the Iranians with nuclear materials and lift economic sanctions. The Bush Administration has generally not been interested in promoting any sort of reform within fundamentalist Islamic states-- in fact, their only major Middle Eastern policy was an invasion and occupation of Iraq, the only secular state in the region. The Iranians said it themselves:
"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era, despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into US presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.
The last part of the argument appeals to total, nationalistic and patriotic fear. The slogan is easy. "Vote for Bush and get Saudi Arabia." Or, even better, "Vote for Bush and get Iran." It's great because it appeals to all sorts of different issues. We get the aformentioned fear of autocracy and fundamentalism. But we also get the fear that supporting Republicans could lead to life in an impoverished third world state with the crappy living standard of the Middle East. That's a very powerful argument.
The Democrats have an incredible opportunity here. We should be pushing to make the War on Terror much closer to the Cold War. The American attempts to stop Communism could be clumsy but they were way better than the idiotic, overtly state-based solution we have today. Winning "hearts and minds" was as important in the 50s-80s as it is today. But Bush has ignored it. Proliferation needs to be integrated into the WoT, not just of weapons but of ideology. When Bush says he'd allow Islamic fundamentalists to come to power in Iraq, the Democrats should be screaming about it. Just as Republicans ran in the Cold War as being "tough on the Reds", we can run on being "tough on the fundies". I think it could be a major stepping stone to re-inaugurating a Democratic period of dominance.