Dr. Frank's What's-it

As Richard Tofel points out,

As Richard Tofel points out, there's a lot in the idea that the most effective way for the Democrats to challenge GWB would be to "become the true War Party, the clear-eyed hawks--in essence, to outflank Mr. Bush on the right." If Bush continues to wobble (or even merely to appear to wobble) a truly hawkish Democratic contender would have a bright political future indeed. Judging from recent statements by Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leadership is clearly aware of the possibilities.

Whether such a shift could actually happen is a pretty big question, though, as Tofel is aware:

Which brings us to the politics of such a policy. Seen in the light of today's events, Democratic leaders view a War Party policy as unthinkable. What of our "allies"? they wonder. What of academia? The Washington press corps? The State Department? The United Nations? Jimmy Carter? Jesse Jackson?

But this was precisely the sort of thinking that paralyzed the Republican Party before Pearl Harbor (and even after the Anschluss, the fall of France and the Battle of Britain). It is why virtually an entire generation of Republican leaders became ineligible to lead the country after Dec. 7, 1941--and why no one in the pre-Pearl Harbor leadership of the party was ever nominated for president, much less elected.

That is the choice for Democrats today, I believe. The Pearl Harbor of our time--the moment that truly changes everything--was not last Sept. 11, I fear. It lies ahead. And that looming threat requires us to choose between becoming the America Firsters of the 21st Century and returning to being the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

This is quite right, but actually making that choice is a tall order. The neo-liberal pro-military international interventionist element of the "New Democrat" agenda, once a promising step in the right direction, degenerated into mush during the Clinton presidency, like so much else. Al Gore, once the poster boy of the "new democrats," was reduced to pandering shamelessly to the paleo-left during the recent campaign. As that election clearly demonstrated, it doesn't take much electoral sabotage to throw the game. There is a bigger, more urgent threat now, of course. Will that fact shock the Democratic party's diehard paleo-liberal wing out of its penchant for "symbolic" political suicide and into a kind of political maturity? Don't bet on it.

UPDATE: Eric Alterman comments. Eric, it is a real war.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 6, 2002 11:30 AM | TrackBack