Terrorism Policies Split Democrats

Jonathan Weisman reports for the Washington Post that there seems to be trouble in the Democratic camp. According to Weisman, the Democrats’ failure to “halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.”

Again I get the feeling that we are witnessing a battle between the left-wing of the DP on the one hand, and the DLC Democrats on the other. DLC Democrats seem to oppose these tactics, but seem to be unwilling to steer towards a big confrontation. They oppose it, but they do not wish to appear “weak on terrorism.” The left-wing, on the other hand, disagree strongly with the DLC Democrats and believe that these tactics are hurting America (and the war on terror). Besides that, they consider these tactics to be immoral.

Of course, the left-wing of the DP (bloggers but also special interest groups and activists) have a good case when they argue that many moderates agree with them on this specific issue and oppose the policies of Bush et al. On the other hand, one can wonder whether these problems rank highest on the list of issues moderates want the US Congress to deal with. Furthermore, it seems to me that moderates are willing to compromise on these issues, while the left-wing has no intention of doing so. The DLC Democrats, therefore, try to take the ‘safe road’ by criticizing Bush, but not doing anything to stop him. The result is that Democrats are still able to present themselves as the party of human rights, humane treatment of prisoners, etc. without appearing to be weak on terrorism.

Or so they hope.

The problem with this last approach is that one gets the impression that Democrats shout something every now and then, and complain but are utterly incompetent or unwilling to actually do something. If voters want one thing, it is a party that actually does something. The DLC Democrats basically walk (on) a very thin line: they have to be extremely careful, if they are not, they will fall and take the Democratic Party with them. They cannot afford to appear to be rhetorically skilled, but politically powerless and incompetent, but they can most likely also not afford to join forces with the left-wing too much – for if they do, it will be used against them.

This is all from a political point of view, of course. There is however more to it. Sometimes one has to take a stand, even when doing so may result in losing elections in the (near) future (although that is far from certain – as I said, quite some moderate voters do not exactly agree with Bush’s policies either, although they have a more nuanced view than the left-wing of the DP). The question becomes, then, what will the Democrats do? Will they try to take the safe road (which may result in failure nonetheless), or will they take a risk and, therefore, risk losing elections because the Republicans may once again successfully portray Democrats as being weak on terrorism?

NOTE: just to make sure we will not have a debate about something I didn’t say – No, I do not say that the Democrats are weak on terrorism. I’m saying that the GOP has successfully portrayed them as being such in the past, and that DLC Democrats are (probably) afraid of being portrayed as such again in the near future.

5 Responses to “Terrorism Policies Split Democrats”

1. Rudi says:

   August 30, 2007 at 3:11 pm

   LOL – MvdG you are getting a little sensitive on the Democrat bashing issue. Let me supply a link from “liberal hizloy” from ObsiWings:
   http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/democrats-grow-.html

   What about the 30-second spots? Dear God, Democrats: grow a spine. Figure out that if there’s no principle for which you would willingly lose your office, then you don’t deserve to hold it in the first place. The liberties enshrined in our Constitution matter more than your political careers.

   And even if they didn’t, this is not a moment when you need to be afraid. People don’t like the Republicans. You are winning. Grow up and deal with it.

   A “librul” is even attacking her own party for being spineless. I don’t even recall you calling Democrats invertebrates.
2. PWT says:

   August 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm

   Sometimes one has to take a stand

   Ned Lamont anyone?

   Perhaps these moderate or DLC or conservative democrats are in fact taking a stand. There are so many single issues out there that I would imagine that it is impossible to get a sizeable group to hold identical positions on all of them. The fact that two people hold the same views regarding the environment does not necessarily mean that they will hold identical views on other non-related issues/policy.

   More importantly, I think that the election has become a distorted in the minds of some of the ‘left-wing’ of the democratic party. It was not a referendum on the war and on executive priviledge, it was a collection of local races, each unique in its own way.
3. Nick Rivera says:

   August 30, 2007 at 4:21 pm

   Again I get the feeling that we are witnessing a battle between the left-wing of the DP on the one hand, and the DLC Democrats on the other.

   The left-wing, on the other hand, disagree strongly with the DLC Democrats and believe that these tactics are hurting America (and the war on terror).

   Of course, the left-wing of the DP (bloggers but also special interest groups and activists) have a good case when they argue that many moderates agree with them on this specific issue and oppose the policies of Bush et al.

   Furthermore, it seems to me that moderates are willing to compromise on these issues, while the left-wing has no intention of doing so.

   They cannot afford to appear to be rhetorically skilled, but politically powerless and incompetent, but they can most likely also not afford to join forces with the left-wing too much – for if they do, it will be used against them.

   Sometimes one has to take a stand, even when doing so may result in losing elections in the (near) future (although that is far from certain – as I said, quite some moderate voters do not exactly agree with Bush’s policies either, although they have a more nuanced view than the left-wing of the DP).

   MvdG,

   What’s with all the left-wing left-wing left-wing? Are we still debating the war in terms of left-wing right-wing?

   Is it particularly “left-wing” to call for an end to the war?

   Is it particularly “right-wing” to support the war?

   I am amazed at how tightly people adhere to a left-right dichotomy on all things politics. Listening to the mainstream media and the blogosphere, you’d never know that some of the strongest opponents of the war have been libertarians and paleoconservatives.

   Do we call Patrick Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Joseph Sobran, Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Alan Bock, Paul Gottfried, Charlie Reese, James Bovard, Walter Block, William Lind, Gary North, Karen Kwiatkowski, Karen De Coster, Kevin Zeese, Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Jacob Hornberger, Doug Casey, Michael Badnarik, Jim Babka, and the late Harry Browne “left-wing” for opposing the Iraq War and demanding an end to it?

   If demanding an end to a war is so “left-wing”, then perhaps John McCain was “left-wing” for demanding a withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994.

   This left versus right, liberal versus conservative, left-wing versus right-wing just doesn’t make any sense with regards to the Iraq War. IT NEVER HAS. What constitutes “liberal” or “conservative” or “left-wing” or “right wing” is in constant flux based upon what party is in power, thus rendering these words almost completely meaningless.

   MvdG is definitely right on one thing. There is a split in the Democratic Party—only it’s not a split into two different camps. It’s a split into several different camps, because the Democratic Party—like the Republican Party—is built around idenitification with the party rather than with consistent set of ideas.
4. Donald Douglas says:

   August 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm

   Remember, though, for the hard left forces, there is no real terror threat. It’s all a fear-mongering campaign by the administration. If the DLC types cave in to it, the netroots radicals will let ‘em have it.

   I posted on the hard left’s denialism this morning, “The Rationality of Fear”:

   http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/08/rationality-of-fear.html
5. Nick Rivera says:

   August 30, 2007 at 9:21 pm

   Remember, though, for the hard left forces, there is no real terror threat.

   Mr. Douglas,

   Iraq had nothing to do with any “terror threat” when our government first invaded it.

   Fear-mongering is reality when it comes to government. It’s how politicians get their constituents to cede ever increasing amounts of power to the federal government. It’s true with regards to domestic policy and foreign policy alike.

   In 2002, Bush gave a speech in which he argued that failing to invade Iraq could lead to a nuclear attack:

   Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

   If that’s not fear-mongering, I don’t know what is.