Political Ineptitude
If one ever wanted to wonder why real leftists did not consider the Democratic Party in the United States to be a party of the left, the run-up to the current Iraq War is exemplary.
In his upcoming political tell-all book, Bob Shrum alleges that John Kerry called him to ask for his political advice on the eve of the October 11, 2002, vote to authorize the Iraq invasion. Kerry was privately skeptical of the WMD claims and distrusting of the Bush Administration, Shrum writes, but Kerry adviser Jim Jordan told Kerry: "Go ahead and vote against it if you want, but you'll never be president of the United States." Shrum's implication is that despite his private doubts about the wisdom of the war, Kerry voted for it in response to political advice. Nonetheless, it is Jordan who emerges from the account looking the worst. Current Kerry aides say that his vote for the war was based on conviction.
The problem for Democrats who supported the war early on is that there were plenty of voices against the war. Some were academics whose sane, logical arguments based on years of academic expertise were drowned out by jingoistic, gullible pundits.
- Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
- Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
- The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
- The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
- Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
- Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe.
Except for the reference to the chemical and biological weapons that Iraq no longer had, these arguments look fairly prescient.
But even if Kerry and others like him decided that academic arguments could be ignored, there were certainly voices like ours that rejected not just the war but the idea that political expediency was wise, even in the short term.
On issue after issue, the political right tries to make the political center cower—and the items on which it fails are notable for being exceptions—supersonic bombers, school prayer, the Panama Canal treaty. On so many others—just to name the most egregious, support for wars or wars by other names, a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, tax cuts for the most well-off, torture of prisoners, rejection of universal health care, restrictions on abortion—the center acts as if standing up for vaguely left-leaning positions is somehow suicidal politically.
Perhaps someday the leaders of the Democratic Party will realize that what passes for conservatism in Europe is to the left, in general, of their established position in the United States. And then they might realize that a smarter, better party is possible. I think that day might come, but it is not coming if fools and knaves like Kerry and Shrum are running for president and advising politicians about what is possible or desirable.
Labels: Bob Shrum, John Kerry, stupid consultant tricks
