Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHEN DEMOCRATS (WILL) STOP BEING POLITE, AND START GETTING REAL.
I think Dana's wrong to suggest that this election will see the sublimation of foreign policy beneath domestic concerns -- at least for very long. Hillary Clinton's success at muddying her own opinions on Iraq has created an appearance of rough unity among the Democrats, which is "why this contest has turned into a debate over corporate influence, economic insecurity, and health care."
But the key words there are "this contest." Foreign policy has receded has a definitional issue in the Democratic primary by virtue of the Democrats largely agreeing that Iraq is going poorly. Within that agreement there exist plenty of shaded prescriptions, from Richardson's "all troops out yesterday" to Clinton's "end the war but keep thousands of troops in Iraq to carry out combat missions," but wonks have proven unable to force those distinctions out into the open, and voters don't seem to exhibit much preference for one approach over the other. So the conversation has moved onto other issues where Edwards and Obama see more hope of drawing distinctions with Hillary.
The day the nominee is chosen, however, that ends. The space between the Democrats and the non-Ron Paul Republicans on foreign policy isn't a pothole -- it's a chasm. And the Democrat is going to do everything he or she can to push Mitt Huckabee into it. It will be defining in the general for the very reason that it's been quieted in the primary: Democrats disagree with Republicans, rather than with each other, on what to say about Iraq. That's not to suggest that health care and the economy will recede from the agenda. With a potential recession looming and nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, neither issue is going away. But I wouldn't use the primaries as a template for how the general will look. The places where the Democrats are exhibiting convergence are places where they've settled on what they believe to be a strong political argument. Since they're all making that argument, it's not doing them much good against each other. But it will roar forth when they can use it to pound the Republican into a pulp. However, it will not be like health care, where they all make basically the same case. How the Democratic nominee chooses to attack on foreign policy is damn important, and will vary substantially from candidate to candidate.
Which is why it should be getting more attention in the primary. Democrats, on some level, are betetr at arguing about domestic policy because they know how to do it. Hillary knows to attack Obama on his betrayal of universality, Edwards knows to attack them both on their conciliatory attitudes towards corporate power. At base, I trust all the Democrats to make a compelling case for the social welfare state when the time comes.
But all arguments against the Iraq War are not the same. A Democrat like Hillary will argue that the intelligence was wrong, the war was mishandled, and this shows the need for more competent leadership. A Democrat like Obama will argue that the war was a mistake, neoconservatism a failure, and this shows the need for a more progressive approach to foreign policy. This disagreement has peeked out in the primary -- notably during their scuffle over negotiating with dictators -- but Hillary has largely been able to deflect the conversation, which is a shame. This is the argument that we can't simply trust a Democrat will make well, and her ability to end the conversation by telegraphic agreement on Iraq has kept us from fully seeing the disparate approaches break out into the open.
Image used under Creative Commons license from Flickr user phxpma.
COMMENTS (6)
Am I the only one who wonders whether someone seein that image would think "wow! GW Bush got us into war ... and that's such a pretty picture -- I'm gonna support a war monger in the next election!"?
Posted by: DAS | December 20, 2007 12:13 PM
I'm not as confident as Ezra on the idea that there is a 'chasm; of difference between the two parties here. There only chasm here is a rhetorical one. Democrats talk aggressively, but their actual plans are little different then the Bush plan. I seriously doubt Hillary will draw down troops to anything but pre-surge levels. She's been telling everyone who would listen that troops will still be in Iraq at the end of her second terms, for god sakes. You think Republicans won't mention that?
None of the Democrats seem interested in ending the war, and if the Republicans bring that up often enough, it will effectively muddy the watter in EXACTLY the same way as Hillary as done.
Posted by: Soullite | December 20, 2007 12:34 PM
Mention of the role of the media in the post-primary ruckus seems important. Regardless of Dem. unity, of a sorts, on Iraq (and Afghanistan), the actual Dem. candidate will be positioned by the media as 'weak' and the Repub. candidate as 'strong'.
Nothing Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) has done so far primes the pump of the public mind for what is ahead. The public doesn't like the war, but it hasn't heard a principled and realistic way of ending it from the Dems. The media will use that to continue their decades-long meme that only the Repubs can save the nation.
I can see the light at the end of the tunnel: it is the headlight of an oncoming train heading toward the Dem. candidate and party. Domestic policies will be subordinated by the GOP and the media (they are weak points of the Repub. mind-view), so we will hear war war war and weak weak weak endlessly up to Nov. 2008.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | December 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Heh. First Ezra posts my email to him, then he expounds on what I said in the comments section of Dana's post.
Nice! I'm on a roll this week, apparently.
So yeah, I agree, though I'll take it a step further and argue Obama is on the best footing to make the Dem case, Edwards the next-best, and Clinton the least-best.
Obama b/c he got it right from the start and has scooped up pretty much everyone in the FP community that got it right as well. Edwards b/c, while his FP team isn't nearly as impressive, is right on the substance of the issues as well. And Clinton, well...she's surrounded by staff that seem content toeing the Bush/neo-con line, and she seems all to happy to play dog-whistle politics with the pundits on FP, was wrong from the start, and never seems to have adjusted the worldview that lead her to be wrong in the first.
This is important, and a big reason why I prefer Obama, Edwards is #2, and Biden #3...
Posted by: Michael | December 20, 2007 3:18 PM
And you love John Edwards who co-sponsored the bill to go to war.
So your word means nothing.
Posted by: Ken | December 20, 2007 4:26 PM
I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.
Posted by: cheap wow power leveling | November 8, 2009 3:52 AM