The democrats should have nominated Howard Dean. He really does represent the heart and soul of the party. Kerry might have their vote, but Dean has their heart. And therein lies the trouble. Dean would have lost by a wide margin, and this would have provided the democrats ostracized by the left the perfect opportunity to reshape their party. The restructuring Clinton began could be continued, and though it'd take time, and even pain, the party and the country would be much better off.
And yes, there needs to be two vibrant political parties. Once, the two parties agreed on an outcome, simply choosing different paths. Today, the parties don't even share common goals. Once, questioning America's role as a superpower would be like questioning heliocentrism. Not so anymore. Does anyone think the democratic party of Dean is the same party as that of Lieberman?
I don't know about most people, but I would have loved to see a Lieberman/Bush campaign. Talk about a nightmare election for terrorists. But sadly, he was able to manage 5% or so in the primaries, which put him slightly above such notables as Dennis "I love Neville" Kucinich and Al "The interloper" Sharpton.
Right now, I don't know whose hopes are being dashed more: the South Korean gymnast or potential democratic appointees. The last captain of a ship to totally miss so large and so obvious an obstacle was on the Titanic.
At least with Dean, they'd die with their boots on. With Kerry, they'll be more like the French at the Sedan, an ironic analogy if you think about it.
So, what will Kerry's defeat do for the democratic party? Chances are, so mired in self-pity and Bush-hatred, they'll be unable to think. They'll blame the usual suspects, right wing talk radio smear merchants and their willing accomplices at Fox News. Much like a religious zealot, who can't fathom anyone not accepting their religion, they too won't comprehend how anyone could have voted for Bush. They will be unable to see how they could be duped by a guy who made a career of being a war protester running as a war hero. As for their twelve step program, they'll still be at step one.
Or, they can use Goldwater's defeat as an example. After the 1964 landslide, the Republicans began to sharpen their message, hone their ideas, and plan new strategies. With Goldwater as elder statesman and Reagan carrying the conservative mantra, even the disaster of Nixon and Watergate only proved to be a pothole not a ditch. By focusing the message on three areas; anti-communism, less government and lower taxes, and social morality, they built a multifaceted base that coalesced in 1980. One can hardly deny that even today, 24 years after becoming president, Reagan's legacy is still felt.
But that begs the question, what could the democrats message be? On most matters economic and social, almost national consensus has been reached. Sure, the 15% on the fringe makes the most noise, but on most issues, there is a national, moderate consensus. So, that leaves one area left: foreign policy. But what specifically to do on foreign policy.
In a nutshell, and I have not heard it discussed anywhere previously, it is sovereignty. Most definitions of sovereignty include two key phrases: supreme power and independence. So why sovereignty?
Not since Napoleon's France has there truly been a nation as sovereign as the United States. Even Hitler had to cut a deal with Stalin before he invaded Poland. A sovereign nation acts as it wants, when it wants, however it wants, without the countenance or discretion of other nations. Bush's policy of preemptive war is exactly that, the independent and supreme act of a sovereign power.
But today, the same nation that has liberated half a billion people in the last 60 years is now seen by vast populations as evil. Europeans are turning their fortunes over to an unelected body of international diplomats. Economies are transcending borders through immigration, out-sourcing, and the internet. The new threat facing the world is a stateless jihadism that hasn't aims on territory.
While Saddam dreamt of restoring the Abbasid empire, the empire al Qaeda envisions is a medieval fundamentalist tyranny. Theirs is an ambition more destructive than constructive, where they seek to destroy western civilization rather than create their own. And much like fanatics of any persuasion, they don't have goals, only actions. The idealist wants to live to see his goal realized, while for the fanatic, death is the ultimate goal realized.
Around the rest of the world, the mullahs in Iran have no desire to restore Sassanid glory nor re-cross the Hellespont. China, as always, hasn't extra-territorial aims save Taiwan, and Russia, as always, has more problems internal than ambitions external. There is no Moctezuma or Atahualpa looming in Latin America, and in Africa, they're simply trying to feed themselves. India and Pakistan are too busy playing "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" with their nukes. That leaves America.
And there is the issue democrats can build upon. Just as conservatives a generation ago kept their eyes on the prize, so too can the democrats. As the US population becomes more "diverse", as more and more people come here for a job rather than freedom, what made America will slowly dissipate. And with that goes the idea of "the last best hope for mankind", the Winthrop via Reagan "shining city upon a hill". Immigrants who come here to escape will embrace America and all she offers. Immigrants looking for a paycheck will simply see open borders and unwillingness to enforce the laws as a meal ticket.
In Orwellian fashion, sovereignty will become synonymous with fascism, as the Bush-Hitler ads from MoveOn.org have so inelegantly demonstrated. Howard Dean really did attract a new crop of people into the democratic party. There is no question that the war was, and still is, the single issue for them. But the war is a result of a policy which they totally reject. Quite simply, nations don't have the right to go to war unless there is unanimity of international opinion, a position even Kerry has nuanced about.
Sovereignty is the one issue that democrats could glom onto. And oddly enough, it puts Kerry at the forefront of the debate. He launched his career by challenging the right of the US to wage aggressive war in defense of freedom. Before his infamous Senate testimony, he said in a 1970 Harvard Crimson interview:
"I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
He has yet to renounce that stance, and his incessant demands of restoring traditional alliances only bolsters that point. Much like Al Gore went from moderate Southerner to left wing fanatic, so too could Kerry transform himself into sort of an elder party statesman on internationalism. Who remembers then Senator/VP candidate Gore chastising the Bush administration for being soft on Saddam? Who'd remember Kerry's war vote, or his "I'd still have voted for the war resolution"? Certainly Jimmy Carter's revival at the DNC, after 20 years in party exile, had to be a sign of something.
It would be the completion of his life's work.
posted by Robert Mandel
8/27/2004 08:33:52 PM
