Democrats and National Security

©2003 by Dale Franks

In the good old days, it is said, American politics stopped at the water's edge. Irrespective of domestic political differences, there was a general unity of view about American national security. Indeed, at times, it often seemed that the biggest difference between the Republicans and Democrats was which party was in favor of nuking Moscow first. Both Republicans and Democrats were equally comfortable with the idea that America was the primary force for good in the world, and were comfortable with the use of American power to defend liberal, democratic ideals.

Unfortunately, since the rise of the New Left in the 1960's, and the subsequent incorporation of that movement into the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party, such unity on national security no longer exists.

In the past, Democrats often took the lead on national security issues.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the threat posed by Nazi Germany far more seriously than the majority of the country. While most Americans expressed isolationist leanings, Roosevelt took the lead in preparing the nation for a war that he thought was inevitable.

Harry Truman initiated the policy of containment against the Soviet Union and its allies. When Stalin's bad faith and the threat of communist subversion in Greece and Turkey became clear, Truman called for massively increased defense spending, and increased vigilance against the Soviet threat.

A key issue in John Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1960 was his criticism of the Eisenhower administration for allowing the Soviets to gain an edge in missile numbers and performance, and his pledge to eliminate this "missile gap" if he were elected. As it happens, there was no missile gap, but Kennedy's use of the issue demonstrates the seriousness with which his party held national security issues.

Lyndon Johnson escalated the defense of South Vietnam into America's primary military commitment. Ironically, in so doing, he created the issue that, more than any other, galvanized the New Left, and gave it its distinctive distrust of American military power.

But, as California's Democratic former governor, Jerry Brown, once said, "That was then. This is now." In contrast to the liberal, anti-communist Democrats of a generation ago, very few of today's liberal Democrats are willing to address national security in any serious way. Instead, they show at best a deep ambivalence about the uses of American power, and, at worst, a suspicion that its use is the root cause of many of the world's problems.

This is not a particularly helpful viewpoint from which to address issues of National Security.

This discomfort with American power results in an unwillingness to subordinate domestic political issues to national security issues in a time of crisis. The new leader of the house Democrats, California Representative Nancy Pelosi, is an exemplar of this trend. Voting against the Congressional Resolution to use force in Iraq, Pelosi said, "We must focus on our own economy before focusing on Iraq's economy after we invade."

The US economy is, of course, important. Indeed, there is any number of important domestic issues. But, as the liberal editor of The New Republic, Peter Beinart, points out, national security is not just one of a laundry list of issues that fits somewhere between prescription drugs for seniors, and increasing the Federal CAFE standards for automobile fuel efficiency. National security is the primary responsibility of the US government. Unless it is ensured, all other issues are irrelevant.

Additionally, this distrust of American power makes the liberal wing of the Democratic Party unwilling to use American force without the approval of others. Democrats like Paul Wellstone (D-MN) complained during the vote on the use of force against Iraq that we hadn't obtained the required international permission from the UN to go to war against Iraq, and any unilateral use of American power would be wrong. Now, it may well be that Russia, Communist China, and France have some useful points of view on the matter. It might even be prudent to obtain those points of view, and alleviate their concerns about such an action, if possible. But the governments of those nations do not have a responsibility to ensure the lives and well-being of American citizens. That is the job of the US government. Giving foreign nations an effective veto on our national security policy is not the wisest course of action to take.

Of course, some Democrats are convinced that any use of American military force is wrong, for nearly any reason. Indeed, Democratic House members David Bonior and Jim McDermott thought our policy towards Iraq to be so wrong that they saw fit to travel to Baghdad, and to publicly criticize that policy from there.

But the use of American power is neither moral nor immoral. It is the context in which the power is used that defines its morality. Using American military power to defend the American people, to fight tyranny or oppression, or to punish naked aggression are eminently moral uses of such power. Declaring the use of force itself to be immoral is both misguided and dangerous. It is misguided because it ignores the fact that military power can be used for moral purposes. It is dangerous because it forecloses an effective tool for securing American lives and interests.

The American people are not blind to any of this. By a large majority, the electorate believes that Democrats are simply not serious about national security. Antics such as those of Messrs. Bonior and McDermott are hardly likely to convince them otherwise.

The country needs both major parties to be able to apply serious thought to national security, just as they do to domestic policy. If one party is unable to do so, there are real negative consequences as a result. If the Democrats are perceived as offering frivolous criticisms of the Administration's policy, it increases the chance that really substantive criticisms will be ignored. In an environment where Democrats are marginalized, poorly constructed security policies can be passed because the concerns of Democrats are not given enough weight.

The country is poorly served when Democrats are unable to provide substantive contributions to national security policy. Many Democrats, such as Georgia Senator Zell Miller, Peter Beinart, and Ted van Dyk, realize this, and have been urging their party leadership to take note of it.

Let's hope they're persuasive.

Top