This week saw the usual bloom of nonsense from those who just don't know what they're talking about concerning netroots anger and netroots refusal or inability to stand for something rather than against something. Those who trade in such blather have never understood that the primary role of progressive bloggers is to ring a thousand firebells in the night to rouse a panicked and confused nation to action against an authoritarian takeover of America. Anger over that prospect is both inevitable and rational. Like the bumper sticker says, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention. Progressive blogs are not obligated to think tank. It is not incumbent upon daily kos to produce Brookings-style position papers. Atrios, god help him, does not have to perform like a Hoover Institute monkey.
That being said, I want to put forth here a position for the progressive blogs to champion and better yet for the Democratic Party to adapt. I've just finished reading Ron Suskind's excellent One Per Cent Doctrine. For those unfamiliar with it, the title comes from a Dick Cheney declaration after he was presented tenuous information about terrorists' imminent possession of WMD. An excerpt:
"...Cheney listened intently, hard-eyed, clamped down tight. When the briefing finished, he said nothing for a moment. And then he was ready with his 'different way.'
"'If there's a one percent chance that the Pakistani scientists are helping al Queda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response,' Cheney said. He paused to asses his declaration. 'It's not about analysis or finding a preponderance of evidence," he added. 'It's about our response.'
"So, now spoken, it stood, a standard of action that would frame events and responses from the Administration for years to come. The Cheney Doctrine. Even if there's a one percent chance of the unimaginable coming true, act as if it's a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis' as Cheney said. It's about 'our response.' This doctrine--the one percent solution--divided what had largely been indivisible in the conduct of American foreign policy: analysis and action. Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters."
Suskind goes on in the course of his book to masterly develop the consequences of that moment. Although Suskind reveals that this worldview had been taking shape in Cheney's brain for decades, all the foreign policy arrogance and blunders of the Bush years can be traced to his imposition of this pinched, paranoid view on a gullible nation and a bewildered world. (A note here: we really should pause before making blanket condemnations of the MSM; Suskind, as one of the best in the business, turns in the kind of detailed, behind-the-scenes reporting that goes far beyond the scope of any blogger, who really can't do much more than feed off it, run the hair-raising quote, and anoint Cheney "Wanker of the Day." No offense.)
I think that Cheney has handed progressives and Democrats at large a crucible in which to mix that elusive foreign policy formulation the pundit class has been demanding, that is: The 70 Percent Doctrine. We can go to the American people with the promise of never committing lives or tax dollars to any foreign venture in which we do not have at least a 70 percent certainty of both our moral and strategic superiority. Some on the left may quibble with that and prefer an 80 percent solution. Some dreamers amongst us may even insist on a 100 percent solution. But that's latitude we can allow ourselves. After some debate back and forth, we may settle on 70 percent as the centrist position of the Democratic Party, which would still be a huge improvement over the Leiberman 1 percent position.
In addition we can promise the American people a reordering of priorities, with analysis back to its traditionally pre-eminent position as driver of response and not the other way around. This strikes me as a doctrine that will resonate with our fellow citizens who we have been told ad nauseam are basically conservative. This also strikes me as a simple, but positive stance that even the most timid Democrat politician can embrace and one that the most obtuse pundit can understand. And this strikes me as a stance that throws into stark relief the demented doctrine that's been driving the country to ruin for the last five years. Your choice America: You want to take a 1 percent chance of how your government spends your blood and money or a 70 percent chance?