Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Democrats’ State of the Union

Responding to Bush’s State of the Union address, James Webb said, “not one step back from the war against international terrorism, [but] allow our combat forces to leave Iraq." Huh? Steny Hoyer said we ought to get out of Iraq so we can battle terrorism in Afghanistan. What?

Here’s why I believe Democrats aren’t the party of hope. First, they don’t have a serious foreign policy. Second, their domestic policy is stuck in a ‘60s time warp.

An unserious foreign policy. Democrats admire Kissinger’s strategy for exiting Vietnam—hold peace talks with the opposition, and use some variation of the words “peace with honor” to substitute for surrender. Kissinger’s realpolitik, like that of Austria’s Metternich whom Kissinger admired, used diplomatic skills to cover a weak hand.

In 2007, the U.S. is hardly weak. Instead, the Democrats’ haste to retreat from the difficult struggle against Islamic extremism is more like our position at the end of World War I, when a party anxious for the White House played on isolationist sentiment to force a powerful U.S. off the world stage. The world paid a heavy price for that shortsighted American bout with isolationism.

If you are serious about foreign policy today, serious about organizing globally to combat Islamic extremism including its Shia Iranian variant, you belong with Bush, Rice, Gates, Hadley, Petraeus. If you are an aspiring foreign policy consigliere for Democrats, you must accommodate yourself to that party’s domestic-driven agenda, and preach peace talks. Democrats believe someone else will take care of Islamic extremists. . . or at least should.

An outdated domestic policy
. History moves forward in surges. Years go by with no major changes, then major events change everything. The two searing events of the ‘60s were the civil rights revolution exactly 100 years after the Civil War, and the struggle to get us out of Vietnam. Democrats led both, won both, and can’t get past their victories, which combined to say America’s business is living equality at home, not dying to support capitalism abroad.

Democrats reordered American society, with the feminist revolution following the one that ended segregation. Democrats also gave us big government, inflation, unemployment, high taxes, affirmative action, and an unfinished campaign for single-payer national health insurance. As a result, Republicans under Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush captured power, reduced taxes, fired up the economy, and recharged a global drive for freedom that protects and enhances our way of life.

The choice. Business people are by nature optimistic. They must believe in the future to invest hard-earned money in hope. Our economy improves because people dare to risk. The genius of capitalism is leaving economic decisions to the people, millions, billions of them, enabling us all to reach our full potential.

Government people are pessimists who look for problems to justify government programs, including residual inequalities facing minorities and women. In the ‘70s, we learned government messes up the economy. In the ‘80s, we learned government messes up public education. Yet the Democrats’ policy agenda remains where it was in 1968: more government, higher taxes, smart people deciding what’s best for the rest.

Hope means hoping we don’t go back a generation. Hope means faith in the individual, in expanding opportunities for ordinary people to best handle their own future.

More freedom, more capitalism, peace at last.

1 comment:

Galen Fox said...

Dick Baker has this comment:

Galen,

Good piece of advocacy. The thing that bothers me most about the Democrats'formula for Iraq is that it has no more chance of success than Bush's last-chance effort. The Democrats (or at least Webb) can insist that they will not step back from the WOT, and that they would not "precipitously"
withdraw from Iraq but rather follow a calculated plan to "get our troops off of the city streets" and then out of Iraq. What they do not talk about is the likely consequence of this policy. I think we probably could continue to try to find or at least fend off terrorists elsewhere. But if
in fact the Iraqis are as feckless as the Democrats seem to think they are, the consequence in Iraq of our getting out of their backbone would be more like Vietnam in 1975 than Vietnam in 1970 when "Vietnamization" got seriously underway. The only difference would be fewer Americans getting killed -- perhaps, and as long as we armored our fortresses against the attacks that would certainly come from al Qaeda and some of the Baathists. Then what would the Dems have us do, accelerate the withdrawal on the grounds that the Iraqis are unable to defend us (and we are unable to defend ourselves)? This is not to say that the Bush policy necessarily has much more chance of success (which is the major problem for that policy), but if it fails then we will only be in the same position as the Dems' "policy" would put us in the first place. So OK, nobody wants any more American casualties. Agreed. And the whole war was a mistake and an exercise in hubris. Agreed. But we are where we are, and how many deaths are likely to be avoided by not trying? Bottom line: The Dems don't think they have to deal with this one, because (a) Bush will proceed with his plan regardless of what they say, so they are off the hook, and (b) if (when) the effort finally falls apart they will be able to blame Bush and the Republicans for the whole thing. (And as long as the final act is pretty well under way by the time of the 2008 election, they will never have to take responsibility for anything except licking the wounds -- and dealing with a world that has seen us fail.)

Thought for the day, however, pessimistic.

Dick