National Security and Democratic Electoral Chances

Moderates must insist, à la Galston and Kamarck, that Democrats won’t win back the White House unless they convince voters to trust them on national security, which means making the war on terrorism not just the party’s top priority but its central preoccupation in 2008. We’re not just talking about calling for a larger military, but something dramatic to signify the shift–like a plan to strike an Iranian or North Korean nuclear facility if need be.

I must concur with Ezra. This has to be the goddamn stupidest thing that has come out of TNR since Andrew Sullivan’s day.

Set aside the fact that attacking either Iran or North Korea would, in all likelihood, lead to disasters the magnitude of which would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Forget, for a moment, that such a disaster would hurt, rather than help, the long-term electoral chances of the Democratic party. Ignore your doubts about whether a policy of colossal stupidity is likely to solve the problems created by a policy of merely exceptional stupidity. Numb yourself to the suggestion that publicly advocating such a strategy, even without the intention to carry it out, would have dreadful diplomatic consequences and, if stated but not carried out, would lead to an even greater decay of the position of the Democratic Party on national security.

Ignore all that, and what you have is a really, really, really bad electoral strategy. It is commonly admitted, even by Democratic elites, that a disconnect exists between the base and the foreign policy elite of the party. Consider what effect such an electoral strategy would have on Democratic voters. If the next Democratic President goes out and tries to prove his or her foreign policy cred by threatening to attack Iran, a few votes will be gained toward the center, and a LOT of votes will be lost on the left. People will either stay home or vote for a leftist third party candidate. The result will be electoral disaster.

I’m not one of those who believes that pacifists fundamentally hamstring Democratic foreign policy, although I do believe that a significant element of the Democratic constituency will oppose just about any military action, and that this does put some limits on what Democrats can advocate. The solution to this problem, however, is not to put forth transparently stupid foreign policy adventures that are sure to alienate this group, along with the much larger group that reasonably questions whether foreign policy goals can be achieved by random invasions of foreign countries.

Really, what the hell is wrong with these people? They go along with Bush’s war until it falls utterly apart, then decide that the solution is to go even farther? I understand that they’re concerned about the image of the Democratic Party in national security, but attempting to out-aggressive the Republicans is, as Ezra points out, PRECISELY the logic that led to Kennedy and Johnson propelling the US deeper into Vietnam.