|
Carpe
Diem
June
20, 2003
By Thomas Lesh
 In
the last weeks we Democrats were treated to two appalling
examples of why we lost the 2002 elections and are likely
to lose in 2004 if we do not begin to assert core Democratic
values and wrest control of the party's agenda from its current
weak-kneed legislative spokespersons. I refer in particular
to Tom Daschle's apologetic questioning of the failure to
discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and his rather
pathetic and craven retraction of those assertions in the
face of the usual fury of the Republican attack machine. And
to Joe Biden's equally spineless response to the noises being
made about maybe attacking Iran sometime soon, where Mr. Biden
opined that he really did not have any quarrel with the administration's
aims in Iran, only their timing. Just this week, I have read
there is considerable debate and misgiving within the party
about taking on President Bush over the WMD issue. What if
they find some? Didn't people like the war? Didn't the American
public find it rather gratifying to vicariously kill lots
of defenseless foreigners?
These activities, and one might catalogue so many more,
only further demonstrate that there still exists a substantial
party cadre who believe that it is possible to wage the 2004
campaign on the same basis as that of 2002. Namely, that people
trust the Democrats on economic issues, they will vote economic
issues exclusively, and that if only we can get these sluggard's
minds off this terrorist stuff for five minutes, they will
be consumed with a burning desire to learn everything there
is to learn about prescription drug subsidies, realize that
our Democratic program is tops, and return us to Congress
and the White House with staggering majorities.
I want to assert the obvious counter proposition, that in
order to win in 2004, we need to put foreign policy into play.
I want to further assert that, at least since 9/11, and probably
for a considerable time before that, there is no bipartisan
consensus on foreign policy issues in this nation. The Republicans
have boldly published a blueprint for world hegemony, a massive
defense buildup, and a decade of pre-emptive wars with all
their unpredictable consequences. There are some in this party,
the Democratic Party, who believe we can agree to this agenda,
or overlook it to concentrate on domestic issues, or even
portray ourselves as more belligerent and irrational than
our opponents.
We need to recognize that these positions are not only morally
and intellectually bankrupt but politically wrong. We cannot
succeed by selling Bush-lite or by marketing a compassionate
imperialism. The simplest reason we cannot avoid confrontation,
from a tactical standpoint, is that Bush controls the agenda.
He can always create another crisis as he did in the run-up
to 2002. Moreover, Bush controls the terms of the nation's
perception of reality. He has built up a compelling mythos
focused upon the events of 9/11 that can seemingly justify
any outrage.
So how can you beat this? Maybe it is impossible. Certainly
it is difficult. But the only way to succeed is to go at this
agenda head-on. Democratic politicians need to discover a
kind of politics they have never, historically, been very
good at - the politics of opposition. We should be under no
illusions as to what this politics means. There is no room
for statesmanship here, nor for all the advances and backpedaling
that characterize a typical legislative agenda. The purpose
is not to demonstrate that if you elect us we will pass a
lot of complicated laws that in the long run will make things
better for our constituent groups and better for the country
as a whole. The purpose is to demonstrate that we are better
suited to governing than the guys who are currently in power.
To do this it is necessary to demonstrate that those who currently
hold power are completely unworthy of holding it. The purpose
of the politics of opposition is to totally undermine confidence
in the existing regime, in their competence, in their motives,
in their persons.
Fortunately for us, it is in the nature of fantastic visions
to fall apart. This is happening to the Bush initiative in
Iraq, both with respect to the WMD issue and the deteriorating
post-war situation. The WMD issue is an absolute gift that
should be seized upon by all serious Democrats. This issue
cannot be defended by Bush and his minions. Either Bush and
his cabinet lied to the people and to Congress. Or he was
misled or misinterpreted the intelligence. Or the intelligence
itself was worthless. Now I happen to believe the first thesis,
that he lied, but it really does not matter, because the point
is that there was no imminent threat. This man, the commander-in-chief,
upon whose judgment America must needs rely, was just plain
wrong, for whatever reason.
And he was wrong in a big way, wrong in a way that has serious
consequences: the loss of historic allies, the condemnation
of most of the peoples of the world, the immersion of the
US into a quagmire that has cost us untold treasure and at
least one dead soldier a day since it was officially declared
a military success.
Wrong, in short, in a way that calls into question the honesty
and competence of the leader and his advisors. This is how
governments fall, how the illusion of legitimacy falls apart.
We should not be overly concerned about polls. Legitimacy
falls apart rapidly. One day you are riding high. The next
day nobody believes a word you say. It must be our aim, as
a party, to hasten this realization. We have to keep making
the point with the American people, are you safer and more
secure, at home or abroad, in your appreciation of this country
as a player on the world stage, or in your own person, or
in your physical and economic health, with this guy as president
than you would be with somebody else, namely our guy.
Which brings us to the issue of who should deliver these
messages. I would argue that it cannot be a traditional Congressional
Democrat. These men have too much at stake in the status quo.
They are under the illusion they were part of the decision-making
process that led us into war and ruined our economy and deprived
us of significant constitutional rights. They think they had
inside information about the Iraqi threat when they might
have picked up a copy of The Guardian or The Independent or
gone to any of half-a-dozen websites and gotten better and
more accurate intelligence than Bush or Blair. These guys
are co-opted or compromised.
In particular, it cannot be anyone who voted for the Iraq
war resolution, which eliminates Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman,
and Gephardt straight off. Graham voted against it, but sometimes
it appears he only did so because he had other countries higher
on his list. Graham is so inconsistent on these issues that
you wonder if he knows where he stands. But lately he has
shown signs of enlightenment. However, the other issue for
Graham is that if he has damaging information on 9/11 that
the government is suppressing, he needs to act like a true
patriot and publish it. Otherwise he is a victim of the same
Congressional illusions and handicaps as the others. Plus
he looks weak.
The real problem here is that anyone who doesn't immediately
see the opportunities on the foreign policy front, and the
necessity of confronting Bush, doesn't get it. If you don't
get it, the foot soldiers of the party, who do get it, will
and should pass you by.
While I do not want to make this article an endorsement,
I must say that among the serious candidates, only Dean and
Kucinich appear to get it so far. Even if a guy like Kerry
or Edwards finally gets it, it is too late. They cannot erase
the vote, nor the whole 2002 strategy that was based on the
vote. Politics, to paraphrase the late Harold Washington,
ain't bean bag. Once you lose the initiative, you're out.
Seize the moment!
|
