Real Clear Politics has an article/excerpt from Peter Beinart’s new book The Good Fight : Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again, published last month by Harper Collins.
Peter seems to me to be a thoughtful and reasonable and intellectually honest liberal, however I fundamentally disagree with the premise of his central argument that “Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.”
For starters, I disagree that America isn’t “great” right now. In spite of our imperfections I think that most Americans would agree (outside of San Francisco and Cambridge) that America is the greatest country on God’s Green Earth hands down. I guesss if you are a “progressive” like Mr. Beinart, America is not great unless liberals are in control of government.
I also, disagree with the implication that we are not “winning” the War on Islamofascism now. In spite of some of the political and strategic military mistakes we have made in fighting the new threat of global Jihadism, we have not been hit in this country since 9-11, have killed or captured almost 80% of AQ’s leadership including AQ’s #2 man a few weeks ago (who is now resting peacefully with his 72 Virgins) captured one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists Sadamm Hussein and his sons, and have witnessed burgeoning democracy throughout the Middle East never seen before. Yes this will be a long war where mistakes have been made, but to imply that we are not “winning” at this point given the long list of military and geo-political achievements I believe to be slightly disengenuous on Beinart’s part.
He also has this to say:
What they need to remember, above all, is the cold war. Bill Clinton–by defusing racially saturated issues like welfare and crime, and wisely managing the economy–restored public faith in government action. But he did so at a time when the United States had turned in on itself, when international threats no longer shaped national identity.
I would ask Peter how it was that Clinton “defused” these issues since it was Clinton who only reluctantly signed GOP sponsored Welfare Reform into law to et re-elected in 96′. Also I wonder if Peter can explain how Clinton so “wisely” managed the economy?” Was it by raising taxes in 93 on Social Security recipients and indviduals as one of his first official acts as president? I will say that Clinton was “wise” in signing the GOP cap gains tax cuts in 97′ but let’s remember that it was fought tooth and nail by his fellow Congressional Dems and by Clinton himslef who only begrudgingly signed the tax cuts into law.
I also take issue with Peter’s statement that during Clinton’s presidency “international threats no longer shaped national identity.”
Perhaps Peter is correct that they didn’t. However, I think a strong argument could be made that they should have. If Clinton had not ignored and treated as mere “law enforcement” issues the plethora of terrorist attacks on our country during his admin, perhaps these “threats” would have been more indellibly forged into the national psyche.
Beinart then claims that basically, the primary reason that Americans trust conservatives on national security is because conservatives have a superior story:
Today’s political environment is more like the one that stretched from the late 1940s through the late 1980s, when debates about America were interwoven with debates about America’s role in the world. And in this environment, conservatives have a crucial advantage: they have a usable past. Ask any junior- level conservative activist about the cold war, and she can recite the catechism: how liberals lost their nerve in Vietnam and America sank into self- doubt until Ronald Reagan restored America’s confidence and overthrew the evil empire. Since September 11, conservatives have turned that storyline into a grand analogy: the Middle East is Eastern Europe, George W. Bush is Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair is Margaret Thatcher, the appeasing French are the appeasing French.
The “advantage” he is speaking of we like to call “documented success.” The reason that by-and-large Americans trust conservatives in war time is that they have a superior track record of success in keeping our country safe. Liberals cannot say the same. This is not who has the more “appealing” story. This is about who has better protected and defended our nation in times of war in American History. And liberals didn’t “lose their nerve in Viet Nam.” Many of them actually subverted American victory and in my opinion have American blood on their hands-most notably Senator John Kerry.
He then goes on to say that liberals:
pride themselves on their empiricism, that empiricism is no match for a narrative of the present based upon a memory of the past. When liberals finally got their shot at George W. Bush in 2004, it turned out that Americans didn’t much care which candidate could recite his six- point plan for safeguarding loose nuclear material. They gravitated to the man with a vision of national greatness in a threatening world, something liberals have not had in a very long time.
No actually liberals abhor “empiricism.” That’s why they are impervious to learning from the same mistakes they make over and over. It is actually conservatives who better utilize the teachings of history to ensure success in the future. Americans didn’t “trust” Kerry because he wanted to outsource our national security to the U.N. (remember the Global Test?) Americans trusted the man (Bush) who was unequivocal about the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action who woudl always put American sovereignty and security first.
The article ends with Beinart making the point that:
At home, because America realizes that it does not embody goodness, it does not grow complacent. Rather than viewing American democracy as a settled accomplishment to which others aspire, we see ourselves as engaged in our own democratic struggle, which parallels the one we support abroad. It was not the celebration of American democracy that inspired the world in the 1950s and 1960s, but America’s wrenching efforts–against McCarthyism and segregation–to give our democracy new meaning. Then, as now, the threat to national greatness stems not from self- doubt, but from self- satisfaction.
No the biggest threat to our national greatness stems from those on the liberal left who are constantly doubting and criticizing America who endlessly focus on how we are fundamentally responsible for all the evils of the world which basically led to 9-11. Next to the throat cutting Jihadists, the domestic insurgent liberals are the greatest threat to this country in my opinion.
There is nothing new here, just the same old liberal shibboleths about how we need to make the world like us more and be nicer to people blah, blah, blah…
The truth is Liberals like Joe Lieberman get it. But there is no more room in the Dem party anymore for guys like Joe. If there were, then I would tend to believe that Dems had a “vision” for American Power.