| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Hawk Democrats Create New Org. to Save Party |
| 2003-05-15 |
| The Need for a New Voice The Democratic Party has ceded the issue of our nation’s security to the Republicans, who have successfully used it to undermine Democratic candidates and officeholders. Believe me, the Democrats don't need the Republicans to undermine, they do an adequate job all by themselves. It was not always this way. Throughout much of the last century Democrats were the party of strong defense and muscular internationalism, while Republicans were the party of isolationism. Democrats guided America through two world wars and were the architects of our policy of containment against the Soviet Union. From Franklin Roosevelt’s insistence on the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan in World War II, through Harry Truman’s refusal to acquiesce in the North Korean invasion of the south or the Soviet attempt to starve the western powers out of Berlin, to John F. Kennedy’s steely-eyed showdown with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Democratic Party met the great challenges of fascism and communism. The American people agree with us on so much, but they believe that we are weak and indecisive when it comes to defending our nation. A belief well-grounded in fact, I may add. No matter how compelling our positions on the economy, health care, Social Security, the environment, and privacy, if voters continue to see us as feckless they will not listen to our message next year and will reelect George W. Bush. As we prepare to mount our challenge in 2004, Democrats need to return to the principles of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and — yes — Bill Clinton, O.K. you had me nodding my head until this unwarranted insertion. bold leaders who understood that only by confronting threats abroad, could our party achieve its other great mission of expanding equality, opportunity, and progress here at home. In order to close the "security gap" Democrats need a new approach to national security that will both address the national security challenges facing the United States in the 21st century and help to rebuild the confidence of the American people in our party's ability to keep us safe. |
| Posted by:ColoradoConservative |
| #15 Unfortunately, I happen to be a college history major with a secondary specialization in political science. I'm also a very staunch Jeffersonian, but with Madisonian leanings (if you've got to have a government, we need one like the one we have, or rather, had or things get nasty). I'm a registered Independent, and vote for the guy I find the least distasteful. The Democratic problem is that they don't want to allow the people to be independent, either in their actions or in their words. To stifle independence, they've embraced multiculturalism, multinationalism, and political correctness. As long as that continues, they will become more and more marginalized, as the rest of the nation begins to once again find that flexible response to threats, innovation and human spirit are the most critical functions of human beings. We are NOT all "equal" - we are each unique, and understanding that and admitting it are necessary for proper growth of social order. The Democrats pretend to "understand", while trying to force "diversity" in place of individuality, and conformity in place of recognition of uniqueness. I only wish I could say that Republicans are any better. Unfortunately, all I can truthfully say is they're not quite as bad. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-05-15 21:57:56 |
| #14 I went republican when I kept seeing Democratic Governors, state legislatures, US Senators and Congressmen, clearly discriminating against blacks. It repelled me. What mystifies me is that the party of segregation and oppression for 100 years was not the Republicans but the Democrats. How the blacks in this country have allowed themselves in bed politically with the party that made them go to the back of the bus for 100 years astounds me. It was not the Democrats and it was not LBJ that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, it was the Republicans overriding a filibuster and getting the danged thing passed and dropped in LBJ's lap. I am from Texas and I grew up watching the civil rights marches on television and I can assure you that the gross ignorance upon which the discrimination against black was based was something I did not want to associate myself with. I hate to bring this up but some how we need to revisit those HUAC files and thoroughly examine the political origins and agendas of some of the media and their cronies on the far left. This last round of anti-war/anti-american idiotacy still resonates with me that the timing and the content of the demonstrations against the war in Viet Nam were too closely tied to the agenda of the north Vietnamese. Sorry about the long disjointed blast but a lot of what is going on in the media on the streets and in the democratic(?) party gets me pretty riled up........ |
| Posted by: SOG475 2003-05-15 20:57:47 |
