November 15, 2004
They squirm away with slippery answers...
Francis W. Porretto has an interesting fisk of Robert Kaiser's editorial on what the Dems ought to do This is just a snippet...
To me, the oft-raised question of how to get to a credible Democrat (or European) defense policy always raises a deeper question: What do you believe in enough to fight for?And a neoconservative foreign policy is hardly a popular platform—couldn’t Democrats come up with a believable approach to national security that actually makes sense?The worst self-delusion of all. It would have been closer to true before Black Tuesday, but still less true than not. A policy of aggressive engagement in those lands that have given rise to international terrorism, coupled with a cold-shouldered withdrawal from those nations whose governments have attempted to obstruct us, is the most popular international posture since World War II. President Bush’s absolute refusal to bend on it, despite its difficulties and costs, was the true key to his re-election; it persuaded voters that he was sincere, in contrast to his endlessly waffling opponent. The unwillingness to modify one’s views for popularity’s sake stands near the heart of what most of us mean by “moral values.”
What do you believe in enough to kill for?
That's the question we never get an answer to. Instead we hear that Dems ought to have more "think tanks," to come up with more "new policy ideas." Phooey.
The people who voted for Bush have an answer to that question.Talk to conservatives, or to people in America's heartland, and almost all will agree that our freedoms, and our property, are worth fighting for. And not just easy fights, but, if necessary, long bloody wars. almost all will agree that America must winits wars, even if it means winning ugly.
Try getting some similar answer from the people in that Volvo with the Kerry sticker. Try to pin them down. You can't. They will squirm away every time. You will get some of those answers that have "but" right in the middle of the sentence. "Of course there are times we must use our military, but..."
Posted by John Weidner at November 15, 2004 08:43 AM | TrackBackThe problem is that a large section of the Left is devoted to criticizing madly any foreign policy position, including the position of doing nothing. So long as that's all you do, voters are (reasonably) not going to trust you to run things. You have to have some sort of plan.
The center-left, such as the New Republic, has a foreign policy broadly similar to that of the neo-cons, in aims and methods, but of course trusts itself and Democrats to just do it better.
Kerry tried to assuage both factions. But it's hard to reconcile "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," with "I'd do the same thing but better."
Posted by: John Thacker at November 15, 2004 12:51 PMI'll have to disagree w/ you here, John W. and John T.
Yes, there is the hard-Left that (for pacifists) opposes any use of force or (for the anti-American types) any American use of force.
But there is a substantial hunk of the liberal-Left that is more than happy to have Americans kill. Just never for national interests.
Notice how many thought it just peachy that American troops go to Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti.
Sure, part of it was because it was under a Democratic President, and therefore, they had to back him. But, to their (sort of) credit, they also supported Bush-I and the introduction of US forces to Somalia.
I'd suggest that the commitment of US forces to places that have no discernible US interests (especially oil) is the sort of thing that these folks are most comfortable with.
Thus, John Kerry was not, in fact, trying to assuage two camps. Instead, he was being true to form: he would consent to the commitment of US troops, so long as it was not on US behalf. It wasn't so much a French or UN "pass," as it was assurance that American actions were not in pursuit of grubby US interests, but some "larger" set of concerns, i.e., for global security writ large. But where US interests might have a role to play (e.g., Kuwait, 1991), then John Kerry and much of the liberal-Left opposed that war, despite it having UN support and multinational participation and international law and all the rest behind it.
Posted by: Dean at November 24, 2004 07:19 AM
