Matthew Yglesias: National security key to winning presidential elections

[allemand]

There are progressive foreign-policy thinkers, and they even produce ideas. So why aren’t Democratic politicians?

By Matthew Yglesias
Issue Date: 03.05.05

(...)

But Kerry’s 40 percent share among the third of the electorate citing either Iraq or terrorism as their top concern is another matter entirely. Liberals most emphatically do believe that the government should keep the population safe from foreign threats. Voters who think that this is important are voters that any self-respecting political party ought to aspire to win. And if Democrats do ?gure out how to win their votes, they’ll start winning presidential elections. Mere parity on the topic of national security would have won Kerry the election, rendering whatever other political problems exist with the Democrats on matters of style or substance irrelevant. (...)

Despite a reasonably broad consensus among left-of-center security hands about what should be done, the party’s political operatives are unable to turn that consensus into a compelling political narrative. Democrats are reluctant to address security issues except when forced to do so, and, as a result, they discover that when they are so forced, they aren’t very good at it. Political failure breeds further reluctance, which breeds further failure -- no one develops the relevant ability to spin security for partisan gain, and because no one can win on security, no one learns how to campaign on it. (...)

If Kerry’s handlers seemed unprepared to handle the national-security issue, that’s largely because they were unprepared. Presidential races are rare, and operatives cut their teeth in national politics running campaigns for the House and the Senate. Because the national-security issue is of limited relevance to these races, and because it’s been a weak issue for Democrats for decades, the party’s operatives have learned to avoid it as much as possible. On the Republican side, conversely, it’s been a source of strength (...) Democrats have gained no such experience, and it shows -- not merely in the relatively inept handling of the security issue but in a near-pathological reluctance to engage it. (...)

New initiatives under way to train a new generation of progressive activists often offer civil liberties as a potential area of interest, but not national security or foreign policy. Of course civil liberties are important, but a strategy to ensure that the government doesn’t go too far in combating terrorism only makes sense as part of a strategy that will ensure that the government also goes far enough. Liberals may think it should go without saying that we, too, want to keep America safe, but in practice it doesn’t go without saying. A movement interested in preparing to defend the United States from its own security apparatus but not against terrorism is inviting the attack that it cares more about protecting terrorists than their victims. Worse, it deprives itself of the ability to cultivate people who will be able to articulate a progressive message on national security in the future.

More:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9214

Ed Kilgore comments:

I rarely use the term "must-read," but I recommend Yglesias' piece to all Democrats, and especially to those Democrats who have been unhappy with the more abrasive argument of Peter Beinart about the urgency of making the Democratic Party's position on national security unambiguous. Matt is not endorsing--indeed, he is rejecting--any intra-party fight or "purge;" but he is arguing that Democratic antipathy to the whole subject of national security is making us all susceptible to the GOP claim that we ultimately just don't give a damn.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_03_20.php#005213

[Clark2008]

1. Thanks for this.

A lot of us got this the last time around and were shot down by other Dems who kept yelling that we needed to stick with issues on which Democrats already beat Republicas, namely the economy and social issues.
We need a full service candidate.

[vi5]

2. Was I watching another election entirely last time around?

It seemed like ALL WE HEARD ABOUT was foreign policy and national security. We had a war hero candidate who had extensive foreign policy experience, national security and the troops and the attendant tough talk was front and center every step of the way. It seemed to me like we avoided social issues like the plague. Our candidate said over and over again that he supported Bush's tough stance on national security but just that the job was botched by an incompetent administration.

So honestly I'm still failing to see what MORE we could have done. So do we need to talk like idiots and position everything with myopic, jingoistic platitudes?

I mean the main reason most gave for NOT nominating Dean or Kucinich was that they would be perceived as SOFT on national security. So we went with Kerry.

The key to winning elections is for the voting public to stop being idiots and start being aware of issues and for them to actually read up on things rather than getting their information spoon fed to them by pundits. Until then we could nominate the frankenstein candidate patched together with pieces of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and General Patton and he'll still lose.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. IMO Kerry initially misread the issue

At the Democratic Convention Kerry down played Foreign Policy and Security issues and played up his Viet Nam war experience. At that time he seemed to think that he would win by focusing on Domestic issues if he could convince the American people that he was personally tough enough to be Commander in Chief. Being a war hero though isn't what it is about, especially when physical courage was shown as a young man and you are now running as a middle aged man. And especially when a smear campaign targeted directly at your medals won in battle in left to fester for two weeks without a vigorous response.

It was not until one week before the first Presidential debate that Kerry made a tactical pivot and began directly confronting Bush over his main Foreign policy blunder in Iraq. Before that Bush actually had him cornered for awhile over Kerry's Pro IWR vote. Much damage was already done before Kerry shifted strategy, remember Bush's use of "I actually voted for the resolution before I voted against it" (concerning the later funding resolution)? Kerry initially avoided taking Bush head on regarding Iraq. It cost him dearly.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Typical voters don't think...

Started to make my subject longer, but it struck me as a perfectly accurate statement the way it is.

