First Things First

The Good Fight - Peter Beinart
The Politics of Renunication - Mark Schmitt

Back to this ongoing and entirely worthwhile discussion on terrorism and liberalism. One good thing to come out of my own reluctance to attempt anything so bold as an all-encompassing summation of the internicine warfare is that eventually, someone else comes along and gets pretty much my own point put into a more patiently written summary. As such, I offer the two links above as worthwhile reading.

Beinart, in his rebuttal to Kevin Drum's challenge to write the prequel to the earlier call for a more serious appraisal of terrorism as a central animating issue among Democrats, points out a very fundamental problem with Drum's question:

In a way, the response confirmed my theory: that many contemporary liberals, including many smart ones, don't see defeating Al Qaeda as a paramount national challenge. And that's a political problem, since most Americans do.

I'd argue that it's much more than a political problem ... it goes well beyond that. Kevin Drum is by no means among the "softs" that Beinart wishes to offer an eviction notice to. He's as smart as they get among Dem bloggers. But more than just failing to see the centrality of the issue of terrorism in any form of guiding principle, Kevin questions it by proxy. By suggesting that there's a need to offer more evidence ... more than what two fallen towers has offered as proof .... more than what a gaping hole in the Pentagon has offered as proof ... more than what any more recent threat has proven, be it on American soil or elsewhere ... Kevin suggests there's a need for more of a case before we get to discussing what, to a vast majority of Americans is of central importance. It would be borderline appalling, if it weren't such a widespread problem.

For my own part, I'll firmly admit that among the items I had hoped a Kerry administration would bring is a sense of ownership of the war against terrorists on our side of the aisle. It is precisely that sense of ownership that Democrats and liberals need to have. It is precisely that sense of ownership that we now have to find another way of claiming since it won't come the easy way: by dint of administrative assignment. To be sure, there are those on our side that do have a good claim to the issue as both a high priority and also with a plan of action worth enacting. Senators Biden, Lieberman, & Reed ... former Senator Graham ... Members of Congress like Jane Harman & the outgoing Jim Turner ... others, like Wes Clark ... these aren't exactly lightweights within the party. And some of them actually get listened to by those further to the left. It's not like there aren't leading lights to pay attention to. Graham has written a book on the use and misuse of military intelligence. Turner has written a well-received report on "Winning the War on Terror" as well as an internally focused report on "Securing the Southern Border." Not everyone on that list has supported the President's action in Iraq (Graham and Clark opposed it). But each is devoutly serious about the issue and there's no doubt that each places national security high atop any grand wish list of policy. So, in short, there's a lack of seriousness that pervades the grassroots a tad bit more than it does the grass-tops.

Now, the obviousness of the problem aside, there's some criticism of Beinart's thesis that I think is warranted. Namely, the need for a purge. I'll grant an exception for Michael Moore because I think offing one lone bloviator with no allegiance to the party, or even an overarching philosophy other than self-promotion, does no harm to anyone. But even there, it's up to those who have applauded him more recently to make that step. I've done all I can do there. But rather than seeking out candidates for a purge, I think finding more common ground is needed. And part of that means no longer ignoring those issues of disagreement within party ranks (note the short-lived experiment of co-written article put out by Kuttner & Marshall and their avoidance of trade and defense issues).

Schmitt doesn't fully accept Beinart's thesis, but the disagreements are more accute. Basically, that disagreement is that there are differences between the current fight and the Cold War. I'm not sure I agree with the differences as spelled out by Schmitt, but it beats noting. During the Cold War, communism was rampant enough that it's supporters viewed liberalism as a target for takeover. That makes the need for a purge more vital to the needs of cold War liberals. To date, I've not seen many al Qaeda operatives trying to infiltrate Democratic Party functions. Same goes with the comparison on the right, with Birchers and early conservatives. There was a direct issue of infiltration and co-opting that served as a threat. Here, we're talking about partisans who either just haven't seen the light on terrorism, cannot view it beyond the current prism of Iraq, and/or cannot view anything beyond hatred of one George W. bush. That's more a case for issue leadership that warrants accepting than it is a claim for a purge.

Beinart makes a good argument that he never fully suggested that the current war matches the prior war in its entirety, but that the centrality of it within each time was something that should be sought. Unfortunately, not too many takers have risen up to be counted as supportive of this. What this means for Democrats is that we will lose more and more elections until this is resolved, or we'll just merely wait out this whole terrorism issue until people get around to worrying about "our" issues.

For those unwilling to address the prime issue of our day, I guess my only question left is "Do you seriously think there will be a Democratic Party left to give people health care if we continue down our current and very much ongoing 40-year downward spiral?" Go back to David Sirota's article on the presciption for Democrats to win by taking on class warfare. Any mention of how candidate ought to address national defense? Nope. We've given avoidance of this issue for the past two elections a shot and it's not worked. That should serve as a lesson of some sort. The answer, however, is simple: stop being silent on the biggest issue of our day. "No blood for oil" is not a rebuttal to the threat as it exists. Me-too-ism in the hopes of moving on to other issues has yet to work. It's time for another approach and its time to go back and listen to some of those voices within the party that have been ignored for too long already.