How Democrats Should "Fight"
Peter Beinart, in the 12/13/04 issue of The New Republic, suggests that to win future political battles, Democrats must drop their peaceful liberalism and replace it with a warlike liberalism. We should drop "soft" Howard Dean in favor of someone as "hard" as Lieberman. I say Lieberman is so "hard" you may as well call him a Republican. Dean is my man because he wants to move the Democratic Party in exactly the opposite direction from that favored by Beinart. I, and Dean, want a Democratic Party that "fights" for a domestic policy that is concerned with all American citizens, not only the rich; that "fights" for a foreign policy that encourages freedom, democracy and helpfulness among all nations; and that "fights" terrorists who attack us, and not "rogue" states.
Beinart says:
"... there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda."
I don't know where he gets this from. It seems that he is confusing the Iraq War with the war on terrorism. The two are not related. There never has been a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Because of Bush's intense propaganda, something like 40% of the people still believe it.
Surely Beinart does not believe this also.
Liberals, like all Americans, want to get rid of Al Qaeda. It's ridiculous to say or imply anything different. The question is how. Most liberals insist that we should have stayed in Afghanistan until we captured Osama bin Laden. Instead Bush - and Beinart championed the idea - attacked Iraq. Yes, there is little liberal passion for the struggle in Iraq, but there is plenty of liberal passion to destroy Al Qaeda.
Beinart states:
"... if liberalism was to credibly oppose totalitarianism, it could not be reflexively hostile to military force."
Liberals are not hostile to military force. They approach the problem differently from conservatives. Conservatives are competitive people; they have the "us vs. them" attitude. They see themselves as "good" people fighting "evil" people in the world. They believe in attacking, then talking. Liberals are cooperative people; they have the "we're in this together" attitude. They see people around the world with different approaches. They would rather talk first and attack if all else fails. Liberals truly believe in the slogan: "Military force as a last resort."
I do agree with Beinart - partially - when he says:
"But, while an updated Marshall Plan and an expanded Peace Corps for the Muslim world are more naturally liberal than conservative ideas, they have not resonated among post-September 11 liberal activists."
I agree with his implication that these are great ideas. Doing things like this would cost a lot less than war, do more to win America friends in the Muslim world, and will accelerate the building of democracy in the Arab world.
This sort of thing does resonate among liberals, especially those Beinart calls "soft."
Fighting terrorism is important. But liberals should not change their basic philosophy to do it. Liberals should continue fighting for the little guy, both at home and abroad.