To complete my original thought...
Typical voters don't think anything that goes on in the Senate equates to "foreign policy experience." And not without some cause. There's a difference between talking about policy and actually formulating any. Much less turning policy into action.

But mostly, typical voters are ignorant of what goes on in the Senate. They don't watch C-SPAN and almost nothing there makes the regular news. And let's face it, most discussion takes place in committee and that gets even less public exposure.

We can debate all day the quality and quanity of Kerry's foreign policy experience, but the FACT is, the voters never perceived him to have any. Only a bunch of untried ideas and words. And those not particularly well defined or communicated.

The US hasn't seen a senator defeat a sitting president in 120 years. There's a reason.

[suegeo]

3. The republicans are strong on security?

There were people running through the streets of new york for their lives in Sept. 01. Rather than burn to death, some leaped from the trade tower windows. People were vaporized when their plane hit a building or the ground.

Where were the republicans when we really needed them? Since then, two botched wars, and the people who hate us stole weapons we had previously secured.

The only thing the republicans are better at is terrorizing the American people so that the people can be better manipulated through fear.

[robcon]

4. Yes, the republicans are strong on national security.

The polls show it. The "flip-flop" accusation stuck to Kerry. The "resume strategy" (he was a hero of the Vietnam War) was a stupid strategy. We needed a strong voice against terrorists. Kerry's message was a mess.

This is very, very fixable. Senator Clinton will win because she has the right mix of strong national security stances (including, of course, the obligatory 'support our troops' mention) and liberal domestic policies.

I believe strongly that she will be our next president.

edit:spell

[westcott]

7. I can't disagree more with this

I simply cannot disagree more with this. There is no way Hillary Clinton will win. Sure if the vote were at Democratic Underground with members here she would, but that's about it.

I personally would not be able to support her candidacy because of the absurdity that it represents. It would be a disgrace to The United States and all of it's 290 million inhabitants for the White House to be occupied by two families for a 20 year period.

Add to that the fact that my parents, who by the way are great indicators of popular oppinion, would not in a million years vote for her.

I mean no disrespect to her of course, but she is the wife of a former President and I can't believe that this inherited celebrity should ride her to the Presidency. I couldn't stand it.

[robcon]

15. I disagree with you on that

1. DUers would vote for Clark well before Clinton... on poll after poll and thread after thread. Clinton is not the candidate of DU.

2. Clinton is very, very popular in NY - even the 'red state' portion upstate.

[DemocracyInaction]

5. I think this misses the point by a country mile...........

He fails to recognize that there is something much deeper at work here. The Repubs have successfully washed the people's minds into believing if Atilla the Hun stood in front of them running as a Dem for president that he is really a panty waist pinko who would do nothing to protect them militarily. Then they put on a sideshow war to demonstrate how macho (and completely stupid and lying)that the Republicans are. The only way we could ever reverse that is to have a Dem president along with a good old fashion, shoot 'em up, blow them to hell war that the Dem president presided over.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I disagree.

I think the author understood exactly the Dem's ailment.

You are describing the symptoms of the ailment of lack of credibility on National Security. The author is talking about the solution to it.

Whatever manner in which the Republicans have been able to telegraph their message to the public (big help from the media of course), that they are the National Security party, they have been successful. On the other hand, Democrats have not. These are the facts of the situation. Voters being brainwashed is not an excuse, it's a result of the massive GOP campaign to do exactly that.

The only way that we can turn this around is to get our message across that Dems can keep our nation safeR than the Republicans have. Once that is firmly established in voters minds, Dems will be able to conversate about the other pressing priorities that need to be addressed.

[no name no slogan]

9. Fearmongering Yglesias drinks the RW Kool-Aide

We do NOT become the party of "National Security" by going down the same well-worn imperialistic path that has brought us to our current state.

This country has been waging a "war on terror" since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the early 80s. Reagan declared the first one, and now Dubya is borrowing his rhetoric to inflame the masses once again. It is just another excuse to keep the American people living in a perpetual state of FEAR. Since there's no more Commies to fight, the War Machine had to create something else to keep the rabble in line: why not "terraists"?

"National Security" is NOT increasing Pentagon spending, increasing the size of our armed forces, and using war as our first tool of foreign policy. And it's not just the Republicans, either: Clinton was just as guilty as Dubya in many respects.

The Democrats need to redefine the meaning of "National Security": it's not "getting tough on terrorism" and new military programs. It's about full employment, a home for everybody, medical care for the sick, food for the hungry, and job security.

It's about a foreign policy that acknowledges that "The American Way" is NOT the ideal way for every country. It acknowledges that fair economies and governments are created from the ground up, NOT the top down, by the people-- NOT by the World Bank and the WTO.

It's about transforming our wartime economy into a peacetime economy. It's about not being the largest arms dealer to the world, but being the most powerful force for peaceful change on the planet.

Yglesias and his "National Security Democrats" seem to believe that we can only win by "out-Republican"-ing the Repubs. He (and they) couldn't be further from the truth. Buying into the RW Fear Agenda will NOT make us safer, and will NOT bring us any more respect in the world.

The cold war is over, yet our economic structure is stuck firmly in 1983. Our future threats will NOT come from large, totalitarian states, but from alienated factions who resent the power and hegemony of the US.

