Dem Centrists Get Tough
By amba | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On Terrorism“These netroots types think they are something cutting edge when they are merely McGovernites with modems.”
That saucy salvo was issued a few days ago by Marshall Wittman (aka Bull Moose) on RealClearPolitics. Today Tom Bevan takes up the fight, documenting several sudden aggressive advances on the Democratic party chessboard that suggest that centrists, particularly national-security hawks, are finally going on the offensive. Read Bevan’s piece for a full account, but in brief:
- TNR senior editor Jonathan Chait, in an L.A. Times column, lit into the “crazed, ignorant ideological cannibals” who are trying to take down Joe Lieberman.
- Wittman wrote his “McGovernites with Modems” retort to a Markos Moulitsas op-ed in the WaPo, touting the netroots (which have never yet elected a candidate, please note) and trashing Hillary Clinton and the DLC for standing tough on Iraq.
- Centrist presidential contenders Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia) and Evan Bayh (Senator from Indiana) spoke strongly for “reclaim[ing] the aggressive foreign policy heritage of FDR, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy” at a National Press Club bash for the publication of a new book of essays from the Progressive Policy Institute, With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty. Bayh said:
If you ask me why we lost the last presidential election, I’d say more than anything else, it was because of our perceived problems with national security, [ . . . ] The American people [ . . . are] not going to trust us on [health care, education, the environment, jobs] if they don’t first trust us with their lives.
- Peter Beinart has a book coming out next month that expands on his groundbreaking 2004 TNR article “A Fighting Faith: An Argument for a New Liberalism.” The book is called The Good Fight : Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. Publishers Weekly calls it a”stimulating manifesto [that] calls for a liberalism that battles Islamist totalitarianism as forthrightly as Cold War liberals opposed Communist totalitarianism”.
It’s really good to see centrists getting the fire in their belly — and the rhetorical firepower — to beat back the netroots naysayers, who must like being aggrieved outsiders, since that’s what their strategy is tailored to achieve.
Read Bevan and follow the links — you’ll be mightily encouraged.
(Hat tip: Prairie Editor)
This entry was posted on Friday, May 12th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
So nice to see that the moderates among the Democrats are taking up the challenge of making their party electable.
But the characterization of Chait’s “crazed, ignorant ideological canibals” is actually even simpler. Just as in the late 1960s and 1970s, they can be simply understood: spoiled adolescents (whatever their age; some have achieved old age in years without ever growing up) who think that passionate faith (at least _their_ passionate faith) should/must/will overcome mere facts. And that anyone who does not share their ignorance of the larger world is evil by definition.
The ideology may change in detail (although not overmuch), but the ignorance and immaturity are actually the defining characteristics. Any party which does not actively refute them will not florish for the simple reason that most of the nation does not share their lack of a relationship to the real world.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Why does anyone take Wittman seriously as a Democratic voice? He’s a McCain guy, through and through.
Not saying that he’s not worth listening to in general, but I don’t think he’s representative of any coherent school of Democractic political thought.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Halla-lew-ya. To dip into the Big Bag o Geeky Metaphors, it’s like being up to your ass in orcs in Minas Tirith, and hearing the horns of Rohan sounding in the distance. Here comes the cavalry. At least, we can hope.
May 13th, 2006 at 10:19 am
I’m glad to see this. The Democrats need to be strong on national security, in the mold of Wes Clark’s perpsective. Glad to see others joining in.
May 13th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Whenever Democrats such as yourself “get tough” it’s just rubber stamping Republican ventures. There is no strategy and vision despite current flaws in the approach.
A more isolationist approach and reduction of a military approaching 6% of GNP has other strategic arguments, not necessarily invalid.
The Republican approach you acclaim has led to:
- A leftward swing in Latin America includimg nations allied with Castro.
- Nuclear Nprth Korea.
- A militant Iran with a foothold in Iraq.
- China and Russia somewhat allying and arming to fend off what they see as an aggressor. A new cold war.
- Growing splits with allies.
- Higher oil prices fed by insecurity which help almost no democracies with the exception of Norway. Simply saying that we will not bomb Iran in the next year would bring per barrel prices down 5 dollars. Given tight supply mantaining Iraqi oil production instead of being able to defend thhose lines would bring back a million barrels per day we took off the market.
- Pakistan as a platform replacing Afghanistan and in danger of a coup that would hand nuclear weapons to the Jihadists.
Incompetent intervention is a disaster. You can deny as you do that there are serious threats in Iraq including the reality of civil war (thousands of government troops dead is civil war) and make everything happy happy, but it is not tough on national defence. It’s about swagger and money to certain sectors of the economy.
Do we need 200 million dollar fighter? Or lots of other things.
Specifics and strategy please, not Rush rhetoric.
May 14th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
[...] Donklephant tells us about Democratic Centrists Getting Tough. [...]
May 16th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I don’t know if anyone’s reading this thread anymore, but I do find it interesting how many people are buying into this “eating their own” theme when it comes to Lieberman. What exactly is wrong with opposing a candidate because he doesn’t share your views? Am I supposed to support every incumbent Democrat, no matted what his policies, simply because he’s an incumbent? Are we suggesting that political expediency should always trump principle? Lieberman has provided a lot of cover for the Bush administration on issues that are significant for the Democratic party. Characterizing opposition to him as declaring him “evil” is just cheap and lazy. I don’t think he’s evil; I just don’t think he supports the Democrats enough. And for everyone who thinks opposition to Lieberman is an example of the netroots’ unique from of extremism, there are plenty of Republicans who suffer the wrath of their party for straying off the reservation. Or haven’t you seen any of the Club for Growth ads?
May 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
“And for everyone who thinks opposition to Lieberman is an example of the netroots’ unique from of extremism, there are plenty of Republicans who suffer the wrath of their party for straying off the reservation. Or haven’t you seen any of the Club for Growth ads? ”
I wandered in, so there’s one who is still reading this thread. The Republicans’ behaivior is to be encouraged and not imitated. They need to split along their divisions, and the sooner the better.
“Not saying that he’s not worth listening to in general, but I don’t think he’s representative of any coherent school of Democractic political thought. ”
Yes, well, he is not alone, since there is no coherent school of Democratic political thought to represent. There is vague nostalgia for the past and a lot of wishful thinking and morlaizing, but a minimal feature of anything deserving to be called “coherent” would be something appealing enough to enough voters to get people elected.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Angie:
How long have you been following current events, studying geopolitics, and reading history? And from what sources?
You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinions. Facts are a different story, as are actual timelines.
This is not to say you don’t have any good points, but, boy, oh, boy it’s a touch row to hoe to get through the weeds of disinformation, no matter how shallow that underbrush may be.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
And I, at least, don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, literally or otherwise.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Angie is the same person as an earlier commenter who called her(?)self Anna. The telltale phrase is “persons [Democrats, whatever] such as yourself. Her (?) M.O. is to go around accusing centrists of being rightwingers.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Oh it’s HER. She also goes by “Rachel” and “Angela” and “Patriot.” You can smell the Chomsky.