The Politics of National Defense

Dean's World has a nice piece on the Elephants' political playbook that includes the line "The Democratic Leadership Council argues that President George W. Bush made it clear in his State of the Union address last night that the Republican Party is going to run the national security play right at the Democratic Party until the latter proves capable of effectively defending it."



This got me to thinking. I'm definitely not accusing Karl Rove or George W. Bush of being a super patriot, but consider: The fact that the play works until the opposition is able to defeat it has the consequence that the opposition will either learn to defeat it or the opposition will become progressively weaker, until they point that they are no longer the main opposition.



Now the only way to defeat it is to either to prove that there is no threat, which is patently false and would be disastrous to the Donkeys if they actually succeeded in selling it to the electorate, or to grow some credibility on National Defense. It isn't tough to do. Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and FDR all had it. Even Carter had some national defense credibility initially. But the last time the Donkeys nominated a candidate with such credentials was 1976 (by 1980, Carter had lost his). I can't name a single Donkey A-lister I'd trust with the coastal defense of Wyoming, let alone a serious decision as to whether the use of military force abroad was in the best interests of the United States. All of them have far too obviously committed themselves to the "no" option. Well, that's better than painting yourself into the "yes" option, but the plain fact of the matter is that we're in a period of history where we must be willing to do so, and being seen to be willing ahead of time is as important as being willing. The Donkey A-listers are publicly, spectacularly unwilling.



They basically have a choice: continue to embrace the religiously pacifist wing of their party, or continue the slide into third party status. These people donate well and volunteer generously, but the stances they demand are not within the range of what the average voter is willing to tolerate. The choice before the Donkeys now boils down to whether it's more important to them to be able campaign well, or to actually win elections.



If the Libertarian Party style irrelevant defeat with a pure heart is what they're after, they should keep doing exactly what they are doing. If, on the other hand, they want to win elections, it's past time to change their approach. They don't have to start talking like General George S. Patton Jr, but they do need to put the religious pacifists firmly in their place with frank talk about sorts of situations where the use of military force is required.



The effect? Lose them some activists and a good chunk of change in donations, which would likely be more that replaced by folks who right now regard the Donkey national party's current attitude towards force as an invitation to a suicide pact. And the Religiously left wing is not likely to stop voting Donkey. What are they going to do? Vote Republican? This makes it a win-win-break even for the Donkeys.



Now consider the national implications of forcing this choice on the Donkeys. If the Elephants didn't force the issue, sooner or later the Donkeys would win. Maybe in 2006, maybe in 2096. When they did, we'd be stuck with an anti-war as the default "The nation voted for a platform that included it, so we must have wanted it." See Jimmy Carter's term for a weak preview.



But since the effect is to either force the Donkeys away from their current platform or continue to lose ground until they change their minds. If the Donkeys won't change their minds, some other party who will (most likely not the Libertarians) will take the place of the major opposition.



But if the Donkeys do change their minds, then whichever party is elected in the future will have made a deliberate choice to be credible in the defense of the United States, and willing, in principle, to use United States troops offensively abroad in specified circumstances. And that's an definite improvement from the situation I described two paragraphs ago.