Ignore the Bait

Charles Krauthammer’s piece in today’s Washington Post nicely sums up the arguements to be made against Democrats in the wake of Ned Lamont’s victory. It is the perfect bait: We are “anti-war.” He uses the term or “anti-Vietnam War” nine times in the short piece. The arguments, as neat as they are, are easily refuted. But I won’t go there. And neither should any Democrat. The last thing we need to be is defensive. Rather, it’s time to tell our own story, have confidence in it, and retell it as often as possible. That’s a little tougher challenge that refuting Mr. Krauthammer, but with much greater returns. And after all, when our opponents only narrative is “stay the course,” they’ve got both hands tied behind their backs.

As I mentioned in yesterday’s short post about the AP story outlining how both parties used yesterday’s terrorist scare to score political points, at least Lamont’s victory seems to have stiffen a few blue spines. That’s a good first step.

There’s a pretty good post at a blog I wasn’t aware of until yesterday. It lays out the Iraq challenge for Dems pretty well.

One, people are troubled by the war and that anxiety leads them to oppose the war in general…essentially they want to remove the anxiety and the easiest way is to oppose, or in other words, end the troubled war effort. Two, despite opposition to the war, a majority of people realize it is impractical to withdraw immediately, or in other words, while they don’t like the war, they realize it may have to continue for some period of time. Three, they still hold to the notion of winning the war regardless of their opposition and their desire to end the conflict.

… In the interest of achieving Democratic control of the House or the Senate, I am convinced that the Democratic Party and Ned Lamont must take the lead in proposing alternate and specific plans for a successful exit from Iraq. Should we allow Republicans to frame the topic, I fear Democrats may suffer the same fate that we encountered in 2004 when Rove and the RNC were able to portray the Democratic position as one inclined to concede defeat in Iraq and therefore a weakened position on national security and the war on terror…a position I’m convinced the American public is not yet willing to embrace and that I believe has been supported by polling data as well as the Connecticut outcome.

But this approach limits us to telling the public how we’ll fix George Bush’s mess. That’s too narrow a focus.

To negate Krauthammer’s “anti-war” frame, we need to explain how we would strengthen our military and how we would employ it. I have long argued that Iraq may have been the perfect country to invade and Saddam Hussein the perfect maniac to overthrow. But it was the wrong time because Iraqi Muslims weren’t ready for a revolution and certainly didn’t trust the U.S. to be their patron saint. (Besides, we were not done in Afghanistan.) Iraqis may well have accepted our military help, if we first had proven to them our appreciation of the core issues to Muslims throughout the Middle East. That would require our brokering a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then our strong stance for democracies in those countries where the monarchies and dictators are still “our friends.” We need to make the case of why that approach is not “anti-war” but rather a practical approach that ensures our long-term security and our children’s freedom from fear.

Bush has already done most of the heavy lifting for us. His judgement in foreign affairs is so widely discredited, not by pundits and intellectuals but by Main Street Americans, that they are primed for an alternative. And to those who say that no amount of negotiation or diplomacy will stem the flow of arms from Iran to Syria to Lebanon or Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it should be clear to most that they would not have been so emboldened had the Iraq War proven our incapacity to stop them. The carrot and stick approach won’t work only because we no longer have a stick to wave. It’s proved flaccid.

I believe it’s Tom Friedman whose suggested that we need to go to Iran and Syria and ask, “What will it take?” They have a price. And for the right price, they will be willing to make some concessions that we want.

Whatever we offer, it will not be enough for the Islamic radicals. But right now our foreign policy is causing their number to multiply geometrically on an almost daily basis. Once we address their frustrated followers core issues, that number will shrink, making the employment of our military more effective. Right now, we’re just playing whack a mole and now we’re prohibiting water bottles on planes.

It’s a fundamental precept that in a political argument you never repeat your opponent’s charge. Let’s not say why we’re not anti-war, but what we are. In the three months to election day, we should be able to craft a narrative that resonates with voters. It will be defeatist nor anti-war. It should be a strong statement of our responsibilities in the world and our willingness to fight for them.

UPDATE: Fortunately, Democratic voices are not taking the bait, including Kevin Drum.

Comments

[Bob]

Amen, David. The whole idea of calling it a "war on terror" allows the administration to dehumanize the war. We're not fighting against certain people; we're fighting a tactic.

[David Weintraub]

I think that it should be a relatively simple matter to put ourselves in the place of the average person, and ask what would you rather do with your life, given reasonable options: be a terrorist and give up your life, or spend your life doing something productive and fulfilling (although I don't get the insurance salesman thing either), raising a family, being part of a community?

That answer is a no-brainer unless you are committed to the idea that "those people" are somehow a fundamentally different kind of people - or perhaps not people at all. This is not an accusation directed at Brian for raising the question, but there is obviously a strain of thought out there that offers as "explanation" the same old dehumanization of "they don't value life the way we do."

That is less than helpful, in my view. If it appears to you that someone doesn't value life the way you do, the place to begin looking for answers is a reality that might cause that person to find life untenable. What might make any of us feel that way, as individuals? Then imagine that as a collective experience. What I am suggesting is empathy.

But empathy, generally speaking, is unhelpful for war, so I'm not expecting much buy-in from our fearless leaders.

[Bob]

I can't provide more info., no more than the administration can substantiate that it is "winning the war on terror." It seems that the increase in suicide bombings over the past decade and the ease with which radicals move within their communities that there is growing support for them. We hear of modern Islamists talk about the phenonmenon from their perpective, which I have to trust more than anything else I have to go on. (see this article.) I hope I haven't made the case to be so simplistic, but I believe that many Muslims who provide cover for terrorists or join their ranks do so more out of frustration that 1/they are disrepsected, feelings of which go back centuries vis-a-vis the West 2/their legitimate grievances are ignored, i.e., the Palestinian question 3/the West is hypocritical in that it says one thing but supports Arab dictatorships that oppress them and thus 4/they see no alternative.

If we showed some respect and nuance in our approach to nations like Iran and Syria and demanded more of Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we may find over time that indeed those who now support terrorism would prefer life as a teacher or for reasons I can't explain, an insurance salesmen. It seems logical to me -- and please tell me what you know that would dispute this -- that except for a small group of religious fanatics, most Arabs would prefer not to hide in the mountains, get bombed or blow themselves up.

What do you think we should be doing?

[Brian]

Whatever we offer, it will not be enough for the Islamic radicals. But right now our foreign policy is causing their number to multiply geometrically on an almost daily basis.

Bob, I hear this case made relatively frequently, but I've never seen solid substantiation. I see stories about Muslims signing up for Jihad and their actions are attributed to Iraq/Israel/general Bush Admin. policy/etc.. It seems to me that it is too much to assume that they would be teachers or insurance salesmen or whatever if it weren't America's actions. The best suopprted claims for this meme rely on unidentified sources who claim that it is true. Can you provide me with some better info?

Once we address their frustrated followers core issues, that number will shrink, making the employment of our military more effective.

What do mean by "address their...core issues?"