Democrats, The Party of Security?

I admit to having my reservations about many in the Progressive cause.  I myself am a Harry Truman liberal, something that puts me to the right of my party's center on a number of issues.  The most important of those is national security.  The Democrats' policies on national security are utterly incoherent.  Still, I prefer them to the Republicans' policies which are all too coherently disastrous.  However, the Dems are always afraid to take on the issue and I really don't know why unless its an inherent discomfort in discussing the use of force.

All too often the Democrats have allowed their very good chances to win elections be defeated by attempts to stay away from national security and change the subject to an area where some idiot pollster tells them that they have an advantage.

Since the NK regime announced its plans to test a nuclear weapon I began to cringe.  There is, of course, no logical reason that anyone should believe that this represents anything but a massive failure on the part of the Bush administration.  That, however, doesn't make it any different from so many of the things that have happened in the last five years.  Somehow it seems that Osama Bin Laden's message on the eve of the last election may have helped Bush, when it should have been a very obvious reminder that the man is a total failure.

Still, the Democrats have always been afraid to pounce on Bush's failures, instead trying to rally behind the Commander-In-Chief of the country's armed forces while trying to criticize his handling of the economy and other issues.

Thus I cringed when the test was done.

Then a funny thing happened.  They Democrats seemed to be playing offense.  Harry Reid, seizing on the beautiful campaign theme that Bob Woodward gift wrapped and presented to them on a silver platter, said the Bush administration was in "a state of denial" about the problem of NK.  Christopher Dodd accused them of wasting the last five years.  Kennedy and Schumer started talking about what the country must do to confront the problem.

Even more remarkably, the Times carried the comments of only one Republican, Rep Curt Weldon, who, engaged in a bitter reelection struggle was calling for a change of tack on the problem.

Politically this represents a golden opportunity for the Democrats.  It also offers them the chance to begin to wrest national security policy from the deluded cabal around Cheney and Bush.  Let's hope they make the most of it.

•  It's such a curious thing.

  The party of security.  The party of fiscal responsibility.  The party of governmental restraint.  

  by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:20:16 PM PDT

  •  You're right

    I would add "the party of the Big Lie".

    by JTML on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:39:56 PM PDT

•  National Security

  Great diary. I hope you find my buried article, A Climate of Convenient Truthiness and the associated poll on national security worthy of a rescue effort as well.

  Kudos,
  M.

  by mandot on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:20:27 PM PDT

•  Every Democratic candidate

  should be hitting this North Korea issue HARD.  What they would have done - what they would do, and what this administration failed to do.  Over and over and over again.

  The last administration to have talks with North Korea was....(drumroll)

  Bill Clinton's.

  by jhwygirl on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:27:25 PM PDT

  •  Clinton's eight years in office...

    ...were also the only time in recent history that North Korea did NOT expand its nuclear program.  It did under Reagan, Bush I, and EXPONTENTIALLY under Dubya.  (Who loves to mouth empty phrases like "Axis of Evil," but is a completely worthless as a leader.)

    Only Clinton and co. had the maturity, intelligence, talent, and vision to contain it.

    by chumley on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:32:52 PM PDT

    •  sounds like a really good

      front page diary to me chumley..preach it baby, preach it.

      by jhwygirl on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:40:56 PM PDT

      •  thanks

        Good idea.

        (Gettin' on my preaching robes...)

        by chumley on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:45:58 PM PDT

        •  I await to Recommend!

          by jhwygirl on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:01:40 PM PDT

    •  Up to a point. It's fairly certain that ..

      ...the North Koreans began their clandestine uranium enrichment program (conceded to in October 2002) while Clinton was still in office. (I am not arguing that this means Clinton's diplomacy was a failure.)

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:48:05 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the comment

        I will try to get the facts pinned down and write a diary on the whole dealio.

        by chumley on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:58:45 PM PDT

•  What I want to know...

  ....is when our foreign policy consists of unilaterally invading 3rd world countries and causing untold suffering and misery, this is considered to be tough.

  by metal prophet on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:37:43 PM PDT

•  Old news

  None of us wants proliferation, but the announcement that North Korea probably tested a nuclear device has been coming throughout the current Bush administration.

  The Bushies went so far to repudiate the idea of dealing with the old regime as to embarrass the leader of South Korea when he visited Washington.

  You don't have to reach all the way back to Harry Truman and 1948--there are many of us Democrats who are veterans, who actually served honorably full-time on active duty during the past forty years.  Bush and Cheney are poseurs, to use a good French word.

  by JTML on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

•  I would be interested in hearing ...

  ...what you think U.S. national security/foreign policy under the Democrats should be. Do you agree with Peter Beinart or Will Marshall? Zbigniew Brezinski or Joe Biden? Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer?

  by Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:42:33 PM PDT

  •  Well I suppose

    I'm not really satisfied with any of them.  Prior to Iraq I would have supported a more old school Breziznski approach.  Iraq, however changes things.  This is important it was Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan rather than 911 that changed things.  I believe that Afghanistan was completely necessary and I believe that it could have had a real transformative effect on the region and the world at large.  Iraq was a boneheaded idea from the get go and I opposed it vehemently from the outset.  Both of these problems were due in part to the fact that we do not have the proper instituitional infrastructure for the kinds of challenges facing us in the world today, a point I will get to in a minute.

    For now, I want to state that I think we are in a real mess.  I don't think most Democrats understand the extent of the mess and how much it requires aggressive action to confront it.  The right is simply in lala land. The response from the right seems to be to stand by a failed policy while that from the left is for a pullout.

    There have been many arguments made in favor of a pullout, and many have suggested that US troops are making the situation there worse.  I don't buy that argument.  I think it's an easy argument to make because most liberals do not feel responsible for Iraq.  The thing is that we are.  We are responsible for it every bit as much the GOP because if we aim to be the leaders of our country we have to take responsibity for its actions.  That means that we have to be responsible for any consequences that result from a pullout.  What will they be?  We really don't know and that is one of the major problems here.

    On the whole I favor an aggressive, proactive approach to eliminating the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.  That approach would include military action, but not set-piece battles.  Moreover, it would put far more emphasis on the diplomatic and intelligence fronts.

    In order to do that, we need to build an institutional infrastructure.  We need to spend as much money on diplomacy and intelligence and targeted foreign aid as we do on the military.  We know nothing about the Middle East.

    When General Douglas MacArthur landed at Atsugi Air Base in Japan in August of 1945 he was accompanied by Americans who could speak and read Japanese.  Among them were many who could not speak a word of the language on December 7, 1941.  That was a period of three years and eight months.  Japanese is a damned tough language.

    It's been five years since 911.  Where are our new, freshly minted Arabic speakers?  It's been five years since we attacked Afghanistan.  Where are our new Pashtun speakers?  Recently some army units, on their own initiative have started to train them.  None of this has come from the top.  Nothing has come from the top here.

    I think it is a fantasy to believe that we can pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan and walk away from either problem.  I think that we are going to be involved there even if we do pull out for a very long time.  We need to start building the infrastructure to deal with it.

    This has been kind of a long-winded reply, and I don't know if it answers your question, but there it is.

    by journeyman on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:28:49 PM PDT

•  It Seems a CAMPAIGN Not a Security Problem

  nt

  by Gooserock on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:45:40 PM PDT

  •  They've got a month

    to redeem themselves on an issue - national security - that could bring some back to the fold.  And all the while, it drowns out the Foley/Hasert sewage.

    Don't bet that this won't work in their favor some sick undeserving way.

    See my comment above.

    by jhwygirl on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:05:47 PM PDT