Andrew Sullivan is absolutely correct. The country is now divided between those who understand (I would use the word understand, not believe) we are at war with radical Islamist nihilism, and those who do not. I've already written several times about this matter, but as it remains the most important issue of our time, not to mention the determining factor in who is elected president this year, and I suspect for years to come, as a member of the party where too many activists and elites still doesn't get it, I intend to keep talking about it till the cows come home. Listen to John Kerry and many Democratic activists. By and large, the most vocal elements of the Democratic Party still believe not only that radical Islamism is a problem to be solved by international law enforcement (or quite frankly ignored altogether - that's the isolationist argument - if we just "bring all the boys" home and "mind our own business" it will all just go away), but are still immersed in this postmodern fantasy world where what the people of the developing world really want is not political freedom, economic freedom and development, and cultural freedom, but to maintain their traditional cultures (even if that means living under repressive dictatorships and in dire poverty).
Republicans and a strong majority of independents understand that what the silent majority of the Arab and Muslim world, and the developing world generally, wants is democratization, economic development and liberalization, and cultural liberalization. They also understand that the key to ending the scourge of radical Islamist violence in the west, and in the non-west, is precisely what most Arabs, Muslims, and people of the developing world more generally want : democratization, and economic and cultural liberalization. Furthermore, Republicans and a strong majority of independents understand that this transformation is not going to happen by osmosis, that it will take a combination of American-led military action, the threat of American-led military action, some intelligence and law enforcement actions, economic sanctions, foreign aid (particularly for things like liberal education and economic development). What independents (and some, but not enough Republicans) understand is that America doesn't have the fiscal resources to undertake this transformation exclusively by itself, and pay for baby boomer entitlements, and that we must at least try to develop a multi-lateral framework for this enterprise (if the Madrid bombings were the work of Islamists, that task will no doubt become much easier) and that integral to this enterprise is a large-scale commitment to ending our dependence upon not only Gulf oil, or foreign oil, but oil altogether. (How can we do anything about the heart of this darkness - Saudi Arabia - without it?)
The Party that understands and embraces all aspects of the enormous task at hand is the party that deserves to, and will, monopolize our national political life for the next generation. I happen to believe that a lot of rank and file Democrats do get it, but that too many of the Democratic activists and elites are baby boomers still nursing their post-Vietnam, McGovernite, liberal isolationist fantasies, and if they don't begin to change their tune, not only are they going to remain in the political wilderness for another generation, they deserve to remain in the political wilderness for another generation. The McGovernite leftovers believe that, as a matter of politics, this is simply a cosmetic thing - that they can name John McCain as the Secretary of Defense, and show glossy photos of John Kerry holding an M-16 - and all their troubles will be solved. It's bullshit, pure and simple, and independent voters know it. I still have hope that John Kerry can understand and commit to this enormous enterprise, and that he can undertake the necessary task of demonstrating to the American people that he understands its magnitude, by overtly embracing the neo-conservative agenda of democratization and liberalization (and articulating a more multi-lateral and therefore fiscally sustainable framework for achieving those objectives), and marginalizing the McGovernites still left in the Party and their counterparts in the news media, and I believe it's every responsible Democrat's (and independent's who doesn't want to see a right-wing president on domestic issues re-elected) obligation to tell the truth about this, loudly and often. If the most liberal 5% of Democrats want to vote for Darth Nader, that's fine, because if Kerry does finally get it, and is able to convince independents and even moderate Republians that he gets it, he will win in a landslide.
Even if the attacks in Madrid were not the work of Al Qaeda, one of these days we will all wake up to scenes of massive carnage in London, or Paris, or Munich, and find overnight the Europeans wholeheartedly supporting the democratization and liberalization of the Arab and broader Muslim world. It's only a matter of time. The question is : which American political party will be on the right side of history in the 21st century? The Republican Party, in its current incarnation, supports liberty abroad, but not at home. The Democratic Party, in its current incarnation, supports liberty at home, but not abroad. I don't know which is worse, but I do believe that the Republicans are probably too beholden to the religious right to be on the right side of liberty both at home and abroad, and that the Democrats, if they are finally willing to reject isolationism, and embrace the democratization and liberalization of the Arab, Muslim, and developing world more generally, will not only dominate our politics for decades to come, but will be regarded in the best light of history. That's the choice people. Is John Kerry going to John "McGovern" Kerry or is he going to be John "Scoop" Kerry?
