Excellent post Yuval
This is a really big problem. As I stated in a post below I don't think Kerry came across as someone who had a "vision" or a plan. This is why the flip flop charge stuck. Defense is and will remain an important issue and I don't see any Democrats on the horizon who can be strong here.
I think we need to push the debate about the causes of terrorism. Bush seems to take it as a fact that X number of people would rather kill us than live. Nothing can be done about it. No need to worry about creating more terrorists, and no need to try keep people from becoming terrorists. Thats assinine. We need to focus on what causes people to get to that point. Its pulling up the weed from the roots. You can keep mowing the dandelions, but its not going to solve the problem.
Posted by DemoKerryat at November 11, 2004 07:06 AMPart of the problem faced by Democrats is that they believe in just about the same policies as Republicans, but within more reasonable limits.
For example, Dems obviously don't want to disarm, but most Dems could easily find tens of billion of dollars worth of fat in the Defense Budget that could be cut. The US spends more on its military than any other 20 nations combined! However, if Dems vote to cut that fat, Republicans call them weak.
Another problem is the Republicans don't fess up to their "real" foreign policy agenda. Republicans talk about US leadership, democratization, and security but actually offer the rest of the world take-it-or-leave it unilateralism, bullying, American exceptionalism (now cast as a reason for the US not to abide international laws and norms), and hegemony (with neoimperial aspirations).
Dems have been ineffective at explaining why the Republican agenda is so outrageous and dangerous.
Finally, Dems need to emphasize the non-military policy tools that can and do work to solve foreign policy problems. Democrats put higher value on diplomacy, foreign aid, arms control, genuine multilateralism and economic sanctions. Republicans would rather fight than switch.
Posted by Rodger at November 11, 2004 07:11 AMWesley Clark, who was a candidate for the Democratic nominee, started a PAC (http://www.wespac2004.com/) that aims to do precisely what you advocate - to give the Democratic party a believable voice in national security and foreign policy. After dropping out of the race last February, Clark was tireless in his efforts to campaign on behalf of Kerry/Edwards and numerous Senate and Congressional nominees across the US.
Posted by Joan at November 11, 2004 07:24 AMI was extremely disappointed at Kerry's inability to develop a coherent national security strategy beyond vague promises to rebuild international alliances.
Yeah, it was a pretty stark contrast to Bush, who never missed an opportunity to explain the details of his strategery.
Posted by Matt Davis at November 11, 2004 07:25 AMI thought Kerry needed to develop an overarching theme on why we needed to move the Easter Egg Hunt to the back lawn.
Until you dems start treating your candidates like the repubs, you will continue losing.
The Repub way? "Our guy's a dope so keep your mouth shut and get him elected. If they ask tell them he's Lincoln, TR, Ike and Reagan all rolled into one."
Argue after you win.
Posted by Daryl at November 11, 2004 07:32 AMIt is an important issue, and it is one the Republicans will be able to use to keep spending blindly in the defense area. Any attempt by the Democrats to cut spending, or to use some common sense will just bring attacks (i.e. the $87 billion).
As time goes by, and even if there is, hopefully, more success in Iraq, the overall mission will have been very costly in dollars and lives - both American and Iraqi. Many people will wonder if there was a better way to have gotten rid of Saddam, and if this is the best way to deal with the terrorist threat. The Republicans admit the ‘war on terror’ is a new type of war, but they are using the old war plans to deal with it.
As the minority party it will be tough to do, but the Democrats need to support the goals of the fight, but offer a better approach. Any attempts by the Republicans to call the Democrats as weak for doing so should be called out as undemocratic.
Posted by Rollins at November 11, 2004 07:33 AMKerry *had* a coherent vision of defense/domestic security/GWOT--but it was one that he could not clearly and succinctly communicate while trying to out-macho Bush (eg, his constant repetition that his administration would 'kill the terrorists'). His attempt to go both ways--talk tougher than Bush, yet back this rhetoric with policies that called for reconcilliation and greater accommodation of the international community, did not sound coherent.
Posted by Ambivalent_Maybe at November 11, 2004 08:23 AMKerry *had* a coherent vision of defense/domestic security/GWOT--but it was one that he could not clearly and succinctly communicate while trying to out-macho Bush (eg, his constant repetition that his administration would 'kill the terrorists'). His attempt to go both ways--talk tougher than Bush, yet back this rhetoric with policies that called for reconcilliation and greater accommodation of the international community, did not sound coherent.
Posted by Ambivalent_Maybe at November 11, 2004 08:24 AMThe comment about "ignorance of and indifference to military affairs" is spot on. Rooted in Vietnam, some Democrats are still reflexively anti-military at virtually all times. Others have so little knowledge that their discussion sounds simply naive.
