The 2006 Election year cycle is beginning to heat up, witness the recent cynical efforts by the Republican majority to force symbolic votes on standard right wing wedge issues:
- Gay marriage amendment.
- Flag burning amendment.
We can also expect state and local initiatives on Gay adoption to hit the ballot as another means to energize and mobilize the Republican base and get out the vote.
While progressives may hope that the public's disgust with Congress and the Bush administration translates into success in local races, its not enough to be against Bush. In fact, while we'd like the 2006 elections to be a referendum on Republican corruption and Iraq, I suspect that when the right wing noise machine cranks up for the mid terms, the message, repeated ad nauseum, will be:
- Democrats are soft on terrorism!
More below the fold ...
In other words, the politics of fear. Fear of gays, fear of immigrants, and fear of terrorism. And in the arena of fear, the public may very well hold their noses and vote Republican if they perceive that Democrats are unable (or unwilling) to lead the country in the fight against global terrorism.
When browsing right-wing web sites, one repetitive refrain:
Don't they know that we're in a war!
With variations of "the enemy", i.e. terrorists and more recently, Islamofacists.
Which fits the pattern I've noticed about voters who vote "for" Republican candidates, e.g. they vote "against". Against gays. Against abortion. Against taxes. Against immigrants. Against "big" government. Against affirmative action. I've seen little evidence of Republicans running on positive platforms or "for" programs, unless the "positive" is simply another negative, e.g. "for" the dealth penalty.
And when it comes to the so-called "War On Terror", the Republicans can and will spin progressive objections to Bush's extra-constitutional policies as "soft on terror":
- Iraq
- Warrentless wiretaps
- Call detail data mining
- Extraordinary rendition
- Indefinite detention
- Torture and degradation of prisoners
- State secrets
Don't they know we're at war! No one enjoys civil liberties if they're dead!
It is a winning tactic. It has worked before. And it will likely play out again in the mid-terms.
If we're going to win in 2006, we'd better be more than prepared, and more importantly, we'd better be able to counter the envitable onslaught of right wing hysteria, ad hominim attacks, and baseless accusations.
I don't think it matters that the public generally agrees with progressive positions on Iraq, the economy, out-sourcing, health care, etc.
Terrorism is the gate. Unless Democrats are perceived as having the "right stuff" on security matters, we will not be able to regain the majority in either house, let alone take back the executive branch in 2008.
In my view, "it's about leadership, stupid".
On the other hand, if the public understands that our national security will be enhanced under democratic leadership, then all of the other issues come back into play. And on those issues, we win.
The sad fact to be regretted is that the Bush administration and Republican majority have failed miserably in making any real inroads against global terrorism. That is bad for the nation, but to be expected given the administration's craven decision to "use" terror and outright lies as the proxy arguments to advance its nation building goals in Iraq. Closer to home, the public has seen the Bush administration fail miserably managing even basic "homeland" security, ala Katrina.
I would argue that the current crop of so-called conservatives are not competent to run government. First, because of their knee-jerk aversion to government as a tool for the common good, second because of their corrupt ties to corporate interests, and third, because of the pattern of political appointments based upon litmus test cronyism.
Its time for our country to change direction. Not to "cut and run", but to retake the field of the "real" battle. To go on offense. Against terrorism and for real national security.
That means we've got to talk about anti-terrorism strategies and tactics, and help to educate the public on terrorists goals and strategies (from an earlier post):
Ideological, political, or religious zealots commit acts of terror upon innocents as a means to an end. It is not the terrorist act per se - that is the objective - it is the aftermath. The terrorist seeks to gain publicity, to weaken the resolve of the populace; to employ the reaction of its enemy to further his objectives, or to strengthen support of his allies at home or abroad.
The tragedy of 9/11 is that by any objective measure, evil has triumphed. (Emphasis added)
Let's be clear. Al Quada has become a household word. Check. American's have all but surrendered their civil liberties. Check. The invasion of Iraq has been a recruiting bonanza for terrorism. Check. Global terrorists attacks abroad have skyrocketed post 9/11. Check.
If you're keeping score, four out of four ain't bad.
The fact that the Bush administration and Republican majority is losing the war on terror shouldn't be a suprise. They're not even in the fight.
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
I think American's intuitively sense this. That the blind idealogy of the Republican congress and fatal incompetence of the Bush administration is not, and can not, successfully prosecute the effort to contain and ultimately, to defeat, global terrorism.
It's time for Democrats to hammer that fact home. To successfully combat terrorism we must focus on reducing the motivation, disrupting the means, and preventing the opportunities for terrorists to act:
- The war in Iraq has provided a fertile ground for terrorist recruitment and training. The Bush administration's occupation of Iraq has planted the seeds that will flower into new generations of terrorists until the occupation has ended. End it.
- Plans to maintain a "permanent" troop presence in newly built bases on Iraqi soil is a strategic error. These plans must be publically repudiated. Repudiate them.
- Inhumane treatment of detainees, torture, and the use of "secret" prisons sully the reputation and image of America at home and abroad, potentially beyond repair. It is counter-productive and allows the terrorist to claim an unfounded moral legitimicy. The US is morally and legally obligated to honor the Geneva conventions if we are to regain our self-respect and the trust and cooperation of our allies. Respect the rule of law.
- The unconstitional use of warrentless wiretaps, coerced testimony gained through the use of torture or hearsay, will make it impossible to successfully prosecute terrorist suspects for their heinous crimes. The US has ample tools to prosecute criminals without sacrificing constitutional guarantees or resorting to criminal acts in the pursuit of justice. The US secured justice in the case of Timothy McVeigh because it played by the rules. Timothy McVeigh is dead. What is criminal is that the Bush administration's failure to respect the rule of law has nearly guaranteed that none of the terrorists in custody at Guantanamo will ever see justice done. Let justice be done. Lawfully.
- The tools of terrorism are as simple as fertilizer and as unexpected as box cutters. The nuclear ambitions of Iran and Korea are matters of statecraft, not terrorism. A well aimed mortar shell in the hands of a terrorist delivered to a nuclear power plant, a chemical plant, or American icon is the far greater, and more likely danger. Protect them.
- Surrending civil liberty for security is a false choice. It is abject cowardice. It dishonors the blood shed by our founders and trades the birthright of future generations of Americans to be free from government tyranny for a wholly false promise. Conduct our intelligence gathering operations within the boundaries set by our constitutional guarantees. Our public servants have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Honor that oath.
- After 6 year of indifference by the majority party our borders and ports are no more secure than pre 9/11, which of itself, is evidence of criminal negligence. Even today, the majority of our ports are under the control of foreign corporations or governments. If we are to prevent future acts of terrorism, we must control our borders, ports and insure the safety of cargo that enters the United States. Control them.
- The need for cooperation with and participation by foreign governments in the identification, monitoring, and capture of global terrorists is self evident. It requires that the citizens of sovereign nations respect and trust America and our democratic institutions. If we abuse that trust, if we bully our allies, if we insist on unilateralism, then our ability to gather information, our ability to prevent terrorist acts and our ability to bring terroists to justice will be compromised, with perhaps fatal consequence. Unilateralism weakens the US. Reject it.
The irony of Republicans framing Democrats as "soft on terror" belies the history and legacy of our party.
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. -- Harry S Truman
And so should we ...