| #13 Here's to Scooter McGruder: you're not the only one! I was, until March of this year, a life-long liberal dem. Then I realized, when looking at the "peace movement," that my fellow libs had no problem at all with Stalinist totalitarianism -- but did have a huge problem with those who have a problem with it. But as all of my friends, family members, and co-workers remain rabidly anti-Bush, I retain my sanity only by reading rantburg, lgf, and Andrew Sullivan. Unfortunately, the Democratic party cannot change; it is intellectually beholden to the radical academic left, and it will continue to defend, protect, and indeed "celebrate" the most noxious lefty totalitarians imaginable. What is truly ironic is the fact that the academic left itself is utterly anti-liberal, based in equal measures on Marx and Heidegger (a genine Nazi); leftists use the word "liberal" as a term of abuse (when among themselves) -- and liberals love them in return. It is truly sick. So I'll vote for Bush (unless, perhaps, Lieberman in nominated -- but fat chance of that) -- who is now doing more to spread true liberalism across the world than any president since Truman! |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2003-05-15 19:26:53 |
| #12 Again I am NOT a Vietnam Veteran like the great Senator Kerry. (bowing) But I can't see what the Dems have to offer the military? May letting trans-genders serve openly? Maybe a race-based promotion system? How about an all women commondo team? (sorry girls, boys are stonger) Oh I got it! Gay night at the Officers Club! The Dems have left reality, the planet, and the radar screen. I am sooo glad to be retired! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2003-05-15 18:36:22 |
| #11 Actually, Ike let things slide. He downsized the conventional military big-time, focusing on the nuclear deterrent as our primary defense. (Just take a look at the puny defense budgets of the '50s if you don't believe me). He backed the wrong side during the Suez crisis of '56 and did far too little to help the French win the Indochina War. (Much as I hate defending the French, they were still recovering from the ravages of WWII while they were trying to hold the colonies together). Ike made the mistake of assuming that newly-independent countries would automatically align with us. Soviet maneuvering and funding of Communist parties and guerrillas around the world pretty much put paid to that. It was Kennedy who rebuilt the conventional forces with his doctrine of flexible response. (The Soviets were nibbling us to death with their ideological and material support for Communist movements around the globe - and nuking the Soviets wasn't an option). Defense budgets rose dramatically. Nonetheless, Vietnam may have been unavoidable. The Soviets and the Chinese were funnelling tens of billions of dollars into financing Communist movements throughout Southeast Asia. (About a year ago, a Hong Kong paper (SCMP) revealed that a Chinese journalist was jailed for publishing research on the billions actually spent). The alternative to intervention in Vietnam was to watch all of the Southeast Asia move into the Communist column. The war in Vietnam forced the Soviets and the Chinese to spend most of their billions in Vietnam instead of elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Communist movements in Southeast Asia outside of Vietnam had to make do with second-rate equipment because North Vietnam ate up all the Communist funding. On defense, Reagan is definitely up there with Kennedy, though. It is because of the Reagan defense buildup that we got to use many of the toys that were employed in Iraq, both during Desert Storm and the recent engagement there. And Reagan simultaneously upgraded our nuclear forces to the extent that no one can get the jump on us today. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-05-15 18:33:16 |
| #10 Interesting that when I read the list of foreign policy strong Democratic leaders all I could think about was how the bad guys didn't mess with Ike, or Reagan while FDR avoided war for far too long and JFK had the Soviets positioning missiles off the coast and got the US tangled up in Vietnam. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-05-15 16:26:32 |
| #9 A worthy ambitious project. But as long as the Dems view their problems in national security as PR problem, they will not be taken seriously. The fundamental question is should the US government act in the national interest or 'define its interest broadly' to take into account the interests of other nations (as Clinton, and other Dems have stated). During peacetime, the Dem approach appears to have minimal cost and may even be popular. But, we are now in a state of war and cannot afford the luxury of accomodating the interests of others on matters of importance. It's not clear that most Democratic politicians get this regardless of how much they study up on geopolitical issues. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-05-15 16:19:17 |
| #8 I too would like to see whose involved before giving up the suspicion that these are just slick talking points designed to "pretend to care" until after the next election. That being said, the author, Jonathan Rouch (sp?) is a gay activist and I have noticed that many of gays, who previously voted democratic out of pure self interest, are starting to exert their independence from the Democratic party. So are Jews, blacks and other minorities. This does not bode well for the Democratic Party. |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-05-15 16:09:18 |
