More on Terrorism & Other Comments ...
I wanted to revive a few comments from a prior post here because I think they warrant more discussion. A bit pretentious, I know. But I'm willing to live with the ego enhancement for a day. It's been a rough weekend.
TX Bubba has this as part of my take on "First Things First"
The problem is that, if most Americans view defeating al Qaeda as a paramount national challenge, why did they vote for Bush? I know polls show that most Americans think Bush was tougher on terrorism, but the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion is absent, except when Iraq is confused for al Qaeda, as it is with most people. Kerry talked the tough language, yet I believe that it was ignored. We're talking some irrational perceptions. We all know the facts about what this administration ignored and resisted. So, it was not a logical argument that led voters to vote for Bush because of his "stronger" anti-terrorism policies.
With all due respect (and I do read Southpaw with a good deal of appreciation), I wish I could share this level of conceit. While I would certainly be among those leading the charge that we could have done a significantly better job in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, I don't think it's as simple to suggest our side is the one with the only working plan and the other side is a litany of failures. No matter who took on the fight against al Qaeda directly, Afghanistan is almost destined to be a mixed bag. But that said, elections in Afghanistan, progress in locating and/or killing many of the top al Qaeda figures, uprooting the Taliban ... these are all successes that I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest people should clearly measure Afghanistan as a rousing disappointment.
Is there more that should be done? Yes. Are there steps that could have been executed much better? You bet. Should we have diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq as was done before both the job was done and action was authorized in Iraq? Absolutely not. But the grounds for debate there are over degrees of perfection, not an either-or determination of success. Give voters some credit ... they see this and it's not due to irrational perceptions.
Kerry offered several quality critiques of Bush's handling of both terrorism and Iraq, but never put it all together in a comprehensive narrative to suggest there was anything to his charge that he could do better. There was also the competing advice offered for him to pivot to domestic issues immediately upon scoring a hit on foreign policy rather than keeping Bush on the ropes and hammering away. Tell me that didn't cost Kerry significantly after the first debate.
The long and short of this is that failure is not something that triggers an intrinsic binary choice on the incumbent. It never has. There has always been a competing tug from the side that tempts us to rally around the flag when challenged.
AWC offers another comment on the same post, primarily targetted at my own take on the David Sirota article:
I think Sirota's piece is pretty stupid, but let's give him credit for one thing. John Kerry probably _would_ have won the election if he'd demogogued on trade, because that rhetoric would have carried Ohio. Economic nationalism is the Democrat's wedge issue because it appeals to white working men. Rove knows this. Kerry ran a principled campaign, and that's one reason he lost.
Almost. I don't think Kerry could have run as the second coming of Dick Gephardt and won, but the obvious closeness of Ohio means one can pretty much insert any variable change and offer it as a winning formula. But moreso than that, I'm less certain that a protectionist trade speaks to white working men (however defined). The tactic has long been used as a substitute for tough talk on foreign policy, primarily in times when domestic concerns trump international concerns. Whether that was the case in Ohio as of last November ... I don't pretend to know for certain. Had Kerry suddenly taken a more protectionist tilt, however, I think it would have bitten him in a few other smaller states to negate any chance of a lead: NH, HI, NJ, WA ... all would likely have seen a drop of a few points in these predomantly free-trade states. The issue would also have cut into Kerry's credibility as yet another flip-flop. Not entirely sure that would have paid dividends for him.
Now, were there areas that could have been attacked without being a full-blown protectionist? Perhaps. Even Bill Clinton railed against the Benedict Arnold CEOs of his age. But what major issues were available this season? Offshore tax credits? Kerry hit on these and got minimum mileage out of it. Outsourcing? Easy boogeyman to take on, but if one really wants to make this a campaign centerpeice, it's pretty easy to pick apart in a debate setting. Besides, you'd have to run against the Clinton era as well as the Bush era on this one. Might not be the best way to demonstrate yourself as a continuation of Clinton-era economic success. Outside of that? I don't think there's anything dramatic to consider demagoging on the issue.
PS: Watching the National Press Club event with Al From, Robert Borosage, and Stu Rothenberg, it seems I've got Stu on my side in regards to trade. He runs down a long list of states where he notes the failure of trade to move voters: SC and NC key among them. Ohio is discussed to a lesser extent, but the larger point of his is that he's just not seen an instance of it moving votes. I'm sure that overstates the case a bit (as there are certainly areas where it's not debatable for a variety of reasons on both sides), but in a grander, more state-wide scale, I at least have one person smarter than me backing me up. I'll take it.
Comments
The other argument about Afghanistan that Kerry could have used (I don't recall if he made any attempt), is the Afganistan is being controlled with NATO troops. Kerry could have used it to show how even the Germans and French will work with the U.S. with war on terrorism when the threat is truly about terrorism. Kerry attempted to state that he would attempt to internationalize the Iraq situation and Bush pooh-poohed it.
Did Edwards use the 'NC lost jobs because of free trade' line during his Senate run in 1998? I know he used it for his Presidential bid.
Posted by: EG | December 13, 2004 02:34 PM
My criticism wasn't that everything Bush has done has been a failure or that Afghanistan should be judged an utter failure. Pushing out the Taliban is a victory and a good thing. But look at what we learned over the summer and into the fall about the Bush administration on terrorism--they considered a report warning of an al Qaeda attack as a "historical" report. They reduced funding for anti-terrorism prior to 9/11. They put their trust in a suspect source (Chalibi) for the war in Iraq. Though the Taliban was removed from Afghanistan, al Qaeda was still around and attacking. In spite of these and other facts, voters perceived Bush as stronger than Kerry on anti-terrorism.
Outside of perhaps someone like Kucinich, I don't think Democrats or Republicans would have balked at sending troops into Afghanistan. It's a fight that would have been extremely hard to lose, considering the nation we fought, the strength of our military, and the support of many powerful nations. I give him credit for Afghanistan, but it's not a lot, I admit, in part because of what we learned about this administration from the 9/11 commission and other credible sources.
I'm wary of equating the victory in Afghanistan with a defeat of al Qaeda because there's so much more to be done and because terrorism is, as some on the conservative side have noted, a stateless threat. Yet, when we look at foreign policy decisions or policies, especially regarding terrorism, that are particular to Bush, there's little to impress or justify a significantly higher confidence than Kerry.
That Kerry didn't have a unifying narrative on foreign policy may have been true, but he was by no means weak on talking tough on terrorism. And he wasn't short on point the many faults of the Bush administration when it came to terrorism, even if he switched topics.
This isn't about the right policy is whatever Democrats say. In fact, I got tired of some of Kerry's statements about foreign policy and Iraq, but they were hardly weaker than what Bush offered. I agree with Beinart that Democrats need to be unequivocal about the importance in stopping terrorism. But I also think we have to acknowledge that public perception is not altogether rational but very impressionistic.
Posted by: Tx Bubba | December 13, 2004 05:11 PM