I didn't think Kerry did a bad job but he could have done a better job. Specifically with respect to Iraq, Kerry should have said something along the lines of: "I voted to give the President authority to use military force. His misused that authority by rushing to war and by selectively relying on intelligence that supported only that option. Now that we are entangled in Iraq, we must move prudently and deliberately to create a stable situation that is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and ourselves. Having made consistent errors of judgment, President Bush is not the man to do this; I am."
Posted by InigoMontoya at November 11, 2004 08:30 AMI don't agree with people like Paul Freedman who argue that terrorism, not gay marriage, was the deciding issue in this election.
I think Slate made a good argument that gay marriage wasn't the deciding issue. Their argument that terrorism was the deciding issue was weak, though. Nonetheless, I agree it was one issue working in Bush's favor.
Kerry a coherent vision of defense/domestic security/GWOT--but it was one that he could not clearly and succinctly communicate while trying to out-macho Bush....
That's a good observation. Kerry's problem (and it's been a problem for him since he "moved to the 'center'" in '95 or so) wasn't that he lacked a coherent national security strategy; his problem was that he lacked the courage to spell his strategy out for the voters. He bought into the CW that anything less than Bush's testosterone-poisoned strategery would look "weak." He was afraid to point out that the best way to defeat the terrorists isn't necessarily to go off half-cocked and start killing and torturing everyone with even the remotest suspected link to terrorism.
That said, Kerry still did a pretty decent job, and came within 3% of defeating our Warp Resident. Unapologetically advocating a saner national security strategy may have been too much to ask.
Now that the election's over, though, Democrats need to start attacking Bush's "shoot first, ask questions later" policies and proposing saner alternatives at every opportunity, so as to lay the groundwork for our candidates to run on.
Posted by Mathwiz at November 11, 2004 09:25 AMThis is an important point, but where did you get the idea that the Democratic Party's problem with national security was "Lost in all the post-election navel-gazing and recriminations" of the last week?
This was the central issue for the whole campaign. It was the major if not only reason that John Kerry won the nomination. How many times did Bush & Cheney use terms like weak, retreat, mixed signals, and like. Didn't you hear Cheney say that making the "wrong decision," that is electing Kerry, would lead to another terrorist attack? Didn't you notice that after the third debate, Bush/Cheney said almost nothing else?
The Democratic Party has problems with forming and communicating its views on national security issues but the biggest problem is that they are working against a set of widely believed myths that form the background for any discussion of national security.
These widely believed myths are the product of the propaganda machine that is the Republican Party and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the corporate press/media. They are no different than the others Republican myths: welfare queens, unions hurt workers, American can't compete if we enforce environmental standards, government is the problem, low taxes on the rich benefit everyone, frivolous lawsuits are preventing people from getting medical care, NFL teams need taxpayer-built stadiums to make money, etc., etc.
This mythology has a long history, from the McCarthy Era, to the Nixon/McGovern campaign, to Ronald Reagan.
This mythology is supported and reinforced by several mythologies that are widely believed by Americans.
General background myths:
Militarism is the same thing as patriotism.
Military spending equals military strength.
Using military force is always "stronger" than not using it.
Killing people in another country will always make America and Americans safer.
Specific myths:
The Viet Nam War was a "noble cause" and fighting it was a good idea.
People who opposed the Viet Nam War were "weak" and disloyal to the United States.
People who opposed the Viet Nam War betrayed our troops.
Opposing excessive military spending gave aid and comfort to the Soviet Union.
Excessive military spending caused the Soviet Union to collapse.
We won the Cold War because we spent more money on nuclear weapons.
We won the Cold War because of Ronald Reagan's manly and forthright speeches.
We won the Cold War because of anything that Ronald Reagan did.
If not for Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union would not only still be around, but would have taken over the world. (Can you believe that the movie Red Dawn was not only made, but taken as plausible by many people? How about the TV mini-series Amerika?)
These are all lies, but they are nevertheless accepted as truth by most Americans, repeatedly endlessly by the corporate press/media, and never challenged by any Democrat of any stature.
Posted by James E. Powell at November 11, 2004 10:39 AMNice post, James. I had hoped that if Kerry was elected, we would have finally had a healthy discussion of these misconceptions in our country.
Posted by Mary at November 11, 2004 10:59 AMThis just in: Our hero died of AIDS!
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4348.htm
Posted by LiberalFool at November 11, 2004 10:31 PMEdwards is the only credible candidate we'll be able to field for 2008. He had the proper message and focus required to win, and would have won the election had he been nominated for president. He should pick Evan Bayh as his running mate and let the Republicans have a big fight over their nominee.
Posted by bushsucks at November 11, 2004 11:19 PM