There’s an interesting comment thread going on at Michael J. Totten’s place. In the post he conjectures that part of the problem that the Democratic Party has in being taken seriously no issues of foreign policy and national security is that Democrats just aren’t interested in issues of foreign policy and national security:
“These kinds of problems are self-reinforcing. The fewer intellectuals there are on the left who study military history and strategy, the less likely any otherwise left-minded person who is interested in such things will want or be able to work with or for liberals and Democrats. What has been happening is a nation-wide brain-drain from the left to the right – at least in certain areas.
I have a sinking feeling things will remain this way in the future to the horizon. Come on, Dems. Prove me wrong, would you please?”
In the ensuing comments thread there are quite a few interesting ideas being thrown around. Pro, con, and otherwise.
I expressed my own opinion in the comments thread. The underlying problem is a generational one. So many of the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party came of age in the 1960’s, many owing their involvement in politics to the protest movements of the time. Until they pass from the scene I doubt that real change in the party’s attitudes toward foreign policy and defense are likely.
Joe Katzman of Winds of Change made a good start on what I’d like to see as the direction of that change:
- America is a great country filled with good people, and America and her interests are worth defending abroad without apology.
We are responsible for the safety of our fellow citizens, and they have the first claim on our duties and loyalties.
- International agreements are means to ends, not ends in themselves.
9/11 was a warning and a sign of failed policies, not an inconvenience.
- Our Islamofascist enemies seek a world where gays are killed, women are slaves, freedom is suppressed, and medieval theocrats are in charge. This goes against the fundamental premises of everything we believe – and we will destroy both this ideology and the people, organizations, and governments who support its imposition through violence. We’ll pick our battles and our timing, but in the end this vision cannot coexist with ours. It’s us or them, and “them” is not an option.
- We will attack sham security measures that don’t make us any safer but do impair the rights of our fellow citizens.
We recognize that America has real enemies in the world, who will not always be contained or dissuaded by diplomacy.
- Military force cannot be our only option, but it accomplishes things diplomacy and agreements cannot. We will use it when other options fail, after careful consideration and with an absolute determination to persist until we achieve victory.
- Issues of ecology, gender equality, and anarchy are more and more relevant to our security post-9/11. We will begin to look at these issues abroad as potential security issues.
- We think terrorism is something altogether different from organized crime, but we also believe that organized crime is an overlooked security issue.
The security of America is more important than the political advancement of our party. No exceptions. We have enough good policies that we can get ahead without playing games.