| #7 Regarding Scooter's comment "Today the Democratic core is driven by the far-left extremists who hold an unreasoning, deep personal antipathy for Bush that blinds them .... " That is a very accurate comment. Every now and then I drift over to the website DemocraticUnderground to see what the left fringe of that Party has to say. (As an aside, the vitriol spewed forth here is quite astounding.) Invariably, week in and week out, it is Bush-bashing. Every week they post the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. This week it was: "1. The Bush Team Misinformation Squad; 2. The Bush Administration; 3. George Bush; 8. George Bush; 9. Jeb Bush. What a narrow and myopic focus. Much to the eventual electoral crush that Scooter predicts. Here's a link to the website: http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-15 15:46:04 |
| #6 The site features an "htmlized" PowerPoint presentation that makes the DNS' key points. I found it to be a slow loader, so I'll summarize. The slides are obviously normally used during a speech and don't always stand alone very well, but they're worth a look. Oh, and by the way, Scoop Jackson is mentioned. Most of the slides seem to oriented around convincing Democrats that they've got a big public confidence problem in terms of defense and national-security. The "what do we do" part of the slides are numbers 24 to 27. They boil down to: 1) Rebuild consensus in the Democratic party around a strong defense -- and communicate that fact to the American people. 2) Back military reformers and encourage military R&D. 3) Make nice with the military. 4) Encourage new ways to thinking about defense (I kinda thought this was a restate of the second point). 5) Emphasize the benefits of alliances and the costs of unilateralism. 6) Emphasize that diplomacy and military policy are linked. 7) Nation Building Is Good. 8) Promoting Democracy Is Good. 9) Arms Control Is Good. Actually, in my opinion, this is definitely better than the previous Democratic Party policy of "Arms Control is God". 10) Some odd comment about regional Commanders that I found pretty unclear. 11) Democrats should shut up about "Exit Strategies". |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-05-15 15:14:37 |
| #5 Right there with ya, Scooter (except that I have long viewed pro-life as pro-freedom for the defenseless), which was my initial reason for drift toward GOP. |
| Posted by: RK 2003-05-15 15:09:14 |
| #4 Ok, I'm dusting of my crystal ball and going into rant mode. But first I need to come clean as a former liberal and life-long democrat who still thinks Bill Clinton was a great president. So I'm no knee-jerk conservative, ok? But I'm boldly predicting a massive landslide victory for Bush in 2004. Really. Here's why. What I always hated about the Republican party was that it seemed controlled by extremists who wanted to mandate school prayer, ban abortion, "war on drugs", etc. - Pat Buchanan was their poster boy. Basically, the Republican party seemed staunchly anti-freedom. And as much as small government and low taxes were good ideas, they were totally overshadowed by more sinister agendas. And the Republicans were so obsessed with their hatred of Clinton on a personal level that they completely lost touch with the fact that for most Americans getting a blowjob wasn't as important as doing a job well. That's why I think Clinton got 2 terms and Al "son-of-Clinton" Gore almost won 2000. But now the situation is reversed and I (among others) have obviously changed our opinions a lot. Today the Democratic core is driven by the far-left extremists who hold an unreasoning, deep personal antipathy for Bush that blinds them to the fact that most Americans don't care about the 2000 election or the cult of multi-culturalism as much as they care about post 9/11 security and a rational foreign policy. (State Department, take note.) They have been so constantly wrong that they hardly realize just how out of touch they are with the political center. Come 2004, hordes of disillusioned former Democrats like myself will ensure victory for Bush in the next presidential election. Remember, you heard it here first! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-05-15 14:49:38 |
| #3 I would add that the failure to mention slatwart Democratic Hawk Scoop Jackson is a glaring - and perhaps telling - omission. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-15 14:32:57 |
| #2 All things considered, I would prefer to see who is involved with this organization. I can just see McAuliffe and/or either Clinton getting a brainstorm one day to set this up as a front organization... I'm not suspicious, just experienced |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-05-15 14:29:12 |
#1 The web site doesn't give much information on who's involved (maybe no one, yet), but the founder seems at least to talk a good game:"I get this sense in everything I read and hear from Democrats that you can't do anything except multilaterally—that multilateralism is a precondition for action. I think what that says to the electorate in general is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the Democrats to lead on these issues—on protecting core national security values of the United States, especially in a post-9/11 world." Multilateralism, Bergreen emphasizes, is desirable but must not be mandatory. "Multilateralism is not an end. It's a means to an end." |
| Posted by: someone 2003-05-15 14:29:11 |