[ZootSuitGringo]

11. I think your suggestion to an approach would make perfect sense, IF

The majority electorate was an educated one who didn't just watch the TV to get their information. Unfortunately, that is not the cards that we were dealt or are currently playing with.

I agree with most of your analysis as to what National Security is not, however, I do not believe that the economic message you advocate we discuss (full employment, a home for everybody, medical care for the sick, food for the hungry, and job security) will directly link in voters' minds to the national security issue, even if we tell them that it is so. It is obvious, based on the last election's outcome, that voters see economic and national security issues as separate and distinct (although I agree that they are very much interrelated). John Kerry attempted to send this message to voters during most of his campaign (as did other Dems running in 2004), and it didn't compute for many.

I do believe that the National Security issue has already been framed and defined in the minds of many, and I don't believe that attempts by Dems to redefine this issue as to what it should be about will work now or later. You see, the GOP (along with their media) will not allow the redefinition of this issue. Therefore we will be forced to (whether we want to or not) address the National Security issue as it has been defined and then attempt to integrate and weave our own meaning to it. We can add to the meaning, but I doubt we can change the meaning that is already out there.

It would be nice to think that we could take an issue that has been at the forefront for as long as you stated and somehow change what it means to voters, but I think this is wishful thinking on your part and is not being made with a clear assessment of the reality currently residing in the heads of the masses. In addition, we would need some credible spokespeople to do this. Currently, I find that General Clark is just about the only Dem with enough gravitas attempting to do this in a credible fashion, and yet (and unfortunately) his platform to do this is limited and much of his message is just not getting out to make the impact that it could.

Also, please let me know what "out-Republican"-ing the Repubs actually means on defense issues. It's sounds vile, but your specifics on what this truly means are skimpy beyond your criticizing the author here. I can only really think of Biden and Lieberman as being guilty of "out-Republican"-ing the Repubs, but beyond them, who else? Please cite some examples.

[no name no slogan]

14. First of all, we should NEVER give up on reframing the issue

Ceding the RWers any ground on this will get us a repeat of 2004: a dovish candidate who tried to look "tougher" on defense by promising to fight the other's guy's war better.

I think you don't give the American enough people credit: they're not nearly as dumb as the media makes them out to be. Believe it or not, over half the people in this country think this nation is on the wrong course-- domestically and internationally. We need to tap into that hopelessness and propose REAL, long-term solutions-- not just another quick-fix to keep the war machine running full speed ahead.

As far as "out-Republican"-ing the Repubs on the defense issue: with the exception of Sharpton and Kucinich last year, NOBODY was calling for a full accounting of the Pentagon-- an agency which has "misplaced" over $1 trillion of its assets.

In fact, most Democrats were calling for additional Pentagon funding for programs which are either not needed or flat out don't work. For example, NOBODY talked about discontinuing "Star Wars", even though it chews up $1+ billion a year and has NEVER worked.

Most of the money we spend on "defense" does not make us safer. Most of it is a subsidy to the arms and hi-tech industries (which has close ties to both Repubs and Dems), who use our tax money to produce weapons for export. Currently the US is the largest arms exporter in the world-- at least 10× greater than its nearest rival.

We aren't "safer" if we continue to buy into the party line put out by the War Party. We don't stop terrorism by intervening in the affairs of other countries. Nor do we stop terrorism by supporting oppressive economic and political regimes abroad.

Nor do we win elections by trying to "outgun" the Repubs on the "security" issue. If people want to support further militarisation of our economy and country, they'll vote Repub. No amount of "get tough" talk by the Democrats will change that.

[blm]

12. Gee, Matt. Maybe because the media REPEATEDLY STATED that Bush is strong

on the terror issue and refused to tell the American people that Bush failed REPEATEDLY in many key areas where 9-11 could have been prevented.

Bush FAILED at Tora Bora and the media covered up for him when Kerry attacked him.

Please don't tell the Democrats what should be done until the media is dealt with and exposed for LYING for Bush.

Because it doesn't matter what ANY Democratic politician or strategist says....it only matters how the media TWISTS what they say or outright LIES about it to further protect Bush and the GOP.

[madfloridian]

13. 9/11 was not a national security issue, a failure of domestic security.

And then we went and attacked a country that had nothing to do with it, and our Democrats helped.

What is this national security stuff? We had a shock on 9/11, of course, but it was failure of a domestic nature...not a military failure.

This sounds like progressive internationalism, touted by the PPI and the DLC.

We became less secure, not more, when we went into Iraq. Yet the ones who voted for it keep saying they would do it all over again.

It is called remaking the middle east. It is called empire. If we told the truth as Democrats, the people would not be so ill-informed. That is our fault.

We have allowed the other party to start a war based on lies, and we have not had the guts to set things straight.

[FightinNewDem]

16. Matt gets it

"This sounds like progressive internationalism, touted by the PPI and the DLC"...


...and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And Harry Truman.

And John F. Kennedy.

And Bill Clinton.

Sounds like Matt has a better handle on the true heritage of the Democratic Party than his critics do.