Tweet
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, December 6, 2005 3:26 p.m. EST
Dems in Disarray
The Chicago Tribune brings a useful reality check on the politics of Iraq:
Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that the Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq, conceding: "The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly."
As Democrats work to win control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Obama (D-Ill.) said a cacophony of views over the Iraq war threatens to divide the party once again.
"It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home,' " Obama said. "It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."
On the other hand, San Antonio's WOAI-AM reports that party chairman Howard Dean is embracing defeat:
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
An e-mail from John Kerry's* "campaign" that popped into our e-mailbox this morning struck a decidedly different tone. It declared, "Each move they make we'll meet head on. We'll act quickly, decisively, and we won't yield an inch." Needless to say, Kerry referred not to America's enemies but to Republican fund-raising efforts.
It's important to keep in mind what is behind all the talk about Vietnam. The outcome of that war was a defeat for America, but it was a triumph for those who wanted America to withdraw. It was bad for the Democratic Party, which has lost elections far more often than not since splintering over the war in 1968, but it was a triumph for those Democrats who advocate a form of isolationism based on the premise that America is morally tainted. Those folks are still around, as New York's Daily News reports:
Anti-war activists furious with Sen. Hillary Clinton are vowing to bird-dog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fund-raiser tonight.
Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq--which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal--fanned the anger of some war opponents, who decided to launch a campaign against New York's junior senator.
"We're calling it Bird-Dog Hillary," said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Codepink.
The left-wing isolationists reached their apogee with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972, the same year the Democratic Party, at the presidential level, reached its nadir. Since then, they have won elections only when foreign policy receded as an issue: after the withdrawal from Vietnam (1976) and after the Cold War was won (1992 and 1996). Democrats, in short, thrive on the illusion of peace. That's why they're increasingly rooting openly for defeat in Iraq: They hope that a relatively quiet few years will follow, which would be good for their short-term political fortunes.
Presumably the reality of peace would suit Democratic interests as well as the illusion. That is, as with the Cold War, a clear victory would help the Democrats politically by neutralizing the issue of their foreign-policy fecklessness. Too bad the party's small but noisy anti-American base makes it untenable for the party's pols to take an unambiguously pro-American position.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way alleges that U.S. troops are "terrorizing kids and children" in Iraq. But he supports the troops!
Tuesday, December 6, 2005 3:26 p.m. EST
Dems in Disarray
The Chicago Tribune brings a useful reality check on the politics of Iraq:
Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that the Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq, conceding: "The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly."
As Democrats work to win control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Obama (D-Ill.) said a cacophony of views over the Iraq war threatens to divide the party once again.
"It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home,' " Obama said. "It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."
On the other hand, San Antonio's WOAI-AM reports that party chairman Howard Dean is embracing defeat:
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
An e-mail from John Kerry's* "campaign" that popped into our e-mailbox this morning struck a decidedly different tone. It declared, "Each move they make we'll meet head on. We'll act quickly, decisively, and we won't yield an inch." Needless to say, Kerry referred not to America's enemies but to Republican fund-raising efforts.
It's important to keep in mind what is behind all the talk about Vietnam. The outcome of that war was a defeat for America, but it was a triumph for those who wanted America to withdraw. It was bad for the Democratic Party, which has lost elections far more often than not since splintering over the war in 1968, but it was a triumph for those Democrats who advocate a form of isolationism based on the premise that America is morally tainted. Those folks are still around, as New York's Daily News reports:
Anti-war activists furious with Sen. Hillary Clinton are vowing to bird-dog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fund-raiser tonight.
Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq--which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal--fanned the anger of some war opponents, who decided to launch a campaign against New York's junior senator.
"We're calling it Bird-Dog Hillary," said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Codepink.
The left-wing isolationists reached their apogee with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972, the same year the Democratic Party, at the presidential level, reached its nadir. Since then, they have won elections only when foreign policy receded as an issue: after the withdrawal from Vietnam (1976) and after the Cold War was won (1992 and 1996). Democrats, in short, thrive on the illusion of peace. That's why they're increasingly rooting openly for defeat in Iraq: They hope that a relatively quiet few years will follow, which would be good for their short-term political fortunes.
Presumably the reality of peace would suit Democratic interests as well as the illusion. That is, as with the Cold War, a clear victory would help the Democrats politically by neutralizing the issue of their foreign-policy fecklessness. Too bad the party's small but noisy anti-American base makes it untenable for the party's pols to take an unambiguously pro-American position.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way alleges that U.S. troops are "terrorizing kids and children" in Iraq. But he supports the troops!
Comment